|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 11, 2009 10:47:08 GMT -4
Thanks for the correction Bob. Should have read a bit further on in the relevant Apollo By The Numbers chapter. Still a difference of about a degree makes little odds.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Nov 11, 2009 13:53:43 GMT -4
If I can find the time, I’d like to map Apollo 11’s trajectory to the Moon; perhaps plotting the spacecraft’s polar coordinates versus time. . Please illuminate a poor electronic tech. In that polar coordinate system, where is the origin considered to be? The Earth center? Reference plane, the ecliptic?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Nov 11, 2009 14:01:43 GMT -4
OK, here's a better sketch. Still not perfect but my time is limited and my 3D rendering skills even more so. The justification for the features of this image: Earth's rotational axis, and hence its equatorial plane, is tilted 23.4 degrees relative to the plane of the ecliptic. The van Allen belts, being formed by the the Earth's magentic field, are aligned along the Earth's geomagnetic plane, which is itself inclined about 11 degrees to the Earth's equator. This displacement happens to be southward for the US, so on the US side of the world the plane of the belts lies south of the equator by about 11 degrees. Apollo 11 launched in the middle of July, so the Earth's north pole would be tilted towards the Sun (the Sun is to the right in the diagram). The Moon was close to new at this time, so the spacecraft TLI orbit carried it in the direction of the Sun. Apollo 11 initiated TLI from an orbit inclined 32.5 degrees from the Earth's equator. You can see from the sketch that this inclination carries it through only the less intense regions of the belts. It bypasses the really intense regions almost entirely, and is out of any area that may be considered part of the belts well before it would be had it launched off in the same plane as the belts. This is hopefully illustrative of why you cannot simply consider altitude as the defining factor of whether or not they are in the belts. Yes, the belts may well extend several earth radii, but not in the same direction as the spacecraft was travelling. That sketch belongs in every single Apollo book and website, Hoax or Reality. I daresay I have not seen such a good illustration of how the spacecraft stayed out of the more energetic parts of the VAB. In the past whenever this topic came up I would find myself starting from scratch again in trying to mentally visualize the Earth and the belts and trying not to get stuck in a 2-d mindset. I don't believe that I ever really understood until today. kudos!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 11, 2009 15:24:59 GMT -4
Please illuminate a poor electronic tech. In that polar coordinate system, where is the origin considered to be? The Earth center? Reference plane, the ecliptic? In this particular case, I'd place the origin at the center of the Earth. In case you are unfamiliar with the term, please allow me to explain what polar coordinates are. There are two common ways of locating objects in three dimensions -- rectangular coordinates and polar coordinates. Rectangular coordinates consist of three distances measure along three axis from an origin point. The axes are at right angles to each other and are typically referred to as X, Y and Z. Polar coordinates locate an object using two angles and a distance. The angles are measured in two planes at right angles to each other, and the distance is measured along a line extending from an origin point to the object. Locating an object on Earth is an example of a polar coordinate system. You have two angles, latitude and longitude, and a distance, which is expressed as an elevation. Polar coordinates are used for locating objects in space. For solar orbits, a sun-centered, or heliocentric, system is used. One angle (longitude) is measured in the ecliptic plane with zero being in the direction of the vernal equinox. The second angle (latitude) is the elevation above or below the ecliptic plane. And the radius is, of course, measured from the center of the Sun. For objects in earth-orbit, geocentric coordinates are used. Longitude is again measured from the vernal equinox, but this time it is measured in the equatorial plane rather than the ecliptic plane. Latitude is the angle above or below the equator, and the radius is measured from the center of the Earth. What differentiates this system from the common method of locating objects on Earth is that the coordinate system is fixed in relation to the stars (i.e. the vernal equinox) rather than a point on the surface of the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by fm on Nov 12, 2009 6:40:31 GMT -4
Nice sketch Thompson... But like I said earlier, you, or someone else, could probably put my mind at ease, and maybe turn some hoaxers into believers if you would use this model: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Tli.svgOr something similar to show how and where the craft passed through the VABs. In other words, if one would draw the belts circulating the earth like this: And add the other 3D perspective of the 1.5 orbit, TLI and plot the altitudes with time, then I think we will have a winner on our hands. You could also color code the trajectory signifying the path intensity levels of radiation the craft went though as it was coasting through the VABs. I think that would probably end the debate. By the way did you guys ever read this: "The Van Allen Belts are, of course, too hot to linger in-- so hot that future space stations will have to orbit either below them or above them-- but not especially dangerous to moonbound Astronauts who can speed through them in a few minutes' time." Wait there's more! " As for solar flares, NASA scientists believe that even if unanticipated eruptions were to occur during an Apollo flight, the Astronauts could still abort their mission and high-tail it for home. Dr. Wright Langham of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory believes that exposure to repeated solar-flare bombardment spread out over a period of days does not carry the same biolgical penalty as the same exposure in an acute dose. On the whole, says Dr. Langham, unless the lunar Astronauts are "awfully unlucky," they ought to make it back all right." Dont you love Life in 1964
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 12, 2009 7:10:10 GMT -4
Okay, lets. All the time you've been not paying attention to terms like "inclination" and have been ignoring the marvellous education you've been given by some excellent teachers and that many of us onlookers have very much appreciated, I've often thought, "FM doesn't even get what I've seen cats, dogs and little children quickly work out." Now, this illustration is very simplified, so don't knock it if it doesn't agree entirely with the facts. Picture the Van Allen belts as if they are a big inner tube, or some other doughnut-like ring. The tube is lying one side down on a flat surface, you're in the centre of it, and you want to move ten metres beyond it on the flat surface, but the tube is blocking your attempt to move. I've seen many cats, dogs and children in the same predicament, and they solved the problem very quickly. They didn't bother trying to fight their way through the walls of the tube, they climbed or jumped out of the hole. Got it? That is, in simplified fashion, generally what the Apollo spacecraft did, but as Jason Thompson has illustrated, they brushed the weaker parts of the Van Allen belts and did not travel through the dense parts as you seem to believe. Sorry, for me its the end of that discussion. You make it sound as if you've slammed your mind shut -- the old, "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up." Hell, I rebelled against that sort of dogmatic and ignorant thinking when I was a kid in the 1950s, and made up my mind before the age of 11 that I would do everything in my power to ensure I didn't end up thinking like that. I'm very glad I did. Ever heard the term, "It's not rocket science"? It is often used to show that whatever is being discussed is not highly complex. But what people are talking about here is rocket science, and it is a hell of a lot more complex than transferring a teaspoon from your kitchen bench to the drawer underneath. Can you answer this rocket science poser? To simplify things, it uses an automotive expression: You're in a spacecraft orbiting the earth in exactly the same orbit and at the same speed as another spacecraft which is 100 km ahead of you. To catch up to it, do you put your foot on the accelerator or the brake pedal? Mike Collins discusses what he calls "the rendezvous problem" on page 37 of "Carrying The Fire — An Astronaut's Journeys", Michael Collins, Cooper Square Press, New York, 1974.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 12, 2009 7:41:21 GMT -4
Nice sketch Thompson... But like I said earlier, So in other words, you're going to ignore it because it doesn't meet your arbitrary requirements. What exactly do you find fault with in that sketch that invalidates it as a demonstration of the effect of inclination on the path taken through the belts? You know, you have been given, or have found yourself, ALL the information you need to do that for yourself. Why do you insist we do the legwork for you? I will ask you some direct questions: 1: Do you understand, from what you've been told and the diagrams you have seen, the importance of inclination on the path the spacecraft takes through the belt? 2: Do you understand that it is possible to avoid the most intense regions of the belts entirely on your way out to the Moon? If not, why not? [/b]NASA scientists believe that even if unanticipated eruptions were to occur during an Apollo flight, the Astronauts could still abort their mission and high-tail it for home.[/quote] Yes, they could. Do you know what makes up a solar flare and the importance of the different types of radiation involved and how fast they travel?
|
|
|
Post by fm on Nov 12, 2009 8:07:30 GMT -4
So in other words, you're going to ignore it because it doesn't meet your arbitrary requirements. What exactly do you find fault with in that sketch that invalidates it as a demonstration of the effect of inclination on the path taken through the belts?
Whats there to ignore? It doesn't answer my question. I provided earlier a similar drawing to what you have just made. If that didnt answer my question, then why do you think your sketch would? I then offered an example with a perspective that would help me have my questions answered. Instead of using that example, you sketched what you wanted to sketch. That might be enough to keep you happy, but that's not what I was asking for. I ask for blue you give me green, close but no.
You know, you have been given, or have found yourself, ALL the information you need to do that for yourself. Why do you insist we do the legwork for you? I will ask you some direct questions:
Hey I came here looking for answers. Im sure there are capable people here that could plot a 3D trajectory of the Apollo missions with radiation belts as I specified. Or is it really that hard to do? Anyway, I dont have the software for that or all the knowledge to make it accurate to do it myself. So either somebody is up for the challenge or we have to keep using 2D representations to answer 3D questions.
1: Do you understand, from what you've been told and the diagrams you have seen, the importance of inclination on the path the spacecraft takes through the belt?
2: Do you understand that it is possible to avoid the most intense regions of the belts entirely on your way out to the Moon? If not, why not?
You get me a 3D model of what I'm looking for, and then you will have answers to your questions.
Yes, they could. Do you know what makes up a solar flare and the importance of the different types of radiation involved and how fast they travel?
Please, enlighten me. Because Im assuming you mean they could, if they were halfway to the moon, just reverse and go back home? Or if they were in a Lunar orbit they could simply break free and go back? Maybe your right, maybe that would be possible.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 12, 2009 8:34:21 GMT -4
Whats there to ignore? It doesn't answer my question. In what way? The only drawings you have provided are data for the belts and a press-release diagram of the Apollo flight profile. You have made no effort to connect the two as my sketch did. I sketched a decent 2D representation to illustrate the relationships between the different planes of the belts and the path of the Apollo spacecraft. I already explained in that post that my 3D rendering skills are limited and justified the features of the sketch accordingly. The only person here finding significant fault with it is you. No, it doesn't work that way. Those are simple questions with yes/no answers. Do you still cling to the notion that any spacrcaft at an altitude lower than the maximum extent of the belts must be within them or do you acknowledge that it is possible to skim the edges without passing through the most intense regions? You assume a lot, don't you? If you don't know about solar flares and the precautions that can be taken from them, why did you highlight that section and put a laughing smiley after it, indicating you believed it was saying something absurd? If you are just looking for answers then lose the attitude and just ask the questions.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 12, 2009 9:55:55 GMT -4
FM,
It seems that you might lack the ability to visualize in three dimensions. Don’t worry about it too much, because there are many people who simply lack the gene to do so. Let’s face it, renderings are in 2D and, despite your complaining, it is the job on the human brain to visualize in 3D what those 2D drawings represent.
I’m a construction engineer and the drawings we work from are always in 2D. Despite this, we have the ability to interpret those 2D renderings to build a real-life 3D structure. Our minds and training enable us to look at those 2D drawings and immediately visualize what the structure will look like in 3D. Some people just can’t do that, and if they can’t, they have no future in construction. Perhaps you are one of the people who lack the ability.
I believe we have made every reasonable attempt to satisfy your questions, and if you still don’t get it, well that's unfortuante. For us to jump through a bunch of hoops to satisfy your every whim is not reasonable. Besides, based on your inability to understand things to this point, I have no confidence that an epiphany awaits us should we do as you ask.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 12, 2009 10:19:07 GMT -4
FM, I am amazed that you can spent so much energy demanding that others give a specific diagram. One would think that since you know what level of specificity is needed to quell your doubts, you could just produce it yourself.
Alternatively, you might just put some effort into using the information provided freely through the efforts of others to answer your questions. Everything you need has already been presented. The form may not be what you want, but what you want may not really answer your question either.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 12, 2009 12:04:38 GMT -4
If you want to really get into the details then the situation is complicated even more so by the fact that everything is in motion. Since the geomagnetic axis of the Earth, and hence the axis of the van Allen belts, is offset from the rotational axis they wobble around as the Earth rotates. Since the Earth rotates under an orbiting spacecraft, not only do the belts occupy a different position at TLI compared to launch, they are themselves also moving during the hours that the spacecraft is heading through them.
It is precisely for this reason that most people simplify things to a 2D diagram to indicate the idea. Even a 3D diagram won't be a precise rendering of the real situation because the Universe isn't holding still while the spacecraft moves through it.
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Nov 12, 2009 13:03:42 GMT -4
...Hey I came here looking for answers... No you didn't. You came here posting cherry-picked internet snippets (some of which you apparently didn't bother reading in it's entirety) with which you try to invent a dilemma that you claim can't be satisfactorily addressed. That's your shtick and no amount of good-intentioned efforts by the people here will result in a satisfactory closure. How do I know this? It's simple really - you don't act like you want real answers. You invoke Van Allen but conveniently ignore what he has to say about the radiation belts as it relates the HB scenario(s). You invoke radiation beyond the belts but ignore or scoff at what is really being written. You have shown no inclination to actually learn about the issues you raise - your lunar radiation belt was a classic BTW - and, like all HBers fail to see the big picture problem of their moon-landing hoax. Every wonder why, if the VAB was a true barrier to the Apollo missions the Soviets didn't mention it or why, outside of HBers, no one has mentioned it? Now you are fixated on a 3-D representation but based on your prior m/o there's no reason to believe you'll "accept" what it would show even if the folks here jump through that hoop.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 12, 2009 13:05:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 12, 2009 13:14:39 GMT -4
Jay, can I have that Van Allen belt if you're finished with it? It looks delicious.
|
|