Radiation

[timfinch]

I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?

[timfinch]

Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?

[Abaddon]

It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring.  A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical.  As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.

Among other aspects you fail to grasp, once the TLI burn began Apollo was not in the same inclination as it had been in during LEO, so NO the ellipticals will not be the same, as Apollo was changing to more northerly path avoiding the worst of the VARB.  Oh I forgot you don't understand orbital mechanics.  Orion continued on the same inclination but at a higher apogee, so the data can not be extrapolated TO Apollo.  Mary Bennett of Aulis makes the same mistake, perhaps you borrowed the incorrect conclusion from her?

Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured.  I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.

No, no tim, you don't get off the hook so easy. If as you claim and posted that this is the actual top down view....

Inevitably you must also accept that this is the side-on view...



Somehow, in the TFverse this is impossible. As is inserting a finger in a ring donut. And be aware, now that you have woken my inner technology beast, and the crankery meter is up to the max and you browned me enough to deploy the big guns, it is now time for you to take careful thought. Do you really want to be seen in public as a moron?

If that is your intention I have no issue facilitating that. To date, I did exactly what I stated I would do. I cranked up my software, posted the resulting images to an independant site to save LO some bandwidth, linked said images here for your lurkey pleasure. Great.  now we know that I am a man of my word. What do we know about you?

[bknight]

Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?

I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?

[molesworth]

Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured.  I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.

From your own "wall-o-text" posting :

...

12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.

...

Have you looked at the parameters of this burn?  Do you understand that the pitch and yaw of a spacecraft when the engine is fired has an effect on the trajectory?

Or are you still thinking only in 2 dimensions, and assuming that once they entered orbit, they were unable to change course outside of that orbit's plane?

[Luke Pemberton]

I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?

No, you were told that two identical inclinations will follow different paths through the VABs if the eccentricity is different. Jason showed you with his model. We were getting past your 2 dimensional line misconception and highlighting Apollo and Orion have different 3 dimensional trajectories.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

[nomuse]

I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?

Whether "plane" was contested, it remained contested by everyone who understands what an ellipse is that merely sharing a similar plane is insufficient similarity.

[molesworth]

I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?

You were "assured" of this?  My reading of the thread is certainly not in agreement with this claim, so perhaps you can quote the posts in which these "assurances" were given...

[Abaddon]

I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?

The ecliptic, the magnetic plane and the TLI plane are all different planes. How many times must you be shown?

[timfinch]

Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?

I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?

It is a compilation of data from various sites.  I posted the NASA flight profile data used to create the illustration a few pages back in the thread when I originally posted this.  This is an illustration I created for informative purposes.

[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.

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

IT’S NOT A DAILY READING.  cGy/day is the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken.  That rate can vary from one measurement to the next.

It’s not a total of Gy in a 24 hour period.  There’s no need to add up measurements. 

Going back to my mileage analogy, if I’m driving down the highway and I check my speed every few minutes, I get 60 mph, 45 mph, 70 mph, 25 mph (hey, it’s MoPac), that doesn’t mean I’ve traveled 200 miles in an hour. 

[Abaddon]

I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?

You were "assured" of this?  My reading of the thread is certainly not in agreement with this claim, so perhaps you can quote the posts in which these "assurances" were given...

Ah TF simply makes stuff up out of whole cloth. once one works that out it becomes easy to see how he gets everything comprehensively wrong.

[timfinch]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection

[Mag40]

There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.

You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.

I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.



The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.

Read it and respond.

It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB.  The incident inclination determines the path through the regions.  pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.

So what, nobody has denied that. You are deliberately avoiding the big elephant sitting on your lap!

See the bit where Orion circles back through the centre of the belts? See the Apollo TLI does not.

You are wrong. You are absolutely hopeless on this subject.

[gillianren]

Tim.  If you need to "get your ducks in a row," is it not a higher probability that you are wrong than that Apollo was faked?