|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message .. . Friend of mine developed an undead game... any battle role was a d4, d6, d10 and I think a d20. All had their place and it made combat fairly quick and easy. There is a simple miniatures set of rules "Gentlemen of France, Fire First", about warfare in the age of reason (and a companion set for pirate actions "Limeys and Slimeys") that uses different dice. The better trained a unit, the larger the die it rolls for inflicting casualties. The better moral a unit has, the larger the die it rolls to keep from routing. It uses d4, d6, d10, d12, d16, and d20. (Yes, someone makes a d16). I think that only the Maison du Roi gets to use the d20. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Hey, folks--I wasn't sure where to post this one because there's been so much blathering, but how about this for a question: You do realize the first three groups of astronauts were recruited from within the military, and by that I mean they received orders to show up at such-and-so place at such-and-so time with absolutely no clue why they were there? I thought that they had to apply first, and then the candidates received the orders. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Stuf4" wrote in message m... From Ami Silberman: "LaDonna Wyss" wrote "Ami Silberman" wrote in message ... No, a NASA operation. Even "stuffy" wouldn't argue that it was a military operation. AS-204 was not under military command or control. It did involve several military personnel as flight crew. So an active duty military crew commander does not qualify as placing AS-204 under military command? I expect that Gus would not have agreed to that statement (let alone Gus's boss, active duty Air Force General Sam Phillips). I don't have time to actually go and look at the relevant FMs, but AS-204 was not under Phillips operational comman in the traditional military sense. He was neither the Director of Flight Operations, nor anywhere else in the direct operational chain above them (IIRC). Gus's boss would have been Slayton, anyway. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message ... "LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Hey, folks--I wasn't sure where to post this one because there's been so much blathering, but how about this for a question: You do realize the first three groups of astronauts were recruited from within the military, and by that I mean they received orders to show up at such-and-so place at such-and-so time with absolutely no clue why they were there? I thought that they had to apply first, and then the candidates received the orders. Shhhh! It's LaToya's fantasy. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
In article Ryczc.714922$Pk3.101441@pd7tw1no,
Dave Michelson writes: Mary Shafer wrote: The X-15 was an NACA/NASA project that the USAF participated in. It was never a USAF project. Instead it was always a joint NASA/USAF project, except early on when it was an NACA/USAF project. Actually, it was a joint NASA/USAF/USN project, although the USAF took a much larger and more visible role. And it was a strictly NACA project until July 1954, when the services signed on :-) In fact, the first ever U.S. (preliminary) astronaut selection was announced in a USAF briefing concerning MISS on 25 June 1958. The list included test pilots Robert Walker, Scott Crossfield, Neil Armstrong, Robert Rushworth, William Bridgeman, Alvin White, Iven Kincheloe, Robert White, and Jack McKay. Scotty, Neil, and Jack were civilians, not military. So was Bill Bridgeman, who was a Company Test Pilot for Douglas. Who said they were military? BTW, mention of this "preliminary selection" is mentioned in, among other places, NASM Air & Space Magazine http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/i.../AS/First.html If this is incorrect, the Smithsonian should be notified so the on-line version of the article can be corrected. They all worked at NASA FRC until Scotty went to NAA. At the time, they worked for NACA ;-) Except for Bridgeman. ...NASA test pilot, not military, so he was highly unlikely to be an X-20 candidate. However, he did fly in a NASA project in support of X-20, mimicking the RTLS escape sequence for the X-20 if the rocket had a problem on launch and the X-20 had to set itself free and land. Mark Wade lists Armstrong as one of seven pilots who were selected in Apr 1960 as pilots for X-20A Dyna-Soar spaceplane flights. Qualification: Assigned from pool of active USAF and NASA Test Pilots. If this is incorrect, we should notify Mark. http://www.astronautix.com/astrogrp/usap1960.htm Neil was titled as Test Pilot Consultant. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org writes: On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:07:17 -0700, Mary Shafer wrote: However, he did fly in a NASA project in support of X-20, mimicking the RTLS escape sequence for the X-20 if the rocket had a problem on launch and the X-20 had to set itself free and land. ...Details! Details! Aunt Mary, tell us a bedtime story about this one, PLEASE!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) The Dyna-Soar abort tests used one of the Douglas F5D Skylancers. They modified teh aircraft to reduce the thrust at FLight Idle from 500# to 200#, to better match the X-20's L/D ratio (By opening the AB nozzle fully, thereby over-expanding the jet exhaust.) The profile was a fast low level run, pulling up to the vertical over teh notional launch pad. THese conditions were typically 500-530 Kts at 1,000'pulling 3.5 - 3.6 G for a nominal Jigh Energy Abort Motor, and 400 Kts/1,000' pulling 4.5G for a Low Energy Abort Motor simulation. This would intercept the expected conditions for the X-20's abort motor burnout at, about 400 Kts/9.500' (High Energy rocket motor), or 325 Kts/5,000' (low energy motor. The F5D was "dirtied up", extending the speedbrakes and gear. and opening the AB nozzle to reduce idle thrust, at the top of the climb. (190 Kts/15,000', High Energy case, 155 Kts/8,000' Low Energy case). A no-power added landing approach was flown to a position on the Edwards Lakebed corresponding to teh location of the Skid Strip at Cape Canaveral. (Who says test flying is stoogig about taking data points!) For some of the flights, teh windshield and canopy of the airplane was restricted to duplicate the fields of view from teh X-20 cockpit. This was done by applying a transparent yellow film to the canopy, and using a blue-tinted visor on the pilot's helmet. (That way, if full vision was needed, you just had to flip up the visor). The whole thing was written up in NASA Technical Memorandum NASA-TM-X-637, "Flight Simulated Off-the-Pad Escape and Landing Maneuvers for a Vertically Launched Hypersonic Glider", Gene J. Matrange, William H. Dana, and Neil A. Armstrong, March 1962 Not currently available on-line, but the entire Tech Memorandum has been duplicated in "Dyna-Soar", Robert Godwin, Compiler & Editor, Apogee Books, Burlington, Ontario, Canada, 2003, ISBN 1-896522-95-5 (Note to LaDonna, et alia: That's what a reference and attribution looks like) I've been "flying" similar profiles (In the Mighty Wurlitzer) for David Sander's Saturn Shuttle as defined in _Man_Conquers_Space_. It's tone of fun. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Scottso wrote in message . ..
It's interesting to note that it seems that Armstrong was simply destined to get into space one way or another. (MISS candidate, X-15 pilot, X-20 candidate, NASA Group II.) The word "destined" implies that a "higher power" is pulling the strings....It just ain't true, gents.though OM was "destined" to be a turd breath I'm afraid to ask who is impersonating me this time, although I have a pretty good idea. If I am correct, I will be having a long chat with someone named "Mark", but it won't be Mark Wade. LaDonna |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-06-14, LaDonna Wyss wrote:
In fact, I have a cute piece of information for you: Did you know that, according to St. Louis Military Personnel records, the Air Force never heard of Gus Grissom or Ed White, and the Navy never heard of Roger Chaffee? (...) Missile Crisis. I've tried the Pentagon, Air Force and Navy headquarters in Washington, and the aforementioned personnel office (and yes, I sent them everything but social security numbers and fingerprints; there is NO excuse for them having "no record" of Gus, Ed, and Roger.) Yes there is. See, you're actually talking about Virgil Ivan Grissom (neat name, huh?) - http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/grissom-vi.html (to put in an analogy - I could find my grandfather's service records under Robert, but not under Bob... but I never knew anyone call him Robert) The little problem of you looking under the wrong name aside, you may need to give them more information. http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/ military_personnel_records/standard_form_180.html If you didn't include a service number, then you will probably need to include a SSN. Not that they're hard to find, mind - five minutes with public databases (most of that time spent finding the damned link) gives me 308-20-4281 for Grissom, 577-40-8481 for White, although I can't seem to find one for Chaffee. Anyway, two of three for you to play with. [There's also the possibility of a misfiling when they transferred - speaking as a suit-wearing cause of human error, never underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to lose files - which may have led to the file being transferred at some point to civilian records and not coming back. The NASA/USM confusion may well have been extant in the 1960s.] -- -Andrew Gray |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... I'm afraid to ask who is impersonating me this time Whoever it is, they have the same difficult grasp of reality that you do. If I am correct, I will be having a long chat with someone named "Mark", but it won't be Mark Wade. Much to his relief. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Mar 19 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | March 20th 04 03:20 AM |
Good news and bad about Mars rover... | Steven James Forsberg | Policy | 2 | January 26th 04 11:12 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Jan 9 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | January 10th 04 02:34 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Sep 12 | Stuart Goldman | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 03 02:45 AM |
news flash! Rutan drops the shapceship! | Rand Simberg | Policy | 3 | August 8th 03 11:14 PM |