|
Post by fm on Nov 21, 2009 18:11:03 GMT -4
For one can you clarify for me the following:In your Translunar chart the "Distance from Earth (m)" column, does (m) represent in meters or miles? In other words, should the first line be read as 6,712,595 (million meters or miles) or (thousand meters or miles)? m is meters. 6,712,595 m is 6 million meters and some change. The data used to determine the orbital elements came from NASA record documents. Everything else is mathematically derived. The T+ times referenced above are GET. For instance, T+003:29 is the same as 003:29:00 GET. Ok, so can you explain the information NASA is giving me and what your giving. NASA has: 002:54 height = 589 mi, speed = 23116 mph (10 333 m/s). 004:55 height = 22,000 mi, speed = 9000 mph. Your Data 002:50:13 Distance = 6,712,595 (4,171 mi) velocity 10,834.3 005:00:00 Distance = 41,895,610 (26,032 mi) velocity 4,201.0 I see differences of thousands of miles. How are you calculating distance and how is NASA? Why the difference? Is there a difference? Regarding the first entry, I dont read Apollo hitting a distance of 4.000 miles till: +003:15:23.0 height = 4,390.442 mi, speed = 17019.9 mph. for which you have indicated 8,276 miles. So for all intents and purposes, your Apollo is moving faster. Bob b: I also wrote: “The far edge of the electron belt was reached in about 90 minutes, the inner zone was traversed in about 30 minutes, and the region of the most energetic particles was skirted in just about 10 minutes.”
So there are many answers that can be given depending on the precise question being asked. Since you are incapable of asking a precise question, you are getting a lot of different answers. The problem is not with the answers, it is with the question.First of all, many of those "numbers" were reaction to Swank, and an article from NASA, not to any of my questions. Second of all, I have been asking the same question. I dont know how much more precise I have to be to get a decent answer for it. So no sorry, its not a problem with the question, its a problem that people wont admit that there never was clear data or info to answer that question in the first place from NASA. Thereby facilitating many interpretations and arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 21, 2009 18:48:03 GMT -4
Can you show, using your TOP VIEW, SIDE VIEW, and possibly your END VIEW diagrams, with the point and time where you see Apollo entering and leaving the VABs, corresponding to your "Distance from Earth" chart? Can you PLEASE get it through your head that you have to define a boundary to determine whether it is in or out of the belts, and that boundary is not a fixed entity. That's why many sources say things like 'it extends 7-10 Earth radii'. That's a HUGE range, and depends upon many factors which you seem determined to ignore. There is NO fixed boundary universally accepted and defined to say 'the belts end here'. The radiation varies and changes intensity in a smooth slope. How would YOU define the boundary and why? You could be in the belts but only in a region of low radiation intensity. And you are still determinedly ignoring inclination. What difference does it make if the belts extend 5, 10 or 50 Earth radii if you happen to be coasting along above or below them due to the INCLINATION relationships?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 21, 2009 18:49:07 GMT -4
Ok, so can you explain the information NASA is giving me and what your giving. NASA has: 002:54 height = 589 mi, speed = 23116 mph (10 333 m/s). 004:55 height = 22,000 mi, speed = 9000 mph. Your Data 002:50:13 Distance = 6,712,595 (4,171 mi) velocity 10,834.3 005:00:00 Distance = 41,895,610 (26,032 mi) velocity 4,201.0 I see differences of thousands of miles. How are you calculating distance and how is NASA? Why the difference? Is there a difference? Regarding the first entry, I dont read Apollo hitting a distance of 4.000 miles till: +003:15:23.0 height = 4,390.442 mi, speed = 17019.9 mph. for which you have indicated 8,276 miles. So for all intents and purposes, your Apollo is moving faster. The problem is that you don't know what numbers you're dealing with. First, NASA uses nautical miles, not statute miles. Second, my distances are measured from the center of Earth, they are not altitudes. NASA uses 3443.9307 nautical miles for the radius of Earth. So, for example, an altitude of 589 n.mi. equals a radius of (589 + 3443.9307) x 1852 m/n.mi. = 7,469,000 m Second of all, I have been asking the same question. That's part of the problem. You're asking a vague question that doesn't have a concrete answer. I dont know how much more precise I have to be to get a decent answer for it. And that's the other part. When you figure out how to ask a decent question, you'll get a decent answer. Your question is akin to asking "how deep is the ocean." The question can't be answered until we know specifically what is being asked. Which ocean? Maximum depth? Average depth? Depth at 30 o N 150 o W? Depth one kilometer off the southern coast of Madagascar? For your question to be answered, you must define the boundaries. Your inability to do so is your failing, so please don't put the blame on others when they can't answer your BS question. You can define the boundaries in two ways: (1) geometrically, or (2) particle type, energy, and flux.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Nov 21, 2009 19:06:35 GMT -4
BTW the belts I rendered weren't small. I think the problem was a field of view (camera perspective) combined with the angles I'd done the slice at which followed the orbit rather than being perpendicular to the camera. It would be clearer in an animation. I'll do an orthographic view as well tomorrow to demonstrate.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 21, 2009 19:12:28 GMT -4
BTW the belts I rendered weren't small. I think the problem was a field of view (camera perspective) combined with the angles I'd done the slice at which followed the orbit rather than being perpendicular to the camera. It would be clearer in an animation. I'll do an orthographic view as well tomorrow to demonstrate. I look forward to seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by fm on Nov 21, 2009 22:32:55 GMT -4
Ok, so can you explain the information NASA is giving me and what your giving. NASA has: 002:54 height = 589 mi, speed = 23116 mph (10 333 m/s). 004:55 height = 22,000 mi, speed = 9000 mph. Your Data 002:50:13 Distance = 6,712,595 (4,171 mi) velocity 10,834.3 005:00:00 Distance = 41,895,610 (26,032 mi) velocity 4,201.0 I see differences of thousands of miles. How are you calculating distance and how is NASA? Why the difference? Is there a difference? Regarding the first entry, I dont read Apollo hitting a distance of 4.000 miles till: +003:15:23.0 height = 4,390.442 mi, speed = 17019.9 mph. for which you have indicated 8,276 miles. So for all intents and purposes, your Apollo is moving faster. The problem is that you don't know what numbers you're dealing with. First, NASA uses nautical miles, not statute miles. Second, my distances are measured from the center of Earth, they are not altitudes. NASA uses 3443.9307 nautical miles for the radius of Earth. So, for example, an altitude of 589 n.mi. equals a radius of (589 + 3443.9307) x 1852 m/n.mi. = 7,469,000 m What makes you think they meant nautical miles? How do you know that for sure? If they mean nautical miles, why didnt they use the "n.mi" like you have done?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 21, 2009 22:33:44 GMT -4
Bob, Congrats on your outstanding work. This sets a new standard for instruction on the subject of orbits and the VAB. What I like about yours and Data Cable's work is that, more than just highlighting why such-and-such HB claims aren't true, you guys break new ground in researching the Apollo record.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 21, 2009 23:34:51 GMT -4
What makes you think they meant nautical miles? Because NASA uses nautical miles almost exclusively. I've read a lot of their documents and that's just what they do. How do you know that for sure? Since I don't know what your source is, I guess I really don't know for sure. If they mean nautical miles, why didnt they use the "n.mi" like you have done? I don't know, but just "mile" by itself could mean either nautical or statute miles. In all my years of reading NASA documents, I think I saw them use statute miles just once, and, as I recall, they used the abbreviation sm.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 22, 2009 0:49:56 GMT -4
I'll jump in on the congratulations to Bob. Great work, one of the finest contributions anyone has made to this forum.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Nov 22, 2009 5:02:47 GMT -4
Listen to the radio playback fm or read the transcripts. Ranges are exclusively and specifically given in nautical miles, clearly stated.
I notice you didn't answer my last question, did you fail the test?
@ Bob. For final renders I'll be redoing my rings to show overall radiation intensity as in your last (coloured) graph. It's a much more useful thing to show rather than the iso boundaries I've currently got. I'll do a quick ortho of the iso first to show my ranges are valid.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2009 11:11:09 GMT -4
What makes you think they meant nautical miles?Because it was for the longest time the standard in spacefaring. We still use it for historical reasons, but we typically use SI units now. How do you know that for sure?Because I do this for a living and you don't. If they mean nautical miles, why didnt they use the "n.mi" like you have done?
Two reasons: if its the unit you almost exclusively use, you don't qualify it. "Miles" to a sailor means nautical miles unless you make special arrangements to the contrary. Plus the customary abbreviation "nm" is today confused with the SI abbreviation for nanometer. Hence today we abbreviate miles "mi" instead of "m". Fm, it seems you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. What's next? You're going to complain that the orbits haven't be carved in Swiss chocolate and delivered to your door by liveried elves? As rigorous a presentation of the Apollo 11 translunar trajectory as can be had has been laid graciously at your feet at no cost or to you and with no effort from you required. Those who can follow its derivation agree it has been properly derived from first principles, and that it proves the points that have been made here. Your objections have worn thin. No, you don't understand why you can't formulate a proper question. That's been your problem since Day One, and you have resisted all efforts to educate you. The way you have asked your questions makes it impossible for them to have simple, unqualified answers. People here have spoon-fed you the information you would need in order to ask good questions, but it's become fairly apparent that you're either unwilling to or incapable of undersatnding it. You've claimed that the Apollo 11 astronauts would have spent far longer in the Van Allen belts than published, and/or obtained a greater dose of radiation than is measured or surmised. And you have done absolutely nothing of value in supporting that claim. Ignorantly picking others' nits does not suffice. Prove your case. Put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by fm on Nov 22, 2009 12:03:44 GMT -4
I don't know, but just "mile" by itself could mean either nautical or statute miles. In all my years of reading NASA documents, I think I saw them use statute miles just once, and, as I recall, they used the abbreviation sm. 3) All distances are measured in statute miles (mi) units. 4) All speeds are measured in statute miles per hour (mph) unitsfrom The Apollo 11 Mission Compiled by Daniel R. AdamWhich I thought I sourced much earlier. Could have forgotten. Anyway, its not really an issue because you, Bob, clarified what your numbers represented. Now we know what numbers we are dealing with. So to understand your numbers expressed in statute miles: 3 963.20467 + 589 = 4 552.20467 miles = 7 326 063.27 meters 7 326 063.27 - 6 712 595 = 613 468.27 = 381.19 miles difference but of course the GET is off by 4 minutes. Lets use a GET that matches 008:00:00 77,041,344 to T+008:00 height = 43795 mi. 3 963.20467 + 43 795 = 47 758.2047 miles = 76 859 380.2 meters - 77,041,344 = a difference of 181 963.8 meters or 113.06 miles. Not a big difference in my eyes. As for everyone throwing a hissy fit about boundaries and what not. What happened to common sense around here? The belts have always been defined up to at most 10 radii, right? not 20, not 100. But 10. Im quite aware the belts fluctuate in size and intensity. However, there is a size limit to the fluctuation! Your trying to debunk an argument so use the worst case scenario. I would use as size 10. If you can win your argument using the worst case scenario you will leave no room for doubters. So I would assume you all would use the 10 radii as the utmost boundary regardless if the craft is still in the VAB or not, at that point. Is that clear enough? We can wait till AP-9/AE-9 is officially released by the end of the year and base everything on that. Since AP-9/AE-9 is supposed to: Provide satellite designers with a definitive model of the trapped energetic particle and plasma environment to include: – Quantitative accuracy – Indications of uncertainty – Flux probability of occurance and worst cases for different exposure periods – Broad energy ranges including hot plasma & very energetic protons – Complete spatial coverage John T. And you are still determinedly ignoring inclination. What difference does it make if the belts extend 5, 10 or 50 Earth radii if you happen to be coasting along above or below them due to the INCLINATION relationships?Are you kidding me? Of course it matters. Dont lose your grip man. And furthermore, the issue I am also raising is how large the belt is from top to bottom. You bet it matters because it would increase the duration of the trip through the VAB. Many illustrations offered a warped view of the belt size in relation to Earth. Im just being adamant about using the correct scale, nothing wrong with that. The process Im working with here is to take a hard look at each part of the journey. There are three areas that people have issues with. 1. The VABs, 2. General Space, 3. The Moon. The OP put forth that he couldnt debunk his friend who showed him an article describing space as a sea of radiation. By going deeper into the subject, step by step a lot of misconceptions can be cleared up. Back to the VABs. The VAB journey is becoming clearer, although I still have issues with the return journey, the depicted VAB height, the depicted point Apollo left the VABs. I addressed this earlier. Too bad Bob B. doesnt want to look into it, but maybe Drewid will. Once we have a good approximation for how long Apollo traveled through the belts... because its definitely not a few minutes, or under an hour. I also want to look into bremsstrahlung Scientist von Braun in his 1960 book: First Men to the Moon: "Finally, there is the Van Allen Radiation Belt (page 69). Just a little over a year ago we didn't even know it existed. Explorer I, equipped to measure the intensity of the previously mentioned cosmic radiation, gave us the first indication that there was something completely unsuspected up there. Two more Explorers unveiled the fact that the earth is surrounded with two concentric, doughnut-shaped rings of "trapped radiation." Electrically charged particles—apparently mainly electrons— endlessly circle around and up and down the magnetic field lines which connect the magnetic North and South Poles like a grid of meridians. When a rocket flies through this belt the trapped electrons impinge on its skin like raindrops hitting an aircraft which is flying through the clouds. Very much in the same fashion as the impinging raindrops cause sound waves audible within the airplane cabin, the impinging electrons produce an electromagnetic radiation inside the cabin. Physicists use for this kind of radiation the German word bremsstrahlung (slow-down radiation), but it is actually something quite similar to X-rays. It is this bremsstrahlung that we have to watch in the Belt."(First Men to the Moon, p.19). Phil Plait Too bad; if the hoax believers had some basic science education they’d understand the problem. What Explorer 1 discovered were the van Allen radiation belts: regions around the Earth where the magnetic field of our planet has captured subatomic particles. Moving at high speed, when these slam into the metal walls of a satellite they are decelerated. This process produces X-rays (called Bremsstrahlung — German for "braking" — radiation), and that’s what the Explorer 1 detector detected. Moon hoaxers get terribly confused about this, saying there are deadly X-rays in space. They’re wrong: the X-rays are a by-product of the subatomic particles screeching to a halt inside metal. Unless the Sun is flaring, there is very little X-radiation in near-Earth orbit. It’s the subatomic particles that are dangerous, but they can be stopped by various substances like glass and insulation without creating X-rays.I would like to know which materials in particular were used to prevent Bremsstrahlung. Obviously they knew about it before the mission, so they had to have a solution for it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 22, 2009 12:28:34 GMT -4
3) All distances are measured in statute miles (mi) units. 4) All speeds are measured in statute miles per hour (mph) unitsfrom The Apollo 11 Mission Compiled by Daniel R. AdamWhich I thought I sourced much earlier. Could have forgotten. OK, it looks like you are using a secondary source in which the author likely made his own distance conversions from the original NASA data. What happened to common sense around here? The belts have always been defined up to at most 10 radii, right? not 20, not 100. But 10. Im quite aware the belts fluctuate in size and intensity. However, there is a size limit to the fluctuation! Your trying to debunk an argument so use the worst case scenario. I would use as size 10. If you can win your argument using the worst case scenario you will leave no room for doubters. So I would assume you all would use the 10 radii as the utmost boundary regardless if the craft is still in the VAB or not, at that point. Is that clear enough? Why do you care about ten radii? What significance does that number have on the Apollo missions?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 22, 2009 12:31:09 GMT -4
I would like to know which materials in particular were used to prevent Bremsstrahlung. Obviously they knew about it before the mission, so they had to have a solution for it.
Then why don't you go study the subject. That is what most people do when we want to learn something
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Nov 22, 2009 12:31:58 GMT -4
fm said - "I would like to know which materials in particular were used to prevent Bremsstrahlung."
I suggest you follow the link to Bob B's excellent article, scroll to the bottom and have a look at the Apollo CM hull cross-section, and do some research on the properties of the materials listed there.
|
|