definition of "rendevous"?

"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:20:47 -0400, mike flugennock
wrote:

Y'know, Walter Schirra provides a plain, elegant, no-bull**** definition
of "rendezvous" taking in things like speed, distance, orbital mechanics
and the control of a pilot and not just -- iirc he commented re the
dual-Soyuz flight -- "good shooting from the pad", with the two craft
sorta kinda passing each other in visual range. Basically, Schirra says
that if you can control your own craft and adjust your orbit to the
point where your distance and relative speed are close enough to your
target that you can "go back to playing the game of steering a car or a
bike", you've achieved rendezvous (obviously paraphrasing the hell out
of Wally, here). (from "Shoulders Of Titans", iirc)

Yes, but an editor at Wikipedia objects that as being the "US"
definition, and that the USSR did rendezvous under their definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...s%2C_1957-1969

Yes, but as President Lincoln pointed out, calling the tail of a dog a leg,
doesn't give the dog 5 legs.


---
Replace you know what by j to email

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:16:28 -0400, Jud McCranie wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:

Hey, I wrote a goodly chunk of their entry on Giant Squids, I'll have
you know. :-)

Venture over to "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations".

You should have known better... now we have a
Wikipedia article on "Apollo Moon Landing Giant
Squid Sightings"...

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Chuck Stewart wrote:

You should have known better... now we have a
Wikipedia article on "Apollo Moon Landing Giant
Squid Sightings"...




Can you prove there AREN'T Giant Squids on the Moon?
No, I thought not!
Craters? Suction cup scars!
Dark side of the moon? Ink!
Note that "Moon" is very close to being an anagram of "Nemo"!
Here's my evidence!:
http://www.ablot.com/images/squid.jpg
http://www.artuproar.com/uploads/ski...ews/squids.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...anet-sized.jpg
http://tolweb.org/Selenoteuthis_scintillans/19734

Pat

mike flugennock wrote:
Jud McCranie wrote:
Is there a website that gives an authoritative definition of
"rendezvous" in space flight? There is some contention on this issue
at the wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s%2C_1957-1969

Y'know, Walter Schirra provides a plain, elegant, no-bull**** definition
of "rendezvous" taking in things like speed, distance, orbital mechanics
and the control of a pilot and not just -- iirc he commented re the
dual-Soyuz flight -- "good shooting from the pad", with the two craft
sorta kinda passing each other in visual range. Basically, Schirra says
that if you can control your own craft and adjust your orbit to the
point where your distance and relative speed are close enough to your
target that you can "go back to playing the game of steering a car or a
bike", you've achieved rendezvous (obviously paraphrasing the hell out
of Wally, here). (from "Shoulders Of Titans", iirc)


Wally was always my favorite!

Eric


--

.

"Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"

--grateful dead.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:15:22 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote:

Is there a website that gives an authoritative definition of

Is it fair to say that the Russian claim of Rendezvous on Vostok 3 and
4 was propaganda, or did they really believe that they had performed a
rendezvous?
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Jud McCranie wrote:

Is it fair to say that the Russian claim of Rendezvous on Vostok 3 and
4 was propaganda, or did they really believe that they had performed a
rendezvous?

Pure propaganda. They had no know that drifting past each other at a
rapid clip with a closest approach of 5 km is not rendezvous. The leap
to stationkeeping and, ultimately, docking is far too great.

--
Dave Michelson

Jud McCranie wrote:

Is it fair to say that the Russian claim of Rendezvous on Vostok 3 and
4 was propaganda, or did they really believe that they had performed a
rendezvous?

Oops. My previous reply had a major typo. Let's try that again....

Pure propaganda. They must have known that drifting past each other at a
rapid clip with a closest approach of 5 km is not rendezvous. The leap
to stationkeeping and, ultimately, docking is far too great.

--
Dave Michelson

Dave Michelson wrote:


Pure propaganda. They had no know that drifting past each other at a
rapid clip with a closest approach of 5 km is not rendezvous. The leap
to stationkeeping and, ultimately, docking is far too great.


Those two launches scared the **** out of us. They were able to get a
new rocket on the pad and launch it within a day, and were able to place
it within the same orbit at very same the identical velocity - so that
the two Vostok's drift were measured in a few _feet_ per second with no
orbital correction on the part of the spacecraft themselves.

Pat

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:35:10 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:15:22 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote:

Is there a website that gives an authoritative definition of

Is it fair to say that the Russian claim of Rendezvous on Vostok 3 and
4 was propaganda, or did they really believe that they had performed a
rendezvous?

....Guys, call it what it was - a calculated near-miss.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Pat Flannery wrote:

Those two launches scared the **** out of us. They were able to get a
new rocket on the pad and launch it within a day,

Mark Wade's description gives the impression that they were launched
from separate pads and that the flight had been delayed until the second
pad was in service.

http://www.astronautix.com/details/vosok393.htm

"The flight was supposed to occur in March, but following various
delays, one of the two Vostok pads was damaged in the explosion of the
booster of the third Zenit-2 reconnsat in May. Repairs were not
completed until August."

and were able to place it within the same orbit at very same the
identical velocity - so that the two Vostok's drift were measured in
a few _feet_ per second with no orbital correction on the part of the
spacecraft themselves.

Agreed. Damn fine shooting by the rocket artillery. But, by the end of
the flight, the two craft were about 2800 km apart.

--
Dave Michelson