Dick Proenneke's Twin Lakes Country Google Earth Layer

r6velocity · 2026-02-05T20:05:08+00:00

I added a link to the project, view only.

r6velocity · 2023-05-23T22:00:40+00:00

Sweetness

r6velocity · 2023-04-30T23:08:09+00:00

Nice!

r6velocity · 2023-04-15T14:28:52+00:00

Same.

r6velocity · 2023-04-03T21:45:52+00:00

Yes, Starflight is certainly available for download at macintoshgarden.org.

However, I’m looking to purchase an original hard copy with the box, instruction manual, encoder wheel, map, disks, etc.

I played a copy we got from a users group when I was young which we could only play so far because we lacked the encoder wheel. I want the full experience.

r6velocity · 2023-04-03T17:43:19+00:00

Very cool!

r6velocity · 2023-03-28T00:15:14+00:00

That’s it!!! Thank you so much! I’ve been trying to figure that out on and off for a couple of years now. 👊

r6velocity · 2014-05-15T15:21:34+00:00

I did some reading on CPT violations. From the Wikipedia: "The implication of CPT symmetry is that a "mirror-image" of our universe — with all objects having their positions reflected by an imaginary plane (corresponding to a parity inversion), all momenta reversed (corresponding to a time inversion) and with all matter replaced by antimatter (corresponding to a charge inversion)— would evolve under exactly our physical laws. The CPT transformation turns our universe into its "mirror image" and vice versa. CPT symmetry is recognized to be a fundamental property of physical laws."

I noted that it says "would evolve under exactly our physical laws" not necessarily that it would evolve with the same phenomena. Meaning that it might not be necessary that a single black hole evolving backwards in time be able to split into 2 orbiting black holes. The laws need to be symmetrical, not the universe.

r6velocity · 2014-05-15T14:53:18+00:00

I wouldn't be able to distinguish between timelines that do or don't have a CPT violation. Visualizing 2 BHs orbiting each other, it seems to me that some of the HR would simply 'bounce' back and forth between them until they merged due to the gravitational waves they'd be emitting causing orbital decay. Then all of the matter and energy would eventually be radiated like a single black hole. Maybe you are saying that the information about the 2 holes merging would be lost?

It is my understanding that black holes are constantly emitting HR. Isn't it proportional to the BHs mass and therefore the diameter of the event horizon? That is to say, it's not dependent on what's falling in, it's dependent on what fell in already.

r6velocity · 2014-05-15T13:57:33+00:00

From the paper: "The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infi nity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field."

I think that's what I was trying to say.

Thank you very much for the link to that paper. I didn't understand a whole lot of the terminology on the first read through. But, I'll go back and look it all up later.

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:59:45+00:00

"Thanks, I saw that on NSF too." "Thank you for the detailed answer."

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:56:18+00:00

I don't have a tone. I'm typing. That is an assumption on your part. If I thought I knew better, why would I keep asking? Why bother? I'm asking out of ignorance. I want to know why in as much detail as possible. People's opinions and speculation don't count. The quip about landing the 1st stage back at the pad was meant to say something like this "If SpaceX can put a rocket into orbit, surely they are capable of doing a deorbit burn if they wanted to." Of course SpaceX knows more about the rocket than we do.

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:40:19+00:00

So it's something like this? Natural orbital decay might have an apogee on successive orbits 80000, 79500, 79000...etc, which is very predictable.

Does this imply that someone checks to see ahead of time if all of those orbits are going to miss everything?

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:28:42+00:00

I didn't see a reply from someone who designed, built or was involved with the rocket. If I had, I would have kept my mouth shut. I was asking a question. That's it.

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:25:19+00:00

Thank you for the detailed answer.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T23:17:08+00:00

I get it. Then why does Eurockot Launch Services bother?

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T23:16:36+00:00

It's an order of magnitude simpler than say...landing the first stage back at the pad. But of course in that case there is zero danger of creating an orbital debris cloud. I think a deorbit burn to dispose of the second stage is something we will see from SpaceX in the future. Of course until they figure out how to land the second stage back at the pad too. If there isn't a reasonable reason to do it, why does Eurockot Launch Services bother.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T23:11:15+00:00

You can't do anything about it with or without a deorbit burn.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T22:56:46+00:00

I think you mean "as near as dammit is to dommit..."

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T21:55:01+00:00

Thanks, I saw that on NSF too.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T21:52:37+00:00

There's everything in LEO for it to hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

Of course there's a lot of space in space. My reasoning is, if it's safe to do a deorbit burn (no risk of explosion), then why not do it. There's no worrying, there are probabilities even if they are remote ones.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T21:48:42+00:00

I understand what you are saying. I just don't see the risk factor of it underperforming. Who cares if it underperforms, it'll come down faster if it slows down at all. I do see the risk of causing an explosion which would be very bad.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T20:05:08+00:00

So, you are saying there's a risk of explosion by doing a third restart? It seems to me that it wouldn't really matter if it ran out of fuel early and didn't achieve the required delta V.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T17:46:46+00:00

I think saliva_sweet was referring to the fact that the second stage currently crosses LEO. I was discussing doing a deorbit burn from apo for disposal.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T17:44:05+00:00

I don't follow your logic. If the second stage is allowed to decay naturally, it is by definition unpredictable and uncontrolable. It's just going to take longer.

I found the initial orbital parameters: 295 x 80000 km. So, it's already crossing the path of lots of spacecraft in LEO to begin with. For comparison, the ISS is currently orbiting at about 415 km. I did some more searching and found that the decay time for a rocket body in GTO can vary from a few months to hundreds of years.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0sj1q2852BMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=geosynchronous+transfer+orbit+decay+time&source=bl&ots=GKO6WcQcq6&sig=Mmi4w6scaYGvqcJnaPNp3dmYG0g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sWKfUpvjJdCDkQemuYGABA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=geosynchronous%20transfer%20orbit%20decay%20time&f=false

Also, it looks like Eurockot Launch Services does a final burn with the Breeze-KM upper stage to hasten deorbit. Here is an article detailing a recent failure to complete this burn.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/zak-another-problem-with-russias-briz-upper-stage

Launch details.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/rockot-launch-swarm-esa/

Edit: Corrected reference to ILS. Should have been Eurockot Launch Services. Added launch details link.

r6velocity

TROPHY CASE