This reminds me of an Armstrong quote, which I'll paraphrase because I don't recall his exact words.
A reporter asked him what he'd be doing if the LM Ascent Engine failed to ignite and he had a half hour of oxygen remaining. He replied that he'd be spending the time trying to fix the engine.
Anyway, I notice the BBC article cut the speech, so I thought I'd post the full version from the LA times here.
Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace. These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldr in, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice. These two men are laying down their lives in m ankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding. They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown. In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man. In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood. Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts. For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.
The problem with these stories is that, while making great television, the're bogus. Everyone who's gone through cosmonaut training has been accounted for, as has all rocket launches from the USSR in that time frame. There's simply nothing that could have lofted the cosmonauts into space, and no cosmonaut that could have been lofted.
Radio communication was ongoing for several seconds after the explosion and NASA has refused to release the tapes.
This is simply false. When the orbiter failed structurally, there were no reactant tanks to feed the fuel cells that power the orbiter. No power, and there's no way that Challenger could have sent back anything. (As it was, the final frames of telemetry were not send back via radio, but instead extracted directly from the magnetic core memories used by the computers.)
I don't believe the CSM/SM was in direct contact with the LM while the LM was on the lunar surface. Instead, communications had to be relayed from the moon to the earth and back.
(For the vast majority of time in orbit, the CSM/SM would be beneath the LM's horizon.)
*Sniff* brings a tear to my eye remembering the scene where the project manager just stands there looking at the first one, realizing after all those years it wasn't coming back.
That scene, if we're talking about the same one, was LM 5. (The first one to land on the moon.)
Apollo 9's LM burned up in the earth's atmosphere during (IIRC) the early 80s. 10's LM is in solar orbit, daring someone to find it. (Good luck.) The rest impacted on the moon, although 11 and 12 lost power before it happened, so NORAD's official catalog sentimentally lists them as still up in lunar orbit.
From the Earth to the Moon is a great series, and I highly recommend it to everyone here. It's like they extended Apollo 13 to cover the entire campaign. (Indeed, many of the sets and props were reused.)
and it's "LLM" not "LM" (LLM stands for Lunar Landing Module)
No, it's not. It's LM (Lunar Module), formerly known as LEM (Lunar Excursion Module). I don't think that LLM was ever used as a name for the LM, at least officially.
Uh, orbits degrade because of atmospheric drag. No atmosphere on the moon.
Orbits also degrade due to the mascons on the moon. It's impossible to get a truly stable lunar orbit. Every object in lunar orbit will either be ejected into earth or solar orbit, or will crash on the moon. Usually the latter.
This is a choice between waiting for an unpowered and useless craft to crash pointlessly on the moon, or for the craft to go out in a blaze of glory, with a 10% chance of getting reasonably important science at the end.
Which choice is better is left as an exercise for the reader.
... isn't going to happen. While the first one was planned for 1986, after the Challenger that was cancelled. Space Launch Complex 6 was mothballed soon after, and IIRC it's currently being converted to launch the EELV rockets.
This is not just an encryption contest, and much more is at stake.
Not really. The problem here is that it's difficult to detect earth-like signals from other planets. (In other star systems.) According to the Sci.astro FAQ, we couldn't detect a TV signal at a distance of 0.01 light years. (I'ts interesting that most of the signals that we transmit that _can_ be detected at that range we'd consider unimportant in a SETI search.)
While this can probably detect an alien race transmitting a "beacon" meant for us to find, the chances of us finding earth-like leakage is minimal.
Re: Never any source code for these things. Why?
on
SETI@Home For Linux
·
· Score: 2
How come they never release the source for any of these "idle CPU" clients/projects?
They want to be sure that noone runs bogus clients. In something like this, one bad result could destroy the whole project. (For example, supposed the d.net client returned a no rather than a yes when it found the RC-foo key.)
This isn't to say I completely agree... I'd probably prefer a system where a server checks out open-source clients to see if the're not bogus. (Throws some know problem sets at it every once in a while, and sees that it answers correctly.)
I hear a lot of debate on how Dvorak improves typing speed for typists. But I'm not a typist. I'm a geek and a decent percentage of my time is spent coding, with all the typing of symbols entailed. (I also don't really have much desire for raw speed... but I'd prefer a more comfortable keyboard.)
So, the question I put to the dvorak users out there is how comfortable (in terms of finger movement, I guess) is programming? How does the placement of things like parenthesis, braces, and the semicolin compare to that of the qwerty keyboard.
(Hm... I wonder, as an aside, if C was designed, in part, to use the characters that were conveniently placed on the qwerty keyboard.)
The only freedom of conventional open-source software which COSS modifies is the freedom to use the software without charge, and this freedom is not listed in the conditions for using the Open Source trademark.
Hm.. an interesting argument. However, I think that this is against the spirit of the OSD, as well as perhaps against clause 6. (Or maybe not... I'd like to see what others that know better think.) I think also, however, the right to use software once one has it is implicit.
This probably wouldn't work IRL. The overhead in managing this sort of thing would be killer in large projects, and people would simply rewrite a small one rather than bother paying.
Lastly, we have to ask if we wish to take a step back to a land of software haves and have-nots. This seems like just another form of somewhat less closed software to me.
Hm... there are a few issues that I have with RMS's demand that it be called a GNU/Linux system. The big one is that not all Linux systems are based on the GNU system.
While all Linux systems contain the vital GNU utils (like, for example, gcc), not all of them were derived from the GNU system as envisioned by RMS. (This GNU system also came with other free software, like BSD stuff.) While, AFAIK, Debian was based of GNU, I don't believe any of the other distros were. They may have wound up containing most of the software from GNU, but this software was easily available from other sources. As a result, some distros are GNU/Linux, while others are Linux + GNU + BSD et al.
Slashdot Mirror
A reporter asked him what he'd be doing if the LM Ascent Engine failed to ignite and he had a half hour of oxygen remaining. He replied that he'd be spending the time trying to fix the engine.
Anyway, I notice the BBC article cut the speech, so I thought I'd post the full version from the LA times here.
Check out "Phatoms of Space" (Scroll down a bit) in the Encyclopedia Astronautica
This is simply false. When the orbiter failed structurally, there were no reactant tanks to feed the fuel cells that power the orbiter. No power, and there's no way that Challenger could have sent back anything. (As it was, the final frames of telemetry were not send back via radio, but instead extracted directly from the magnetic core memories used by the computers.)
(For the vast majority of time in orbit, the CSM/SM would be beneath the LM's horizon.)
*Sniff* brings a tear to my eye remembering the scene where the project manager just stands there looking at the first one, realizing after all those years it wasn't coming back.
That scene, if we're talking about the same one, was LM 5. (The first one to land on the moon.)
Apollo 9's LM burned up in the earth's atmosphere during (IIRC) the early 80s. 10's LM is in solar orbit, daring someone to find it. (Good luck.) The rest impacted on the moon, although 11 and 12 lost power before it happened, so NORAD's official catalog sentimentally lists them as still up in lunar orbit.
From the Earth to the Moon is a great series, and I highly recommend it to everyone here. It's like they extended Apollo 13 to cover the entire campaign. (Indeed, many of the sets and props were reused.)
No, it's not. It's LM (Lunar Module), formerly known as LEM (Lunar Excursion Module). I don't think that LLM was ever used as a name for the LM, at least officially.
Check out Chariots for Apollo by NASA history, and S/Cat Remembered, a site by one of the guys who worked on building the thing.
Orbits also degrade due to the mascons on the moon. It's impossible to get a truly stable lunar orbit. Every object in lunar orbit will either be ejected into earth or solar orbit, or will crash on the moon. Usually the latter.
This is a choice between waiting for an unpowered and useless craft to crash pointlessly on the moon, or for the craft to go out in a blaze of glory, with a 10% chance of getting reasonably important science at the end.
Which choice is better is left as an exercise for the reader.
Well, xkeycaps lets you type at a window, so this shouldn't be too hard to implement.
... isn't going to happen. While the first one was planned for 1986, after the Challenger that was cancelled. Space Launch Complex 6 was mothballed soon after, and IIRC it's currently being converted to launch the EELV rockets.
Sorry.
Not really. The problem here is that it's difficult to detect earth-like signals from other planets. (In other star systems.) According to the Sci.astro FAQ, we couldn't detect a TV signal at a distance of 0.01 light years. (I'ts interesting that most of the signals that we transmit that _can_ be detected at that range we'd consider unimportant in a SETI search.)
While this can probably detect an alien race transmitting a "beacon" meant for us to find, the chances of us finding earth-like leakage is minimal.
How come they never release the source for any of these "idle CPU" clients/projects?
They want to be sure that noone runs bogus clients. In something like this, one bad result could destroy the whole project. (For example, supposed the d.net client returned a no rather than a yes when it found the RC-foo key.)
This isn't to say I completely agree... I'd probably prefer a system where a server checks out open-source clients to see if the're not bogus. (Throws some know problem sets at it every once in a while, and sees that it answers correctly.)
I hear a lot of debate on how Dvorak improves typing speed for typists. But I'm not a typist. I'm a geek and a decent percentage of my time is spent coding, with all the typing of symbols entailed. (I also don't really have much desire for raw speed... but I'd prefer a more comfortable keyboard.)
So, the question I put to the dvorak users out there is how comfortable (in terms of finger movement, I guess) is programming? How does the placement of things like parenthesis, braces, and the semicolin compare to that of the qwerty keyboard.
(Hm... I wonder, as an aside, if C was designed, in part, to use the characters that were conveniently placed on the qwerty keyboard.)
However, the OSD prevents "Discrimination against fields of endeavour". I'm pretty sure charging for commercial use would count.
The only freedom of conventional open-source software which COSS modifies is the freedom to use the software without charge, and this freedom is not listed in the conditions for using the Open Source trademark.
Hm.. an interesting argument. However, I think that this is against the spirit of the OSD, as well as perhaps against clause 6. (Or maybe not... I'd like to see what others that know better think.) I think also, however, the right to use software once one has it is implicit.
This probably wouldn't work IRL. The overhead in managing this sort of thing would be killer in large projects, and people would simply rewrite a small one rather than bother paying.
Lastly, we have to ask if we wish to take a step back to a land of software haves and have-nots. This seems like just another form of somewhat less closed software to me.
Hm... there are a few issues that I have with RMS's demand that it be called a GNU/Linux system. The big one is that not all Linux systems are based on the GNU system.
While all Linux systems contain the vital GNU utils (like, for example, gcc), not all of them were derived from the GNU system as envisioned by RMS. (This GNU system also came with other free software, like BSD stuff.) While, AFAIK, Debian was based of GNU, I don't believe any of the other distros were. They may have wound up containing most of the software from GNU, but this software was easily available from other sources. As a result, some distros are GNU/Linux, while others are Linux + GNU + BSD et al.