Radiation

[Zakalwe]

[thread drift]
I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!

https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5333

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-explorer-mission-chooses-the-just-right-orbit


[/thread drift]

[Jason Thompson]

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.

[bknight]

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

I discussed exactly this point with molesworth by PM.

I asked the question in a more cryptic manner (I think). Where TLI burn takes place can drive you straight into the proton region or up and over - so to speak.

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?

[Luke Pemberton]

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

... and thanks for all your fine links you sent me. I really need to buy KSP after this.

[Mag40]

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

This document should help:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

Most of the inclinations are different to Orion, however the flight path angle is what makes the big difference.

[LunarOrbit]

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

... and thanks for all your fine links you sent me. I really need to buy KSP after this.

I love KSP. On the surface it looks like a silly game but I've learned a lot from it. It really helps me visualize orbits etc.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!

[Luke Pemberton]

I love KSP. On the surface it looks like a silly game but I've learned a lot from it. It really helps me visualize orbits etc.

I've played, but don't own. Orbital mechanics can be very counter intuitive, but then so can most of the real world. Trying to explain it with common sense doesn't cut the Coleman's (mustard). I have to admit, I find the 3D visualisation very difficult, but that's what is needed to understand the problem of orbits. Playing with KSP has helped.

[bknight]

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

This document should help:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

Most of the inclinations are different to Orion, however the flight path angle is what makes the big difference.

Yes the 7 degree starts immediately and the distances are significant after the 347 sec burn!  Of course that distance continues to get larger as time increases.

[bknight]

I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!

I do like Scott's videos and have him subscribed on YT.  And look tim the orbit inclination/plane CHANGED as the spacecraft obtained a gravity boost from the Moon!

[timfinch]

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?

Let's try to be technically correct in our illustrations.  remember that It is not the ellipses that are identical rather it it the plane of the ellipses that are identical.  You struggle with the spatial awareness to properly evaluate the data before.  I wish I could help.

[timfinch]

The Dude will not abide!  Remove the moderation now or I am out.  I will leave you with your delusions.  I have no motive beyond the truth but it is obvious you have no stomach for it.

[gillianren]

So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.

Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!

I commented on that one earlier. If he really believes that. . . wow . . . that's such a brain hurting comment I don't know where to begin.

I'll give him benefit of doubt and assume this is a riff off one of those pop psychology memes, made confusing by poor word choice.

Worse.  Ramtha.  This is one of the points raised in What the Bleep Do We Know? by local (to me) charlatan J. Z. Knight, whose understanding of quantum physics is what you'd expect of someone claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior.

[bknight]

...
I'll give him benefit of doubt and assume this is a riff off one of those pop psychology memes, made confusing by poor word choice.

Worse.  Ramtha.  This is one of the points raised in What the Bleep Do We Know? by local (to me) charlatan J. Z. Knight, whose understanding of quantum physics is what you'd expect of someone claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior.

I had to look that one up, new to me