|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 14, 2010 15:09:14 GMT -4
OK, thanks for all the help. You confirmed what I thought but it helps to see it from others.
(someone else from the site sent the author of the paper, Geoffrey A. Landis, an e-mail hoping to clarify his remarks. so I'll let you know if there's any reply)
Another request. There is a website where one of the posters from either here or BA produced some 3D images demonstrating Apollo's TLI in relation to the VA Belts. I'm not talking about Bob Braeunig's amazing site. This one was more graphically inclined.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Aug 14, 2010 15:22:50 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 14, 2010 15:23:17 GMT -4
Another request. There is a website where one of the posters from either here or BA produced some 3D images demonstrating Apollo's TLI in relation to the VA Belts. I'm not talking about Bob Braeunig's amazing site. This one was more graphically inclined. Any ideas? You're probably thinking of this thread. Drewid created these two videos showing Apollo's trajectory through the VAB:
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 14, 2010 15:44:57 GMT -4
Thanks guys (er, and gals)!
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 15, 2010 13:34:48 GMT -4
The poster got an email from Greg Landis, and it confirms what Jay et. al. has stated:
It's worth mentioning that I've noticed almost any time someone has contacted a scientist concerning information in a paper, article, video or other form of correspondence, the scientist has been very forthcoming with information in a prompt and gracious manner.
Something to remember.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2010 14:53:38 GMT -4
Well I think it half-confirms it.
"Ruthlessly anisotropic" is not a very scientific characterization; it's more poetic. I don't mean that there is a single direction from which all charged particles come, as seen from some point in space. I'm not sure about the 50% distribution, but I don't generally dispute the notion that there is a distribution. Hence for practical shielding, we tend to make it directional.
The important point that he makes, which isn't clear in what I wrote, is that the direction from which the bulk of proton radiation comes in a CME, as experienced from some random point in space, is not necessarily in the direction of the sun. Because the protons follow a very complex path dictated by their initial kinetic energy, their self-generated magnetic fields, and the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun, then from some point in space the stream of particles may be seen to come from a single unexpected direction at some time. So in that sense, to say that the radiation is "omnidirectional" is not strictly inaccurate. It's just not the whole picture of what amounts to a complex phenomenon that varies greatly over space and time.
The papers I'm thinking of were written in the late 1990s and were about the computational modeling of the proton flux from a CME. They're actually ESA papers, if memory serves. I love using ESA publications in hoax-theory debunking, first because it's top-shelf research, and second because it dispels the myth that all knowledge of space comes from NASA. These papers provide insanely complex models for proton movement. Why? Because the underlying phenomenon is now known to be insanely complex as seen at a certain scale over a certain time interval.
Every spacecraft will have a shielding line-item in the mass budget. That budget typically will not suffice for large particle events by itself. So rad-hardening procedures involve co-opting other mass distributions in the spacecraft. That is, all mass is shielding whether intended as such or not. A huge bulk of fuel, for example, has accidental value as radiation shielding -- so many grams per centimeter. Hence from the spacecraft design point of view, every spacecraft is shielded anisotropically because its mass will be distributed anisotropically around the radiation-sensitive elements.
The CSM is anisotropically shielded because the bulk of the SM lies in one direction from the CM cabin. That's not to say it was necessarily designed like that from the radiation-shielding standpoint. It arose that way for other engineering reasons. It accidentally provides a directional shielding configuration that happily coincides (at least in part) with the directional nature of the most hazardous radiation.
In the 1960s the understanding of CMEs made it advisable to turn kiester-to-the-sun as a general rule. In practice, the procedure is to fiddle with the joystick until the counter isn't clicking at a deadly rate. Today, kiester-to-the-threat is still the rule for safing satellites during a predictable CME. Like the CSM, most satellites are accidentally anisotropically shielded. Satellites can't adaptively orient themselves in safe mode, so we rely on static models for predicting the direction of the threat. And that's still governed by coarse models of Sun, Earth, and Earth's magnetic lines of force.
It's great of Mr. Landis to address this.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2010 14:58:24 GMT -4
It's worth mentioning that I've noticed almost any time someone has contacted a scientist concerning information in a paper, article, video or other form of correspondence, the scientist has been very forthcoming with information in a prompt and gracious manner. Yes, I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is a huge difference between the sides of this debate in how forthcoming each is with information, clarification, and discussion. It's not to tell the bona fide experts from the snake-oil salesmen. It's sad, because the pro-hoax side of the debate often concentrates on the question, "Whom are you going to trust?" Then their own behavior demonstrates how untrustworthy they are.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 15, 2010 17:03:08 GMT -4
Well I've always said that the problem isn't getting scientists to talk about their work, it's getting them to shut up once they start....
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 15, 2010 17:47:00 GMT -4
It's worth mentioning that I've noticed almost any time someone has contacted a scientist concerning information in a paper, article, video or other form of correspondence, the scientist has been very forthcoming with information in a prompt and gracious manner. Yes, definitely. So if one ever comes across in a conspiracy video as evasive, you know there's a large part of the story that isn't being told.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 15, 2010 18:13:19 GMT -4
I think I'll email Jack White and ask him a few questions.....
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 15, 2010 23:08:18 GMT -4
I think I'll email Jack White and ask him a few questions..... Wouldn't hammering a nail through your foot be considerably more informative and considerably less painful an experience...? Cz
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 16, 2010 13:24:11 GMT -4
Well I've always said that the problem isn't getting scientists to talk about their work, it's getting them to shut up once they start.... I think this is true of anyone doing genuinely good work in any field. The rule in our booth at ren faire is "Don't get Gillian started on Elizabethan history if you don't have an hour or two to spare."
|
|