definition of "rendevous"?

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 03:49:39 -0500, OM wrote:

"Unacceptable" is defined as taking CT's side for any
reason.

That's unacceptable.

If "CT" were to say that catgirls were
cute must we perforce all disagree with
that conclusion?

Berate Greg for his badly flawed logic,
not for the source of it. If upon having
the logic discredited Greg then goes
back to that source for more of the
same... then we'd know that we have a
real problem.

(No, one mental mistep is not a real
problem)

Don't just berate Greg, out-argue him...
if you can...

OM

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

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:27:02 GMT, Chuck Stewart
wrote:

That's unacceptable.

If "CT" were to say that catgirls were
cute must we perforce all disagree with
that conclusion?

....Chuckles, it's like this: If ~CT screams some of his babble while
getting gang raped in the showers down in Killfile Hell, does it
really *matter* whether he said something valid? It's the falling tree
in the woods argument, meaning if it ain't heard, what difference does
it make whether it made a sound or not?

Don't just berate Greg, out-argue him...
if you can...

....There's no need. He ****ed up by responding to the dip**** rather
than leaving him in Killfile Hell for all eternity where he belonged.
No ifs, ands or buts. End of story.

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

From Jud McCranie:
wrote:

I don't see the necessity for requiring control. So I would leave that
aspect as a qualifier:

Two of Saturn's moons are in close orbits and pass close to each other
from time to time. Is this a rendezvous? I think not.

A sailor can fall asleep in a boat and wake up to find that it has
drifted into the dock. This still qualifies as a docking maneuver even
though there was no control exerted whatsoever. Asteroids can
coalesce. I don't see how that is qualitatively different than
rendezvous&docking (other than the fact that they aren't vehicles). It
is conceivable that two spacecraft can drift ballistically and come
into contact and remain that way. It is clear to me that such
spacecraft have attained a rendezvous and docking.

So what of two moons? Since they don't maintain a close position, then
I would agree that it is not a rendezvous.


~ CT

On 4 Sep 2006 03:58:29 -0700, "Stuf4"
wrote:

So what of two moons? Since they don't maintain a close position, then
I would agree that it is not a rendezvous.

Vostok 3 and 4 didn't maintain a close position either.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 04:46:12 -0500, OM wrote:

Chuck Stewart wrote:

Don't just berate Greg, out-argue him...
if you can...

...There's no need.

Ah, you can't?

Oh well...

OM

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

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:59:46 GMT, Chuck Stewart
wrote:

...There's no need.

Ah, you can't?

....No, that's not the case. You know me better than that. Sometimes
it's just best to bitchslap someone who's forgotten he's not supposed
to **** around with a troll like that, and hope for the best his ass
gets woken up and he realizes that he's ****ed up. And besides,
arguing with him implies that he might be right. In this case, because
he was giving CT even one iota of the benefit of the doubt that he's
not a worthless troll deserving only of derision and killfiling, he
was clearly in the wrong. Period.

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

From Jud McCranie:
wrote:

So what of two moons? Since they don't maintain a close position, then
I would agree that it is not a rendezvous.

Vostok 3 and 4 didn't maintain a close position either.

This is the essence of the definition at hand: specifying how close it
is to be close enough. Wally seems to present a solid case that Vostok
3 and 4 were in different orbital planes, but what he didn't tell you
is that Gemini 7 and 6 were in different orbital planes as well, if you
examine it with enough precision. This delta drives the need for
station keeping.

It is conceivable that Vostok 4 be launched into a perfect match of
Vostok 3's orbit and they maintain an extremely close position to each
other. Had this happened, we can expect that there would be no
controversy about achieving this 'first'. So for anyone who rejects
the notion that Vostok 3 and 4 did the first rendezvous, they obviously
have some unspecified cutoff point.

Or conversely, imagine that Gemini 76 occurred first, but Wally failed
to close in on the target for whatever reason and for the entire
mission got no closer than a few miles. It is easy for me to imagine
how quickly NASA would jump at the proclamation that this was the first
orbital rendezvous!


~ CT