No kidding I'm not kidding. You asked us to use that drawing. You want a fully accurate drawn representation of the Apollo translunar trajectory, the Earth, and the Van Allen belts. But we're supposed to start with a drawing that's already inaccurate. You want us to reconcile our claims with that drawing, but you won't concede that the reconciliation is, essentially, that the drawing is inaccurate in important details.
I've explained to you how your drawing relates to the other drawings and to the three-dimensional aspects of the problem. You simply ignore all that.
But your pictures of a half eaten donut did You told us you were tired of the limitations of two-dimensional representations. So I provided a three-dimensional model using materials on hand.
But just as you dismissed Jason's drawing, you dismiss the model with ridicule. You won't concede that it shows the geometry that proves a transfer orbit can miss the Van Allen belts. You have no material comment, so you just try to mock it. That pretty much proves your lack of sincerity. You're not here to learn, to be educated, or just to "ask questions." You're not simply spatially challenged. You're being deliberately obtuse so that you can hold to the feeble belief that there is enough ambiguity in the problem to continue to believe in a hoax.
I mean, seriously what's that all about? Ahem.The donut represents a torus. It could be the inner or the outer belt; it doesn't matter. The cardstock slid through a slice in the donut represents an orbital plane that is inclined approximately 40 degrees to the plane of the torus. That represents 30 degrees of equatorial inclination in a transfer orbit, and up to 10 degrees of equatorial inclination for Earth's geomagnetic axis. The conic section path drawn on the cardstock represents a transfer orbit focused around the center of the torus (i.e., where Earth would be).
It is physical, incontrovertible proof that an orbit can exist around Earth that substantially misses the Van Allen belts, and corresponds to the published figures for Apollo orbits. A child could understand this. In fact, beginning students understand this principle with far less fuss. You may no longer hide behind the supposed ambiguity of drawings.
Yes, thats what I'm looking for a drawing that shows...No. You don't get a drawing. You may deal with the model now, since we've transcended two dimensions as you asked. Please explain what about the geometry of my model does not prove what has been said here for the past three days.
Because Im betting that Apollo went through those belts longer than what is being reported.Your claim, therefore your burden of proof. Yours is a pretty tall statement from someone who admits he lacks the appropriate knowledge and who yesterday didn't even know why the Van Allen belts form.
Im pretty sure now because of the lack of information on the subject...So the
lack of information is proof that the actual transit duration must be longer than stated. Please explain how that works.
...and the contradictions that people are making.No. The only "contradictions" arise from your inept attempts to shoehorn the observations of an actual physical phenomenon into your simplified concept that considers only geodetic altitude and ignores the important parameters of the problem such as orbital inclination.
I was doubtful before, but Ive gone through so much info these last few days that I call shenanigans, and they are having happy hour.No. You came here believing in the hoax and you've deployed one silly argument after another in support of that belief. You've shifted the goalposts several times as your flimsy arguments are addressed in turn.
You started by trying to trump up the notion that because Dr. Van Allen wrote early on that the Van Allen belts were dangerous, he must have believed then that travel to the Moon was impossible. He didn't say that, but you thought that's what he meant. Then when it was plainly revealed that Dr. Van Allen repudiates the hoax theories, you got it in your head he no longer believed the Van Allen belts were dangerous. The Van Allen belts
are dangerous, but because an Apollo mission can avoid a substantial portion of that danger by careful orbit design, both statements are true. The "contradiction" exists only because you refuse to recognize the true nature of the problem.
You tried to tell us initially that a transfer to the Moon had to be a straight line, and therefore must pass through the most intense portions of the Van Allen belt. Leaving off that the most intense portions of the magnetosphere do not lie on a straight line between Earth and Moon, you tried to correct what you thought was Jason's claim of a straight-line trajectory by bringing up a Hohmann transfer. In other words, you flip-flopped your notion of the actual shape of the trajectory. At first you said it must have been a straight line, then you said it couldn't have been.
You claimed that "all scientists" agreed with your assessment that Dr. Van Allen was precluding a trip to the Moon in his early writings, yet you can't name a single scientist that believes the Moon landings were faked.
You complain that your questions aren't being answered. But in fact we're telling you exactly what's wrong with your questions and why they can't be answered in the simplistic way you expect. Further, you have been told what information we need from you in order to make your questions sensible, but you refuse to be pinned down to any specific stipulation.
Shenanigans? You're full of them.
I mean come on, what is it?As has been explained to you several times, the trapped radiation environment is a complex set of phenomena that do not obey your attempts to oversimplify them to your elementary level of understanding.
The Encyclopedia Americana Volume 27 p.663 1961 Edition...Again with cherry-picking decades-old quotations!
Do you think I and other space engineers and scientists go pick up a moldy encyclopedia when we need to estimate the radiation exposure profile for some mission? We have much more sophisticated models now.
...the internal belt (about 10,000 counts per second) is found from 1,400 to 3,400 miles.Measured from where to where, geometrically speaking?
For this number of counts, the associated radiation would be 10 to 20 roentgens per hour, if the particles were electrons, or 100 to 200 roentgens per hour if they were protons.Which is it? Electrons or protons? At what energies?
See, in 1960 or 1961, when this text was written, the nature of the particles was not well understood. Nor were their energies. Only raw undifferentiated flux information was available. The model of the trapped radiation environment therefore considered only flux, and only certain broad categories of energies. That's why your text gives hypothetical values for both kinds of relevant particles; the authors at the time didn't know whether they were protons or electrons. We know now that they are chiefly protons.
Between 1960 and 1969 an enormous amount of science was done to more carefully characterize and quantify the radiation environment. Apollo reaped that benefit, as we do today.
The outer belt extends from about 8,000 to 30,000 miles...Again, measured from where to where?
...and has its maximum intensity near 12,000 miles.And are all the relevant intensities the maximum intensity? You stubbornly refuse to grasp the concept that the intensity of trapped radiation varies depending on where you are in the magnetosphere. You also fail to grasp that exposure is a time-integrated value that must consider duration of exposure.
The radiation exceeds the maximum permissible human dosage of 0.3 roentgen per hour.Or so it was understood in 1961, a scant 2 years after the first publication of Van Allen's findings.
From AE-8 we know that the zone of maximum intensity lies between 3 and 4 Earth radii and at geomagnetic inclinations of +/- 30 degrees, and forms a narrow sub-torus. As has been laborious and conclusively shown, the Apollo trajectories passed nowhere near that zone.
Hours or... days. Which is it Plait?As we've been trying to tell you, it depends where in the Van Allen belts you are. In some places you would receive an unshielded lethal dose in hours; in other places an unshielded lethal dose would take days. Dr. Plait correctly understands that in the areas of significant exposure, actual dose rates vary greatly. He is thus correctly expressing that variance.
You imply that the correct answer must also be a simple answer. Sorry, you don't get to simplify the problem and then complain because the truth violates your oversimplification.
Who writes this stuff?You tell me. Here's the source:
image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/AAvan.html . There is no author listed.
It's a public-relations page, containing information geared toward elementary school children. It's not even complete; the author has left notes to himself to add more material and consult colleagues. He inaccurately uses volts rather than electron-volts to measure particle energies; this indicates a lack of sophistication. In short, although we don't know who the author is, the article itself is not very reliable and cannot have been written by a qualified scientist. The fact that it is hosted by a NASA web server does not make it NASA's official doctrine regarding Van Allen belt radiation.
The section in question contrasts the Apollo trajectory with the traversal of the Southern Atlantic Anomaly that some shuttle missions and ISS expeditions must endure. The author doesn't present any detailed facts regarding Apollo trajectories. If we consult those facts from other NASA sources, we discover that this author's statement is misleading. While the Apollo exposure was likely more intense than the periodic exposure to the SAA, it did not carry the astronauts through "the most intense" portions of the Van Allen belts.
Huh what? One person notion?? But is that person correct?I have no way of knowing. You are the one throwing around the "one-hour" figure and asking us to comment on it. I'm saying nothing more than that it's one person's notion of exposure duration. I have no way of knowing the basis for that notion.
Actually, do you even know who that person is?Do you? You're the one throwing the one-hour figure around. If you're going to quibble about its source now, then provide that source.
And how do you know what he or she actually meant?My entire point is that I
can't know it. Any such estimate depends on what a person means by "in the Van Allen belts." That concept doesn't have a straightforward definition. So if I'm asked to explain why some person said the astronauts spent only "one hour" in the Van Allen belts, then I need to know more information about what that person was thinking.
So who should I believe. A forum poster, Nasa website, encyclopedia, an author?You've clearly already made up your mind what you're going to believe. The facts seem to have very little effect upon you.
You rely on cherry-picked quotes from James Van Allen until you discover that Van Allen told you explicitly that you're wrong.
You quote a half-complete anonymous web page hosted on a NASA server as if that's the gospel truth, yet you won't consider AE-8, AP-8, or any of the other official NASA publications on the cislunar radiation environment.
You quote an encyclopedia article written for a lay audience during the infancy of magnetospheric science.
Obviously you're looking for information that's crude and inexact enough that you can play up the notion of contradiction. You resist all efforts to make
you responsible for resolving the ambiguity in the variables.
Should I accept a 2D picture to prove that Apollo didnt stay longer than several hours in the VABs, or a 3D photo of a glazed donut?You may continue to embarrass yourself for as long as you wish. You've stubbornly resisted every attempt to educate you.
No thanks, not going to swallow that.Since your notion of what you consider acceptable proof shifts several times a day, I don't think it's really relevant what standard you're going to propose tomorrow.