Deconstructing Apollo 20

[Ishkabibble]

I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations

The inclination of an orbit is the angle at which the spacecraft crosses the equator. If the spacecraft flies continuously over the equator in an eastbound direction its inclination is zero. If it flies over it at right angles so that it also passes over both poles once per orbit, then its inclination is 90 degrees. If it flies continuously over the equator in a westbound direction, its inclination is 180 degrees.

The inclination of an orbit is determined by the latitude of the launch site and the direction the rocket flies from the launch pad (the launch azimuth). If the launch is due east, the inclination is equal to the (absolute value) of the launch site's latitude. Any other direction can only increase the inclination.

Geostationary communications satellites have zero orbital inclination. There are only two ways to reach such orbits: by launching from a site directly on the equator, as the company Sea Launch did, or to perform a "plane change" maneuver when the spacecraft crosses the equator. The latter can require a lot of extra propellant when the original inclination is high. This gives a considerable advantage to low latitude launch sites such as Kourou, French Guiana (5 degrees N) or the ocean spots used by Sea Launch.

I think I get lesson one.

There has to be a far better familiarity with the global system of latitude and longitude than I have, to be able to just "know" these things. Half the time when the family is on a road trip, I have to stop and think about which direction is east and which is west when looking at a map. I get starboard and port confused occasionally. But I sure can tell you what Winston Churchill and FDR had for lunch just before the famous photo of the Yalta Conference was taken... I can also tell you how many martinis FDR had.

It's all a matter of the things we're naturally inclined toward, and the education to back it up. (see what I did there?)

[VQ]

There has to be a far better familiarity with the global system of latitude and longitude than I have, to be able to just "know" these things. Half the time when the family is on a road trip, I have to stop and think about which direction is east and which is west when looking at a map. I get starboard and port confused occasionally. But I sure can tell you what Winston Churchill and FDR had for lunch just before the famous photo of the Yalta Conference was taken... I can also tell you how many martinis FDR had.

Have you ever heard of the free space flight simulator called Orbiter?

http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Go_Play_In_Space

I know computer games are not for everyone, but playing a couple of tutorials while flying a fictional high-performance spaceplane is a great way to get an intuitive feel for orbital mechanics.

If you prefer to stick with reading, the tutorials at the Wiki I linked also have some low-barrier-to-entry descriptions of the underlying concepts, including earth-moon transfers that the Apollo flights actually used.

[Ishkabibble]

I've heard of Orbiter, but haven't ever really been interested in it until now. Computer games/simulations just haven't really been my thing, so to speak.

I may have to look at it now... As if I don't have enough to play with.... Heh.

Thanks!

[Abaddon]

I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations

The inclination of an orbit is the angle at which the spacecraft crosses the equator. If the spacecraft flies continuously over the equator in an eastbound direction its inclination is zero. If it flies over it at right angles so that it also passes over both poles once per orbit, then its inclination is 90 degrees. If it flies continuously over the equator in a westbound direction, its inclination is 180 degrees.

The inclination of an orbit is determined by the latitude of the launch site and the direction the rocket flies from the launch pad (the launch azimuth). If the launch is due east, the inclination is equal to the (absolute value) of the launch site's latitude. Any other direction can only increase the inclination.

Geostationary communications satellites have zero orbital inclination. There are only two ways to reach such orbits: by launching from a site directly on the equator, as the company Sea Launch did, or to perform a "plane change" maneuver when the spacecraft crosses the equator. The latter can require a lot of extra propellant when the original inclination is high. This gives a considerable advantage to low latitude launch sites such as Kourou, French Guiana (5 degrees N) or the ocean spots used by Sea Launch.

I think I get lesson one.

There has to be a far better familiarity with the global system of latitude and longitude than I have, to be able to just "know" these things. Half the time when the family is on a road trip, I have to stop and think about which direction is east and which is west when looking at a map. I get starboard and port confused occasionally. But I sure can tell you what Winston Churchill and FDR had for lunch just before the famous photo of the Yalta Conference was taken... I can also tell you how many martinis FDR had.

It's all a matter of the things we're naturally inclined toward, and the education to back it up. (see what I did there?)

Ah, orientation. When I was young, (and I decline to say how long ago that was) I thought everyone was aware of their spatial orientation. Age and experience have taught me otherwise. There is no harm in that. For example, give me an axe and I can chop wood up, but that is as close as I can get to any sort of carpentry. Wood and I are not best friends. Another would be artistic painting. I am utterly useless at that. Organic Chemistry? That's a closed papery object to me.

One simply cannot be expert in every field, that is the reality of the modern world. Nor should anyone be expected to be.

[bknight]

...

One simply cannot be expert in every field, that is the reality of the modern world. Nor should anyone be expected to be.

Except of course, HB's who know everything.

[raven]

...

One simply cannot be expert in every field, that is the reality of the modern world. Nor should anyone be expected to be.

Except of course, HB's who know everything.

Only in perfect ignorance does one dare claim perfect knowledge.

[Abaddon]

<snip for brevity>
Thanks for all the assistance, and my apologies for the kerfluffle earlier on. It grates me to no end to have someone seem to patronize me, and while I still feel like I was being lectured to, I would prefer that the event had never taken place.

No need, it was as much my doing as yours. I was frankly astonished that "Apollo by the Numbers" was new to you because one tends to forget that not everyone in the universe has even heard of it.

It is such a goto reference in these here parts that one forgets many/most have never seen it through no fault of their own, most would have no particular reason to have seen it.

I will unreservedly apologise for the unnecessary escalation.

[bknight]

No need, it was as much my doing as yours. I was frankly astonished that "Apollo by the Numbers" was new to you because one tends to forget that not everyone in the universe has even heard of it.

It is such a goto reference in these here parts that one forgets many/most have never seen it through no fault of their own, most would have no particular reason to have seen it.

I will unreservedly apologise for the unnecessary escalation.

Very nice Abaddon!

[Ishkabibble]

<snip for brevity>
Thanks for all the assistance, and my apologies for the kerfluffle earlier on. It grates me to no end to have someone seem to patronize me, and while I still feel like I was being lectured to, I would prefer that the event had never taken place.

No need, it was as much my doing as yours. I was frankly astonished that "Apollo by the Numbers" was new to you because one tends to forget that not everyone in the universe has even heard of it.

It is such a goto reference in these here parts that one forgets many/most have never seen it through no fault of their own, most would have no particular reason to have seen it.

I will unreservedly apologise for the unnecessary escalation.

I accept, and unreservedly apologize for any possible overreaction.

I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...

[Zakalwe]

I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...

It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.

Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.

[bknight]

I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...

It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.

Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.

Plus a large dose of government distrust.

[raven]

I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...

It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.

Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.

Plus a large dose of government distrust.

Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.

[Ishkabibble]

I'm still fascinated by this entire thing, and I simply do not understand the mentality of someone who won't go and check something out for themselves. I am dumbstruck that people will meekly and merely accept the opinion of someone else just because it sounds cool...

It's easier than thinking. And there's a LOT of lazy people out there.

Having "secret" knowledge also appeals to lots of people...IMHO it allows them to feel superior to people that have achieved more in life than them.

Plus a large dose of government distrust.

Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.

To a certain extent, I disagree, Raven... I think the "once a liar, always a liar" is just lazy, and intellectually dishonest.

If any of my students should ever attempt to get away with failing to fact check anything, their grades reflect it.

Past performance is not always even so much as an indicator of future performance. And there is absolutely no causal relationship between someone having lied in the past, to their being unfailingly and continually dishonest in the future. It is only an indicator that it may be so, but it is not proof.

[raven]

Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.

To a certain extent, I disagree, Raven... I think the "once a liar, always a liar" is just lazy, and intellectually dishonest.

If any of my students should ever attempt to get away with failing to fact check anything, their grades reflect it.

Past performance is not always even so much as an indicator of future performance. And there is absolutely no causal relationship between someone having lied in the past, to their being unfailingly and continually dishonest in the future. It is only an indicator that it may be so, but it is not proof.

That's actually pretty much what I was trying to say. "Once a liar, always a liar" isn't reasonable, even if a certain level of government distrust is.

[Ishkabibble]

Which is fairly reasonable. It's understandable that both surges of Apollo doubting, at least in the West, happened in the 1970's and 2000's, though the attitude of 'Once a liar, always a liar' on faith is not reasonable.

To a certain extent, I disagree, Raven... I think the "once a liar, always a liar" is just lazy, and intellectually dishonest.

If any of my students should ever attempt to get away with failing to fact check anything, their grades reflect it.

Past performance is not always even so much as an indicator of future performance. And there is absolutely no causal relationship between someone having lied in the past, to their being unfailingly and continually dishonest in the future. It is only an indicator that it may be so, but it is not proof.

That's actually pretty much what I was trying to say. "Once a liar, always a liar" isn't reasonable, even if a certain level of government distrust is.

Trouble yourself not, Raven. It was only after I posted that I realized I was making the grievous error of restating what you had written.

At times like this, I hear my great grandmother Ada inside my head...

If I used slang, or poor sentence structure, or if I had participles dangling, or such, she would give me that look and say, "Remember, one is judged by one's command of the language. If one sounds as if one has fallen from the vegetable truck, everybody else will believe one has."  She had this maddeningly precise way of speaking. I tell my daughter the same thing in a different way. "If you needed an operation to save your life, and you had a choice between a doctor that sounded like Larry the Cable Guy or Carl Sagan, which would you prefer?"

One of my students noted this in class the other day. He was having a little bit of trouble trying to explain his thoughts on a particular point in class, and I simply filled in the blanks for him with what I thought he was trying to say. He then said that hecouldn't get it out the way he wanted, but that he knew I could. Made me think, and it also made me wonder how much I have "explained things" to my students, when they didn't need it, and when I should have made them think it out for themselves.

Win-win, as far as I am concerned.