Radiation

[Abaddon]

Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No, because it didn't. You return to this repeatedly. It matters not a whit how often you return to this. It remains wrong. Perhaps if I embiggen it.

ORION-EFT ORBIT IS NOT THE SAME AS APOLLO.

Somehow, in the finchiverse. only one orbit is possible for anything, ever. Thus satellite TV does not exist and stuff like KO-1 cannot possibly exist. Those in the antipodes are doomed to be bereft of satellite TV, although that might be a side benefit for them.

[onebigmonkey]

I admit it.  I am wrong.  Can I go now?

Yes.

[Abaddon]

Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing and it is hard to witness.  I'm off to bed where I don't have to see the spectacle of it.

Sure. Those of us who have been, or currently are, educators hate that. But we do not collectively throw our hands in the air.  Well, perhaps in your case. Allow me to show you a photograph of my children in my home.

Sure, we were dorking about with exposure time and all of that educational stuff, and that was a 5 minute exposure done for no reason other than a random practical exercise in photography.  I look at the image and see and know that there is no photoshop involved, just my kids hiding in the damn door to the right which is plainly visible. I know exactly where they were throughout, I know they posed for minute three out of a five minute exposure. I know all of these facts because I was the twonk behind the damn camera. The objective was to demonstrate.

And somehow, you see ghosts, and evidence of ghosts. That is what you see.

 

[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.

I have bolded the point that you keep bringing up, but avoided this concerning it.

Are the two trajectories the same, yes or no?
Does Orion go through the dense region of the stronger belt, yes or no?

[Mag40]

Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.

Do they share inclinations?

Yes, whilst they were in LEO. Once they initiated their burns to create eccentric orbits, there their paths changed.

[Mag40]

For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.  Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data.  If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.

You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill.  But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?

Here is my work.  What part of it confuses you  or provides you with reason to doubt it?  It is simple, succinct and irrefutable.

Which part of the response bolded above confuses you? The TLI burn was made at a point where the point where they intersected the belts had the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth. Add the 11.5, not subtract it.

There, that wasn't too painful was it?

[Mag40]

I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories

Identical in LEO.

and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations.  Why fix that which is not broken?  How does that work in your mind.

Many reasons apply. The electronics are much more susceptible to damage from charged particles. Modern safety standards are also much more stringent than the early days of space travel. The mission remit is for longer time in space and more frequent launches for populating lunar outposts. This affects the launch windows available to arrive at the correct lunar co-ordinates. The bottom line is that the elevation to arrive at the Moon will have to be variable and will require passage, at times, through more central regions. 

[Abaddon]

Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

Nope, everyone understands that you simply do not grok it and we are unwilling to expend further effort on your intractable ignorance.

[molesworth]

Stopping in for a quick check this morning, and I see the debate still continued overnight (UK night).  And I see we're returning to the issue of GCR and various "interpretations" of data.

However, picking up on a couple of points from a few pages back, relating to the VAB misunderstandings :

The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.

Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

everything is a straight line in 2d.  Perspectively challenged?  It is not natural to think in anything but 3d and it simply may beyond you pay grade.  I'm sorry.

"everything is a straight line in 2d"??    How can anyone come out with nonsense like this?  Even one of your own links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection) shows the orbits, equator etc. as curves in the helpful diagram at the top right.

Visualisation, and understanding graphical transformations, is certainly not above my pay grade.  I may currently be working on spacecraft data handling systems, but I spent well over half my career in computer graphics, firstly in simulation (trains, boats, planes etc.), then in the games industry.  From my perspective (!) it seems to be yourself that is lacking in the ability to comprehend the various 2D and 3D representations of the environment and trajectories...


[ BTW - it's better to take all the pop-sci articles, e.g. about colour perception, holographic universes etc. with a large pinch of salt.  They tend to over-simplify, omit important details, and very often get things hilariously wrong. ]

[Luke Pemberton]

The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.

Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.

[molesworth]

The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.

Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.

Indeed, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in his mind about the relationship between these different axes / planes, and trying to explain it is proving difficult.

If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc.  I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.

[Mag40]

Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

No. What everyone realises, that seems to escape you is how they actually arrived at the figure you referred to in the Radiation Report.

So before we continue, let me ask you directly:

Where do you think they got the human dosage figure from to arrive at 1mr hr?

I would also like to pose another question which begs the question as to how dumb NASA are in the event of what you claim. To all intents and purposes you are claiming they faked every mission to the Moon. I don't think you have the slightest idea as to how complex and difficult that would be, to the degree of accuracy recorded from every aspect of the evidence. There is an attention to detail that is astonishing, which includes cloud patterns matching pictures taken, amongst other things, the LROC images show exact correlation with launch film of the disturbances on the Moon. There are literally thousands of such consistencies.

Now, to my question. Given the sheer level of detail proven to exist, what stopped NASA from simply:

a) Fabricating the doses higher.
b) Not releasing the dosage data

[Abaddon]

The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.

Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.

Indeed, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in his mind about the relationship between these different axes / planes, and trying to explain it is proving difficult.

If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc.  I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.

You would be wasting you time. Tim has flat out stated that 3D is a scam and must be rejected. Scroll back up a few pages. He actually made that claim.

[Luke Pemberton]

If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc.  I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.

No, I guess living in a radioactive wasteland takes its toll. In seriousness, I don't think I would be inclined either (pun intended) as he would just quibble about 2D being the best representation as everything in 2D is a straight line.

[Luke Pemberton]

Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment.  Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed.  You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again.  Any point is uniform around the circle.  if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180.  Work with me.  This is basic.

But the radiation does not vary with azimuth alone. It's defined by a space mapped out by a toroid, and that can be described in spherical coordinates according to a radial component, azimuthal component and polar component. Consider any small volume element in that toroid. Explain why the radiation is uniform?

My bold represents another question that has not been answered which links to my previous questions, which have still not been answered.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Further, the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other.

How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?

Tim: Please answer all my questions.