Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 97

Thread: Some Apollo-Orion graphics that might be useful

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    20
    You also need to bear in mind that people are not at your beck and call, nor are they necessarily in your time zone, and believe it or not might actually have better things to do than explain the self-explanatory to someone who doesn't want to listen.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perthshire, UK
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Sometimes I can't help myself. So you insist that Apollo's trajectory took it over the poles as depicted in your diagonal illustration? is the plane of that trajectory in the 30 degree plane to the earths equator?
    Hang on Tim... You've been banging on for ages about how 2D representations are so much better than 3D models, and now you're complaining that you can't understand the different perspectives Grant has taken the trouble to produce?

    Perhaps you should take a more considered look at the diagrams and properly appreciate what they're showing about the three-dimensional nature of reality...
    Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's alloted span...
    (Phoenician proverb)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I have another question specifically for Grant Hutchinson in regards to his illustration. In your illustration you have reversed the lunar plane from the traditional perspective (As depicted in every other drawing in the world). Does it matter and if it doesn't then isn't the change I made your drawing equally applicable and if it is not then why not? What determines the correct reference?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Grant Hutchinson's drawing.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	417.8 KB 
ID:	23259

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth View Post
    Hang on Tim... You've been banging on for ages about how 2D representations are so much better than 3D models, and now you're complaining that you can't understand the different perspectives Grant has taken the trouble to produce?

    Perhaps you should take a more considered look at the diagrams and properly appreciate what they're showing about the three-dimensional nature of reality...
    I haven't complained at all. I simply asked a question to the poster and I await his response. You can read whatever you like into this but it is no more than a single question to clarify my understanding. Why is this complicated or a problem?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    Here's a hypothesis (I utterly lack the mathematical background to investigate it, much less proof it). Take a plane. Draw a geometric figure on it; say an ellipse. From any point on that plane the figure will appear as a line. Add a second plane, with a geometric figure drawn on it. There exists one single point, looking along the intersection of those planes, where both figures will appear as lines.

    Now add a third plane, with included geometric figure. There exists no point, no view, in which all three figures appear as a line.

    Since we are considering the plane of the low-earth orbit, the plane of lunar injection orbit post TL1, the plane of the equator, the plane of the geomagnetic equator, and (for no good reason) the plane of the lunar orbit, it seems clear that no 2d representation will preserve all the relative positions of objects on those planes.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have made no statements about my perception or beliefs. I merely asked for clarification from the poster. Why are you judging me beyond the question?
    So in addition to spatial awareness that not one other person has a problem with, you seem to have reading issues regarding your OWN posts. You said this:

    Timfinch - "So you insist that Apollo's trajectory took it over the poles as depicted in your diagonal illustration?"

    Quite clearly you are imposing YOUR inept observation on a painfully simple picture!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perthshire, UK
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I haven't complained at all. I simply asked a question to the poster and I await his response. You can read whatever you like into this but it is no more than a single question to clarify my understanding. Why is this complicated or a problem?
    It's a problem for you in that you seem to be the only person looking at Grant's diagram and not understanding the perspective view. My initial comment was highlighting that you have repeatedly claimed that 2D representations are much better, yet you seem unable to see that none of Grant's diagrams show the flight path as being over the pole...
    Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's alloted span...
    (Phoenician proverb)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have another question specifically for Grant Hutchinson in regards to his illustration. In your illustration you have reversed the lunar plane from the traditional perspective (As depicted in every other drawing in the world). Does it matter and if it doesn't then isn't the change I made your drawing equally applicable and if it is not then why not? What determines the correct reference?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Grant Hutchinson's drawing.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	417.8 KB 
ID:	23259
    At the risk of breaking CosmoQuest with too many links:

    First result of image search: http://www.1worldglobes.com/explorer_spanish.htm Note Africa is centered.
    Sixth result: http://www.primap.com/wsen/Maps/MapC...4000x4000.html A map from a map company. Center appears to be Denmark.
    Result Twelve: http://sf.funcheap.com/hostelling-in...rs_5921_16001/ Note in this map Hong Kong is a little SouthEast of center.

    These are not cherry-picked. Less than 50% of the images hauled up with a search for "globe" showed the orientation you claim is standard.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    In your illustration you have reversed the lunar plane from the traditional perspective (As depicted in every other drawing in the world). What determines the correct reference?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Grant Hutchinson's drawing.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	417.8 KB 
ID:	23259
    I quite rightly ask a simple question:

    Do you read all replies? Because I have pointed out to you a few times that the LUNAR PLANE is the plane of the Moon orbit!

    The TLI plane(which is what we see!) is merely the elliptical transfer to intersect WITH the lunar plane It can go in any direction on the screen as need be. English writes from left to right, so very often basic directional diagrams will do the same as our eyes are used to this, but it is not a requirement that makes any difference.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Thompson View Post
    For someone who has just accused others of 'judging beyond the question' you do like to leap to your own conclusions, don't you? How do you know that Grant has even been on and seen your question yet? You posed it some hours after he put up the initial drawings. Why conclude he is ignoring you?

    And as this is a forum with many members, no, you don't get to decide who responds to your posts, and you don't get to decalre the responses invalid because of who they come from.

    Once again, your spatial recognition skills are either stupendously bad, or you are just getting your kicks. As you're back, how about heading over to your other thread and dealing with the outstanding questions there?
    I have not accused him of such. I have said that I patiently awaited his response. I was asking why I was pressured to accept responses from other than the poster when it was a specific question to a specific poster in regard to his post. Why everyone feels they can speak for the poster is interesting at many levels.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,012
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have another question specifically for Grant Hutchinson in regards to his illustration. In your illustration you have reversed the lunar plane from the traditional perspective (As depicted in every other drawing in the world). Does it matter and if it doesn't then isn't the change I made your drawing equally applicable and if it is not then why not? What determines the correct reference?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Grant Hutchinson's drawing.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	417.8 KB 
ID:	23259
    Ever considered you can look at the earth from the opposite side as well? That earth rotates half a turn every 12 hours and the moon is on the opposite side of its orbit every 2 weeks?

    By the way:
    As depicted in every other drawing in the world
    Your statement is wrong
    Your statement is wrong
    Your statement is wrong
    Your statement is still wrong and this one was on Wikipedia for all to see
    And whoops you're wrong again

    You will find lots of pictures depicting it either way as you can draw it both ways, because you can look at earth from any direction and things rotate and orbit in space.
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2018-Apr-28 at 09:47 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,229
    Grant gave us a clear mathematical analysis of the radiation dose in post 168 in the other thread, and his posting of the orbital illustrations in three different viewing angles in this thread reinforces my confidence in what he said. All I have seen from Tim Finch in numerous posts since then is what I would consider smokeblowing. Even before then I could not see a coherent presentation that would show an unacceptable exposure to radiation. When he started asserting that a rocket is necessary to keep a spacecraft in orbit, and that the need for a midcourse correction was caused by the increasing dominance of the Moon's gravity during the latter part of the outbound journey, any perception that he had any credibility vanished into cyberspace.

    Let me add that it is about 10:45 PM at Grant's home in the UK, so I would not be quick to assume that he must be reading these threads right now.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Why everyone feels they can speak for the poster is interesting at many levels.
    No it is not. You make a ridiculous statement that everyone else can see and those who can be bothered with it choose to attempt to educate you! It doesn't require Grant to answer when the claim is so obviously wrong to everyone else.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perthshire, UK
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have another question specifically for Grant Hutchinson in regards to his illustration. In your illustration you have reversed the lunar plane
    It's not the lunar plane, but ignoring that...

    from the traditional perspective (As depicted in every other drawing in the world).
    Really? Every other drawing? Do you think that all representations of the earth must be centred on the Greenwich meridian? If so, how would anyone show a view of the Pacific?

    Does it matter
    No. All viewpoints, at any orientation are equally valid.

    and if it doesn't then isn't the change I made your drawing equally applicable
    If you intend the blue line to represent the Apollo orbit, then no.

    and if it is not then why not?
    Because it misrepresents the actual orientation of the orbit relative to the geomagnetic axis.

    What determines the correct reference?
    Correctly showing the relative orientations of the physical axis, geomagnetic axis, and Apollo orbit is a correct "reference". If you want to show the view from the other hemisphere, e.g. over the Atlantic, then you need to also adjust the inclination of the representation of the VAB to correctly reflect that. As I said, all orientations are equally valid, but you can't mix and match representations from different viewpoints and claim they're the same.
    Last edited by molesworth; 2018-Apr-28 at 09:50 PM.
    Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's alloted span...
    (Phoenician proverb)

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth View Post
    It's not the lunar plane, but ignoring that...


    Really? Every other drawing? Do you think that all representations of the earth must be centred on the Greenwich meridian? If so, how would anyone show a view of the Pacific?


    No. All viewpoints, at any orientation are equally valid.


    If you intend the blue line to represent the Apollo orbit, then no.


    Because it misrepresents the actual orientation of the orbit relative to the geomagnetic axis.


    Correctly showing the relative orientations of the physical axis, geomagnetic axis, and Apollo orbit is a correct "reference". If you want to show the view from the other hemisphere, e.g. over the Atlantic, then you need to also adjust the inclination of the representation of the VAB to correctly reflect that. As I said, all orientations are equally valid, but you can't mix and match representations from different viewpoints and claim they're the same.
    Now this is a specific question for Molesworth. If the other drawings showed the lunar plane in the proper perspective then why if you take what is essentially a mirror image would you not expect the lunar plane to reverse. How does that work in your mind?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Plane Reveversed.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	75.1 KB 
ID:	23260
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-28 at 10:06 PM.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Now this is a specific question for Molesworth. If the other drawings showed the lunar plane in the proper perspective then why if you take what is essentially a mirror image would you not expect the lunar plane to reverse. How does that work in your mind?
    It is not the lunar plane, it is the TLI plane.

    If you type that again, I shall report your post for deliberate trolling.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have another question specifically for Grant Hutchinson in regards to his illustration. In your illustration you have reversed the lunar plane from the traditional perspective (As depicted in every other drawing in the world). Does it matter and if it doesn't then isn't the change I made your drawing equally applicable and if it is not then why not? What determines the correct reference?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Grant Hutchinson's drawing.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	417.8 KB 
ID:	23259
    How did you calculate the lunar plane you added for that specific date and time?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    No it is not. You make a ridiculous statement that everyone else can see and those who can be bothered with it choose to attempt to educate you! It doesn't require Grant to answer when the claim is so obviously wrong to everyone else.
    So because you saw a question directed at someone else you feel an intrinsic need to respond? Do you answer other people's phone because they were ringing?

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
    How did you calculate the lunar plane you added for that specific date and time?
    What is with this need for calculations with everyone? I did as he did. I placed the ellipse at a diagonal across the 30 degree points of latitude.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,857
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Is Grant Hutchinson not capable of speaking for himself or all of you guys simply the same person using sock puppets?
    Acting as a moderator, accusing others of being sock puppets, hijacking a thread with more of your hoax beliefs when you abandoned the thread you had (and declared you were gone forever) and just being completely disruptive. If you continue these behaviors when you suspension is over, you will be banned.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perthshire, UK
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Now this is a specific question for Molesworth. If the other drawings showed the lunar plane in the proper perspective then why if you take what is essentially a mirror image would you not expect the lunar plane to reverse. How does that work in your mind?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Plane Reveversed.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	75.1 KB 
ID:	23260
    If that is a representation of the lunar plane at a specific point in time relative to the earth, then, yes, those two diagrams could be taken as valid views from opposite hemispheres.

    However, and it is an important point, they do not represent the angle of the Apollo 11 orbit relative to the geomagnetic axis in either hemisphere. You continue to confuse the lunar plane and the spacecraft orbital plane, when they are not the same thing. And you continue to misrepresent the latter on almost every diagram you post.
    Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's alloted span...
    (Phoenician proverb)

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    What is with this need for calculations with everyone? I did as he did. I placed the ellipse at a diagonal across the 30 degree points of latitude.
    Why?

    You decided the original line must represent the lunar plane -- even though according to you it is in the wrong place to be the lunar plane!

    Once again, how are you determining where the lunar plane should be?

    Heck, let's try a simpler question. What is the date and time for which your depiction of the lunar plane will be correct?

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    So because you saw a question directed at someone else you feel an intrinsic need to respond?
    No, did you read what I just wrote, it was perfectly simple to understand? I know you won't respond any time soon, but you will be reading this. I replied because I wanted to and because you were hopelessly wrong yet again. Even though you have had replies correcting your astonishingly poor observation, you STILL ignore them!

    Do you answer other people's phone because they were ringing?
    Even your analogies are rubbish.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,857
    Might I suggest we ignore TimFinch's hijacking of this thread and his questions (he certainly is not going to be answering them any time soon) and go back to the original intent of this thread; of collecting useful diagrams and visuals of the missions.

    This is just a suggestion - if he wish to chase after TimFinch's idea... have fun.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    What is with this need for calculations with everyone?
    These are the ones you are incapable of understanding, let alone supplying.

    I did as he did.
    Not quite. He created an image, you just cut and pasted something.

    I placed the ellipse at a diagonal across the 30 degree points of latitude.
    And didn't have a clue why that ellipse makes a 40 degree angle to the magnetic equator when it leaves in the opposite direction

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,638
    I thought I told you guys to just play quietly and keep the house tidy while I was out? Sheesh.


    Yes, everyone but TimFinch understood correctly that the Apollo transfer orbit goes nowhere near the poles. The first two images make that pretty clear, I thought.

    For reference, here's another image with my lunar orbit marked in blue, showing that (as people have pointed out) the transfer orbit is not in the same plane as the lunar orbit.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo-Orion4.png 
Views:	134 
Size:	351.8 KB 
ID:	23261

    My model doesn't include a plane change at TLI. I wanted to cut things down to the bare minimum that showed the important detail - so EPO is a circular orbit corresponding to a direct eastward launch from the Cape, the Apollo transfer orbit is in the same plane as EPO, as is the Orion orbit, and the Moon is sitting in the ecliptic plane to make the sums easier. I also haven't included the perigee lowering that was carried out for ETF1, which actually had a perigee within the Earth during its second orbit, to test high-speed re-entry.
    With a bit of work I could add these details, but I think they would complicate things without improving the explanatory power - In contrast to the usual use of Celestia I'm just trying to draw a good diagram, rather than create a realistic depiction.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    Grant you did good, very nice spherical illustrations of what we have been discussing

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    A drawing with of TLI plane would be great since I don't know the capability of Cellesta, is this possible to plot in say a different color on you first image?
    Last edited by bknight; 2018-Apr-28 at 11:31 PM. Reason: Changed description to drawing with

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    His intent is, like the rest of us, for you to interpret the diagrams correctly.

    The three diagrams speak for themselves. It is quite apparent that, when seen as a 3-dimensional path, the Apollo is on a path of about 30 degrees inclination from the equator.

    It never went near the poles. It only appears to be "near" the poles because the perspective has foreshortened the Apollo's path.

    Here it is, spelled out in detail:
    Oh my goodness. I went to bed thinking that Grant's illustrations provided a beautiful, simple demonstration that no-one could possibly misinterpret & then wake up to see that TimFinch has still managed to cock it up. I honestly cannot believe he was in the navy (or if he was, then for very long) when his spatial awareness is non-existent - I wouldn't be confident he could navigate across a canal.

    I could not comprehend why he thought the trajectory took Apollo anywhere near the pole, but I think you are right - amusingly he has taken the foreshortening caused by displaying a 3-D track of an inclined plane in a 2-D depiction as representing an arc over the pole. Thank you for your amended diagram, but I fear that Tim's spatial awareness is so inept that it still won't sink in. Either that, or he knows exactly what the Grant's diagram showed and is just deliberately stirring the pot.

    I'd call it sophistry, but it's not even worthy of that.
    Last edited by AGN Fuel; 2018-Apr-28 at 11:41 PM.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,638
    I thought I'd depict the geometry of an Atlantic TLI, as used by Apollo 17, just for completeness. The departure in this case is south and east, so the transfer orbit loops "under" the "opposite side" of the VAB from the region crossed by the other Apollos. So it exploits the same tilt, but in the other direction.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo6.png 
Views:	80 
Size:	355.5 KB 
ID:	23263
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo7.png 
Views:	96 
Size:	358.2 KB 
ID:	23265
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo8.png 
Views:	79 
Size:	47.6 KB 
ID:	23264

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •