Radiation

[Abaddon]

You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

Define a "gross conceptional area". Yet another clanger from tim.

[Abaddon]

There it is.  I am tired again.  Off to bed.  Look for me in 9 to 10 hours.  Keep thinking and to thine ownself be true

You are incapable of being true to yourself.

[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.

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.

It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.

Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.

Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles?  Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?

My diagram would have the VABs tilted 30 degrees. You are being deliberately pedantic about the illustration whilst avoiding the point it makes. You also quoted my post and did not respond to the points I raised.

Simple question. Does the yellow line pass through the VAB on its route back around the Earth in a way that the red one does not.

[Jason Thompson]

You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

This from someone who can't even process a model when it's shown to him. A simple one. In 3D.

[Mag40]

The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.

You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

I rethought it and confirm that my findings were accurate. You are persistently wrong about everything you post and are afraid to admit you are wrong. There lies your real embarrassment.

[raven]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.

Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.

Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.

The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go.

[Abaddon]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.

Lie. Why must you lie so much?  Is it that you are so daft that you don't grok science and thus have to lash out?

In any event, another one for the list. Tim thinks the moon orbits over the equator.

I may have a bingo.

Have a diagram, tim, although the chances that you will figure it out are slim given past performance.

[Mag40]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.

Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.

Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.

The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go.

As stated, the adjustment was made. Now this I find really interesting, so rather than allow Tim (KC?) to ignore it, I shall quote it here:

Apollo 11's TLI launch point was very close to the descending node of the geomagnetic plane, which is a very advantageous place to start. As the spacecraft swings around Earth and heads out toward the Moon, it travels in the direction where the geomagnetic plane slopes away from it. In fact, by the time Apollo 11 reaches a distance of about three Earth radii, the geomagnetic axis is tilted almost exactly in the direction of the spacecraft, resulting in maximum separation between Apollo 11 and the geomagnetic plane. This optimal alignment is maintained until the spacecraft is well beyond the limits of the VARB.

What is that quote about hoisting and petards.

[onebigmonkey]

"Because I said so" is the resort most often used when you have exhausted all reasonable attempts to explain something to someone who is simply incapable of, or refusing to, accept rational argument and explanation of the facts. It was not the starting point used by anyone here. It is pretty much the standpoint you have employed from the start and its use is entirely inappropriate given your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to examine.

The facts are that Apollo went to the moon. Every piece of evidence supports that. You have absolutely nothing that contradicts it no matter how many times you claim you do. All you have is a small collection of numbers collected from dosimeters worn next to the skin inside a structure that (regardless of whether you believe this) will intercept radiation. The numbers you report are adjusted from the original raw figures, which are higher. If you put some effort in you might even find those numbers.

You do not have adequate data on which to draw the unreasonably firm conclusions that you espouse, and your claim that it invalidates everything else in the Apollo record is incorrect. You need to look at the point you actually make yourself: there is an overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence supporting Apollo, how can it be possible if you are correct? You might just have to grasp the reality that you are wrong.

China, India and Japan have all taken images at the Apollo sites showing human activity. Not hardware, not physical objects, but the activity around them. Your a priori conclusions based on faulty assumptions cannot explain that.

You are starting at the conclusion which is from the opposite end that draws my attention.  What human activities do you speak of and which of these activities could not be easily replicated by machines?  I do not contend that man did not go to the moon.  I contend that no man has ever ventured beyond the VAB.  The equipment of man has been to the moon many times and by many nations.

I don't care that you are unwilling to look at the entirety of the data record and are so busy focusing on what you believe to be wood that you can't see trees. Your inability to see the flaw in your own argument is the problem you need to address alongside your ignorance of the subject matter in which your self-proclaimed expertise falls short.

The simple fact is that you are claiming that man did not go to the moon because you are claiming they have not left Earth orbit. You continually avoid to provide any kind of explanation as to how there is a TV, video and photographic record demonstrably taken outside Earth orbit by people was done in another way.

How would you like to explain the evidence of human activity? Was there room inside a lunar module for something to be extracted and run around making pretty patterns, setting up experiments to return data and at the same time broadcast live images of Earth to be somehow inserted on a lunar set back home? You have to invent some impossible techniques and methods to produce your scenario. That is the consequence of your argument that you are afraid to address.

Let me make it clear that the evidence I'm citing is not something you will find on the website or publications of the space agencies concerned, they are what I have found through my own efforts. I am not lazily parroting some official line or regurgitating someone else's work, and you'll notice I haven't bothered to cite LRO imagery supporting Apollo. The evidence entirely matches the Apollo record. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do need to account for that.

You have not shown any curiosity at all when this has been drawn to your attention, you have made no effort to follow up the leads you have been given. Instead you have continued to bleat on about a subject you just don't get. If you want a definition of intellectual cowardice, that's it. Using a flawed argument to claim an unwarranted victory and refusing to follow through the logic of your claim is just gutless.

Either the entire scientific community is incorrect or you are. My money isn't on you.

[Abaddon]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.

Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.

Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.

The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go.

Well, that tells you many things. "I demand you give me the link you just gave me! That's right, the link I just quoted back at you." Tim is simply not here to learn anything because he can't or to make an argument because he hasn't got one or even to read because he has demonstrated that he can't. So what is tim here for? Well that is simple. Tim gets his jollies pretending to be a moron and causing the rest of us to jump through hoops feverishly researching his latest inept claim. What tim fails to realise is that we mostly don't have to feverishly do anything at all, having the facts at our fingertips. Tim does not understand this. Tim thinks that any crackpot question he chucks out causes a conniption. He does not appreciate the sheer scale of knowledge and expertise that exists on this site. Jay all on his lonesome is encyclopedic, Jason, Luke, gillian, nomuse, OBM, raven, Mag and on and on and on, can and do field a vast amount of knowledge of so many diverse subjects that I would be amazed if a topic arose that we couldn't get a handle on without needing to reach out elsewhere.  On top of that, we are all old hands at this, we have all circulated the evidence, documents, maths, science and most anything one could conceive.

Tim crash lands into the middle of all of that with his delusion of grandeur as though this was all new to us.


To be fair, though, I cannot rule out the possibility that tim actually is a moron. He could very well be. It is impossible to say one way or the other.

[Luke Pemberton]

Let me set the record straight. I am not who you think I am. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Early in the thread you have already alluded to 'big government', so you are a conspiracy theorist. You even asked if members discuss other conspiracy theories at this board. On a scale of 1-10, how ardent are you? I won't speculate. In reality, this is another attempt at distraction. Having said this, I don't really care much for the labels you wish to assign. I have formed my opinion of you.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I can not answer the multitude of questions arising the from the conspiracy theories and I lack the interest to do so.

Rubbish. You are now quibbling over the trajectory of TLI, so in your mind you can demonstrate the CM path through the VABs supports your narrative. Again, this is either because you cannot visualise 2D in 3D, lack the necessary knowledge of orbital mechanics; or after being shown you are wrong, cannot back down as your ego gets the better of you.

Answering questions is the rule of the forum. You agreed to the rules. You've shown the interest to keep a thread running that is now in excess of 2000+ replies, quibbling over details that most high school children would understand. You failed to read a graph properly, and are now hopelessly out of your depth regarding orbital mechanics. Experts in all fields reside in this forum, you chose to wade into these waters, and must stand up and show your expertise on all matters that are put forward to you. You do not get to pick and choose which questions you answer. You have made a claim that the shielding of the CM was insufficient and made Apollo prohibitive for flight, you have to demonstrate this based on your knowledge of science and engineering.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

What I am is a an inquiring mind and a opinionated person.

You are opinionated, I agree. Inquiring, no.

An inquiring mind would have looked closely at all the diagrams and models presented, withdrew from the debate and thought about their misconceptions. Your modus operandi is to flounce for 5 days, frantically google, throw more links in the hope something sticks, then proceed to gish gallop from a position of pedantry while ignoring detailed explanations. You have been shown from your arrival that you cannot interpret simple data, understand basic maths and graphical representations, you lack comprehension and want to oversimplify all that is presented so your preconceived narrative holds true. At every turn you attempt to massage your wiki-knowledge to fit a story. We've seen it all before here, and at other fora.

The recent instalment, where it has been shown to you in excruciating detail that two ellipses can intersect a torus differently, shows you are wilfully ignorant and making chooses to ensure you save face.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I am not subtle and I am prone to offend.

Another badge of honour that you like to brandish and display to your critics. Bravado is not substitute for rigour.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I make no excuses for that.

So you tacitly admit that you are quite prepared to offend people. That's poor form when members  have gone to great efforts with graphs, diagrams and models to explain away your buffoonery.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I am honest and diligent in my pursuit of the truth.

I do not attribute you with honesty or truth. I attribute you with obfuscation and deception. I attribute you with an ego that overrides the objectivity of others. You have tried this same approach at another forum. You get a kick out of your pompous tone, your obnoxious manner and your delusion of grandeur; all arising from service on a nuclear submarine.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

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.

Adopting the position that questions and explanations preclude the use of technical jargon, you are in the wrong place. I've got some news for you. Spaceflight is technical. Mopping the floors on a submarine is not.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

My own opinion is not spontaneous and is derived from logical deduction and careful evaluation of the available data.

Says a man that failed to read a graph correctly and had to have others present the data on a plate.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I am a simple mind incapable of disseminating complex and dynamic situations and require simple problems and concrete solutions to move beyond any point.

My bold. I agree, couldn't agree more. You were given a concrete solution in the form of two ellipses. You don't want to move on beyond a point once the answer is clear. You let your ego infest your mind and continue with your charade. You're a pedant, incapable of digesting simple ideas that most school children would grasp in a few minutes. In can only conclude that you are of low intelligence, egotistic or are now trolling.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

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.

You only want to entertain yourself; picking over irrelevant detail, obfuscating, deceiving and trying to shift the conversation once your errors have become glaringly obvious. Polar orbit indeed, now that is funny.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I prefer  a serial approach to problem solving and insist upon solving individual problems before moving to the next problem.

Apollo was a highly evolved integrated engineering project that did not deliver using a serial approach. The systems were highly integrated. You cannot drill into one area and ignore the other components of the project. You have to look at the problem through holistic eyes, hence the nature of the questions.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

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.

We can deal with multiple threads and convoluted questions. It is your perception that other questions have little relevance to the original question because you simply don't understand the complexity of the problem. We do, and we will ask questions that are multi-faceted to expose your hand waving. You don't get to opt out of answering questions because you find them hard.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I adhere to the time worn US Navy's principle of "KISS" keep it simple stupid.

I adhere to the UK Navy's principle of using a broadside. It worked for Nelson.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I also adhere to the adage that if you can not explain it simply then you do not know it well enough.

General relativity and quantum mechanics are fairly incomprehensible to most of the population, but those who practise those fields understand the theories well. Your failings to understand the complexity of the problem does not exclude others from understanding the problem in technical detail. The problems that relate to this discussion are complex and require years of study to understand. Don't lay your inability at the feet of others.

But here lies the irony. You refuse to answer questions, dismissing them as trifling distractions, but expect others to explain technical issues to you in simple terms. You are are not prepared to explain your understanding of integrated engineering solutions when questioned, but demand a different standard of others.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I am sure your experience and expertise has merit but it means nothing if you cannot justify it with corroborating data.

Currently we are working with cardboard models to articulate two ellipses having different paths through 3D space. We're not ready for data are we?

You have of course been given the links to Bob's pages, and have simply hand waved that away as 'Bob deceiving us.' We provide the data, you hand wave. We question your understanding of the data, you moan that the questions are too hard. Suck it up.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

I will challenge you at every point...

No you won't. You can't answer the questions. Again, when given the data you hand wave it away without any technical rebuttal, when cross examined, you whine that it is all too hard.  Are you a challenge? No, not in the slightest. You're just another HB howling from the shadows.

Polar orbit... now that's funny.

...and expect nothing less from you.

Your bombastic tone and ego get the better of you.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

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.

Is this another reference to once mopping floors on a nuclear submarine. Your military maxims are quite boring now. No one cares.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

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.

We did, you hand waved it away and then bemoaned the questions being too hard and unable to keep up.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

There are no...

Some utter drivel about respect and suchlike.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

[raven]

I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon. I am no expert, but even an admitted non-expert such as myself can call out some of the absolute bull cack malarkey our friend timfinch here tried to pull just now.
No one took into account the geomagnatic pole differences with the geographical pole until our friend timfinch?
"Ho ho, very funny. Ha ha. It is to laugh." to quote Daffy Duck from 'Robin Hood Daffy'*.
*Definitely one of my favourite shorts of all time. Porky Pig's laugh is just so delightfully infectious, for one.

[Luke Pemberton]

I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon.

I have said it in this thread. There are those here that are uncredentialed, but the Apollo enthusiasts have astounding knowledge and have answered my questions in the past. I value their knowledge equally.

[Abaddon]

I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon. I am no expert, but even an admitted non-expert such as myself can call out some of the absolute bull cack malarkey our friend timfinch here tried to pull just now.
No one took into account the geomagnatic pole differences with the geographical pole until our friend timfinch?
"Ho ho, very funny. Ha ha. It is to laugh." to quote Daffy Duck from 'Robin Hood Daffy'*.
*Definitely one of my favourite shorts of all time. Porky Pig's laugh is just so delightfully infectious, for one.

In all fairness, there is only one area of expertise that matters. Knowing what you do know and knowing what you do not, and being able to tell the difference. This is where timfinch fails every time. For example, timfinch "thinks" he knows the difference between log and linear graphs despite all contrary evidence. timfinch clearly cannot comprehend 3D yet is convinced he does. And so on.

What timfinch fails to learn is that "I don't know." is a perfectly logical and acceptable answer to any question. Pretending that you do know when one clearly does not is neither logical nor acceptable. To frame it in a concrete example, do I know how to perform open heart surgery? Of course not. I am not a doctor of any stripe. However, given my long dead mother had a quad bypass, I have a good understanding of what is involved. Confronted with the very same question, tim would say "Because potato" and not even realise that he was wrong. 

[nweber]

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?

You can launch into a polar orbit from anywhere.  At a location closer to the equator, you can also launch into orbits with a lower inclination.