Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 97

Thread: Some Apollo-Orion graphics that might be useful

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,650

    Some Apollo-Orion graphics that might be useful

    I post this because it might be of interest, though it's not telling anyone here anything new, I'm sure.
    The recent Apollo "Hoax" thread reminded me of a(nother) fundamental misunderstanding that hoax believers have about the Van Allen Belts. They cite the high radiation dose encountered by the Orion EFT1 as if it indicates some sort of barrier that Apollo also had to pass through.
    So we explain that Orion was deliberately aimed into the high intensity region, while Apollo was routed to avoid it. The most common explanation I've seen offered is that the inclination of Orion's orbit was different from Apollo's, but I think the better explanation is one of apogee - Apollo's departure orbit was highly eccentric, with an (unperturbed) apogee out beside the moon, whereas Orion's apogee was tuned to lie in the inner VAB at about 5800km altitude.
    Since I had Celestia fired up for that other thread, with a depiction of a generic Apollo departure trajectory, I thought I'd set up a fictitious Orion EFT1 trajectory, too, with exactly the same inclination and perigee - the only difference between my generic Apollo and my fictitious Orion being the height of the apogee.
    And it turns out that's all it takes to demonstrate how different Orion and Apollo were.
    Here's an image (with a layout familiar to the folks who attended that other thread), looking towards the Earth from above the typical Apollo Trans-Lunar Injection location, the Pacific Ocean, with the typical orbital inclination around 30 degrees that results from the latitude of Cape Canaveral/Kennedy. At the time of TLI, the moon would be on the far side of the Earth from our viewpoint. The Earth's magnetic field is sketched in orange, with a couple of particle trajectories roughly depicting the inner VAB (the magnetic field and particle trajectories come from an add-on created by Celestia user Cham):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo-Orion1.png 
Views:	179 
Size:	454.3 KB 
ID:	23248
    And we point out to hoax believers that the tilt of the Earth's magnetic field, combined with the inclination of the departure trajectory, conspire to keep Apollo clear of all but the fringes of the VAB.

    If we look down on the orbital planes, we can see Apollo swinging wide, and my Orion depicted following a tighter ellipse superimposed on the inner VAB:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo-Orion2.png 
Views:	172 
Size:	492.6 KB 
ID:	23249

    And if we take a diagonal view, we can see how Apollo lofts clear of the VAB, while Orion dives right through the centre:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo-Orion3.png 
Views:	174 
Size:	456.8 KB 
ID:	23250

    Essentially, Orion's orbit has a node on the geomagnetic equator that lies within the VAB, so that it passes right through the high intensity region; whereas Apollo has a node that lies out near the moon somewhere, so it never encounters the core of the VAB.

    To that, we can add the factor of time. Because Apollo is near the perigee of a very eccentric orbit as it brushes the fringes of the VAB, it is moving quickly; whereas Orion passes through the core of the inner VAB at apogee, when it is moving most slowly.

    Again, I emphasis that my Apollo orbit is generic, and my Orion orbit resembles the real orbit only in terms of its approximate shape - but I think these images are a reasonably powerful way of pointing out why Orion can't be used to reason about Apollo.

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,984
    Agree, Grant. These are excellent depictions of the difference. Thank you for taking the time to create and present them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,343
    For me the diagonal view is especially useful in visualizing how Apollo missions simply avoided most of the VAB. Why is such a simple concept so difficult to understand?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,425
    Because understanding it requires admitting you're wrong.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    Great illustration, but still with a roughly circular LEO the Apollo TLI changes plane to allow for the new apogee along with avoiding the most intense portion of the VARB. Thanks
    Grant

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I post this because it might be of interest, though it's not telling anyone here anything new, I'm sure.
    The recent Apollo "Hoax" thread reminded me of a(nother) fundamental misunderstanding that hoax believers have about the Van Allen Belts. They cite the high radiation dose encountered by the Orion EFT1 as if it indicates some sort of barrier that Apollo also had to pass through.
    So we explain that Orion was deliberately aimed into the high intensity region, while Apollo was routed to avoid it. The most common explanation I've seen offered is that the inclination of Orion's orbit was different from Apollo's, but I think the better explanation is one of apogee - Apollo's departure orbit was highly eccentric, with an (unperturbed) apogee out beside the moon, whereas Orion's apogee was tuned to lie in the inner VAB at about 5800km altitude.
    Since I had Celestia fired up for that other thread, with a depiction of a generic Apollo departure trajectory, I thought I'd set up a fictitious Orion EFT1 trajectory, too, with exactly the same inclination and perigee - the only difference between my generic Apollo and my fictitious Orion being the height of the apogee.
    And it turns out that's all it takes to demonstrate how different Orion and Apollo were.
    Here's an image (with a layout familiar to the folks who attended that other thread), looking towards the Earth from above the typical Apollo Trans-Lunar Injection location, the Pacific Ocean, with the typical orbital inclination around 30 degrees that results from the latitude of Cape Canaveral/Kennedy. At the time of TLI, the moon would be on the far side of the Earth from our viewpoint. The Earth's magnetic field is sketched in orange, with a couple of particle trajectories roughly depicting the inner VAB (the magnetic field and particle trajectories come from an add-on created by Celestia user Cham):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo-Orion1.png 
Views:	179 
Size:	454.3 KB 
ID:	23248
    And we point out to hoax believers that the tilt of the Earth's magnetic field, combined with the inclination of the departure trajectory, conspire to keep Apollo clear of all but the fringes of the VAB.

    If we look down on the orbital planes, we can see Apollo swinging wide, and my Orion depicted following a tighter ellipse superimposed on the inner VAB:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo-Orion2.png 
Views:	172 
Size:	492.6 KB 
ID:	23249

    And if we take a diagonal view, we can see how Apollo lofts clear of the VAB, while Orion dives right through the centre:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo-Orion3.png 
Views:	174 
Size:	456.8 KB 
ID:	23250

    Essentially, Orion's orbit has a node on the geomagnetic equator that lies within the VAB, so that it passes right through the high intensity region; whereas Apollo has a node that lies out near the moon somewhere, so it never encounters the core of the VAB.

    To that, we can add the factor of time. Because Apollo is near the perigee of a very eccentric orbit as it brushes the fringes of the VAB, it is moving quickly; whereas Orion passes through the core of the inner VAB at apogee, when it is moving most slowly.

    Again, I emphasis that my Apollo orbit is generic, and my Orion orbit resembles the real orbit only in terms of its approximate shape - but I think these images are a reasonably powerful way of pointing out why Orion can't be used to reason about Apollo.

    Grant Hutchison
    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?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    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?
    Look at the first image, bypassing the More dense portions of the VARB, as you have been told. And no it wasn't over the north pole.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Thank you for your timely response bknight but the question was for Grant Hutchinson.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Thank you for your timely response bknight but the question was for Grant Hutchinson.
    That's odd I didn't see it directed toward Grant, but none the less.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    43
    Grant, these are superb images once more. The 3 perspectives compile beautifully to understand the 3 spherical coordinates at play. Thanks for posting, and once more saved to my hard drive.
    Last edited by Baron Greenback; 2018-Apr-28 at 06:50 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    That's odd I didn't see it directed toward Grant, but none the less.
    It was in response to his post and not yours but no harm no foul. I am seeking to understand Grant Hutchinson's intent.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    It was in response to his post and not yours but no harm no foul. I am seeking to understand Grant Hutchinson's intent.
    My assumption is that Grant is working to clarify something that most of us on this board already have and agree on the general form of. That is, a looping elliptical trajectory that moves the spacecraft rapidly North in order to bypass the majority of the VARB. It is always nice to see new illustrations, and there are details and nuances few of us are deeply familiar with and thus we enjoy learning about.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    487
    Grant,

    Would you mind posting the SSCs that you used for the trajectories?
    Selden

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,127
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I am seeking to understand Grant Hutchinson's intent.
    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:

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	apollo-path.png 
Views:	57 
Size:	207.6 KB 
ID:	23256  
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2018-Apr-28 at 07:41 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Hi 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.
    Is Grant Hutchinson not capable of speaking for himself or all of you guys simply the same person using sock puppets?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    45
    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?
    This site is not your personal arena. The fact that anyone can answer anyone else's query, or comment thereof is just another part of reality we ALL have to deal with.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    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?
    In my opinion Grant Hutchinson spoke for himself, and very well. He spent not insignificant time composing his statement (that is, in researching and creating the images he posted).

    You can't dance about architecture or wire a sonnet. The reality he is working to describe with more clarity is a three-dimensional one, and is best captured in either images or math. Many people have expressed appreciation and, by implication, their understanding of his vision.

    Perhaps you should give it another look?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
    In my opinion Grant Hutchinson spoke for himself, and very well. He spent not insignificant time composing his statement (that is, in researching and creating the images he posted).

    You can't dance about architecture or wire a sonnet. The reality he is working to describe with more clarity is a three-dimensional one, and is best captured in either images or math. Many people have expressed appreciation and, by implication, their understanding of his vision.

    Perhaps you should give it another look?
    Nothing wrong with my eyes. You do not know the mind of Grant Hutchinson and are not in a position to speak for him ( I think...). I am patient and I will await his response.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Nothing wrong with my eyes. You do not know the mind of Grant Hutchinson and are not in a position to speak for him ( I think...). I am patient and I will await his response.
    There is something appallingly inept about what you understand from a picture. It is going nowhere near the poles! It is ascending along a curved trajectory around about 40 degrees. Your spatial awareness is frighteningly poor.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
    In my opinion Grant Hutchinson spoke for himself, and very well. He spent not insignificant time composing his statement (that is, in researching and creating the images he posted).

    You can't dance about architecture or wire a sonnet. The reality he is working to describe with more clarity is a three-dimensional one, and is best captured in either images or math. Many people have expressed appreciation and, by implication, their understanding of his vision.

    Perhaps you should give it another look?
    I concur with your opinion. And if a horse refuses to drink...well...what's a rider to do?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,127
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Nothing wrong with my eyes. You do not know the mind of Grant Hutchinson and are not in a position to speak for him ( I think...). I am patient and I will await his response.
    While you re waiting, acquaint yourself with the diagram in post 14.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Nothing wrong with my eyes. You do not know the mind of Grant Hutchinson and are not in a position to speak for him ( I think...). I am patient and I will await his response.
    To the contrary, I understand what he posted. You, apparently, do not.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    3
    Had a look as well and seems pretty obvious that the trajectories are not passing over the poles.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    There is something appallingly inept about what you understand from a picture. It is going nowhere near the poles! It is ascending along a curved trajectory around about 40 degrees. Your spatial awareness is frighteningly poor.
    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?
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-28 at 08:10 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,127
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have made no statements about my perception or beliefs.
    Yes. You have.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    So you insist that Apollo's trajectory took it over the poles as depicted in your diagonal illustration?
    You have misunderstood the diagrams, thinking erroneously that it shows a path going over the poles, and then falsely attributed that assertion to Grant.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    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?
    Perhaps it is merely your personal idiom, but your reply was much less "asking for clarification" and much more "making an unsupported interpretation." I refer specifically to:

    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    So you insist that Apollo's trajectory took it over the poles as depicted in your diagonal illustration?
    This interpretation is peculiar to you. Not one other person has misread Grant's images as depicting that. I do agree; if it was unclear, it would be up to the original poster to explain. So far, no poster in any of three different threads has found that image to be unclear. If I were to say, "the Earth rotates" and you were to ask, "why do you claim the Earth is a giant squid?" am I the only person who could attempt to alleviate your confusion on that matter?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
    My assumption is that Grant is working to clarify something that most of us on this board already have and agree on the general form of. That is,
    Here it is, spelled out in detail:
    Thanks for taking the time to create this image. The projection really does enhance the good work already posted by Grant Hutchinson.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,852
    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?
    Do you understand what's going on with perspective, when viewing that trajectory from different angles?

    Specifically:
    * When you wrote "over the poles", do you mean the left of these pictures, and do you think that actually shows something above the pole?
    * Do you now see that that's showing something that's not "over the poles" but actually far behind?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	timfinchspatialawareness.png 
Views:	88 
Size:	370.0 KB 
ID:	23257  
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    So am I to understand a specific question to an individual does not have to be responded to and the poster can ignore the question? Is that the way it works today because it was different yesterday?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,728
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    So am I to understand a specific question to an individual does not have to be responded to and the poster can ignore the question? Is that the way it works today because it was different yesterday?
    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?

Posting Permissions

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