By that standard, I can jump into orbit (though not into space).

That's correct, you can - and do.

I've no problem with that if you are working to Humpty Dumpty rules
But IIRC in general English usage "to orbit" means to "to go round" and
"orbit" (in the astron sense) means the *repeated* elliptical course of
a satellite etc or (more recently) one complete circuit.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:22:47 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
It's been utterly abysmal until now.
I had no clue these guys were on a dinner/lecture circuit, else I'd
likely have made an effort to go and see one or two of them by now.
See, that's what happens when geeks do publicity - feck all.

Probably because most of the time, geeks don't actually *want*
publicity

I would not call an experienced combat pilot a geek.

--
Adam

Graham. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:36:36 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:23:30 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

You would enjoy it. I did. It's worth looking around. The
astronauts may be having dinner elsewhere in the UK just before
or after the Ponty event. They need to make a living:-)

I think it's a bit sad they have to, but I suppose an Air Force
/NASA pension isn't all that. Neil Armstrong did all right for
himself, but he had a magic kudos attached to his name.

Have you tried their own web sites for info?

No, never even thought of that.
One or two are bound to visit Ireland - like Dublin or Armagh, so
I'll keep an eye out.

The best thing about these dinners is the small talk. The Apollo 11
astronauts used their own cameras for some of the shots and they
never realised the full potential of copyright.


I think whoever said that about their own cameras and pictures was
being ironic. Every gram was accounted for, although there were some
instances of smuggling, those for commercial gain were treated
accordingly.

They might have been NASA cameras but the crew had the rights to the
pictures. They had no training on what to do with such pictures and just let
people use them.

--
Adam

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:09:41 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Because the publicity just hasn't happened?

I have made a start.

It's been utterly abysmal until now.
I had no clue these guys were on a dinner/lecture circuit, else I'd
likely have made an effort to go and see one or two of them by now.
See, that's what happens when geeks do publicity - feck all.

Well if you get desperate then get a flight to Leeds/Bradford or Doncaster
Airport and stop at mine for the night. I cannot guarantee to stay out of
the pub after the lecture.

--
Adam

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:32:21 +0100, Percy wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, "Jules Richardson" writ:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:35:05 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Oh, certainly. Several orders of magnitude. But I'm curious what it
was about the technology - rather than financial or societal
problems, say - which would have prevented it from happening.
Granted, stuff would presumably have to be assembled in Earth orbit,
which certainly would have made it *extremely* hard (it's not like
it's easy now, and that's with experience developed over decades to
draw on), but e.g. were there materials not discovered then which are
absolutely necessary to get the job done, or was the level of
on-board computational power needed simply beyond what could be done
at the time etc.?

I'm also wondering about the relative MTBF of the electronic
assemblies.

Hmm, interesting point!

For the lunar flight, was the computer powered up all the time, or did
it only come into play toward the end of the flight when alignment was
most critical?

The LEM landing computer was only powered up during preparation for
landing whilst in lunar orbit. Up to that point the LEM had no power as
it's batteries were only designed to support the lunar part of the
mission.

The flight computer was (IIRC) on all the time. There were five - four
identical ones and a fifth, to the same spec, from a different supplier.
Three of them ran at once and checked each other, with a faulty one
replaceable (probably manually) by one of the others.

They had a problem in the final stages of countdown once and had to abort
the launch. Turned out to be a race condition introduced by a change
about a year earlier. 24 hour brainstorming session worked out it would
only happen 1 in 67 times (I think). Fine once it had synced.

So they turned the whole lot off and on again. Job done.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

ARWadsworth wrote:
Graham. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:36:36 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:23:30 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

You would enjoy it. I did. It's worth looking around. The
astronauts may be having dinner elsewhere in the UK just before
or after the Ponty event. They need to make a living:-)
I think it's a bit sad they have to, but I suppose an Air Force
/NASA pension isn't all that. Neil Armstrong did all right for
himself, but he had a magic kudos attached to his name.

Have you tried their own web sites for info?
No, never even thought of that.
One or two are bound to visit Ireland - like Dublin or Armagh, so
I'll keep an eye out.
The best thing about these dinners is the small talk. The Apollo 11
astronauts used their own cameras for some of the shots and they
never realised the full potential of copyright.

I think whoever said that about their own cameras and pictures was
being ironic. Every gram was accounted for, although there were some
instances of smuggling, those for commercial gain were treated
accordingly.

They might have been NASA cameras but the crew had the rights to the
pictures. They had no training on what to do with such pictures and just let
people use them.

Assuming they were told "Go to the moon and take some pictures" as part
of the mission briefing, then the copyright belongs to whoever or
whichever organisation asked them to take pictures. They don't need to
be told what pictures to take, just take them during the mission.

If I am wandering round taking pictures when I'm at work, but haven't
been asked to, then the copyright in those pictures is mine. If I take
pictures while I am at work, at the request of the Company that I work
for, they own the copyright.

Example:- If I take a picture of the waterfront in Donegal while I'm
walking from the hotel to the coach because I like the look of it,
that's my copyright. If I take the same picture at the boss's request,
it's his copyright.

In the case of the Apollo pictures, then NASA might have a case for
charging the astronauts freight charges for moving the weight of the
film, if they used their own film on their own time.

(Simplified, but I believe basically right.)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:18:58 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:


Assuming they were told "Go to the moon and take some pictures" as part
of the mission briefing, then the copyright belongs to whoever or
whichever organisation asked them to take pictures. They don't need to
be told what pictures to take, just take them during the mission.

If I am wandering round taking pictures when I'm at work, but haven't
been asked to, then the copyright in those pictures is mine. If I take
pictures while I am at work, at the request of the Company that I work
for, they own the copyright.

Example:- If I take a picture of the waterfront in Donegal while I'm
walking from the hotel to the coach because I like the look of it,
that's my copyright. If I take the same picture at the boss's request,
it's his copyright.

In the case of the Apollo pictures, then NASA might have a case for
charging the astronauts freight charges for moving the weight of the
film, if they used their own film on their own time.

(Simplified, but I believe basically right.)

Possibly.

But if I am employed and working in England, then English law applies. If
I were employed and working in the USA, then USA law applies (and, maybe,
state law). Which law applies up there?

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:18:58 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:


Assuming they were told "Go to the moon and take some pictures" as
part of the mission briefing, then the copyright belongs to whoever or
whichever organisation asked them to take pictures. They don't need to
be told what pictures to take, just take them during the mission.

If I am wandering round taking pictures when I'm at work, but haven't
been asked to, then the copyright in those pictures is mine. If I take
pictures while I am at work, at the request of the Company that I work
for, they own the copyright.

Example:- If I take a picture of the waterfront in Donegal while I'm
walking from the hotel to the coach because I like the look of it,
that's my copyright. If I take the same picture at the boss's request,
it's his copyright.

In the case of the Apollo pictures, then NASA might have a case for
charging the astronauts freight charges for moving the weight of the
film, if they used their own film on their own time.

(Simplified, but I believe basically right.)

Possibly.

But if I am employed and working in England, then English law applies.
If I were employed and working in the USA, then USA law applies (and,
maybe, state law). Which law applies up there?

NASA`say:- "No copyright is asserted for NASA photographs. If a
recognizable person appears in a photo, use for commercial purposes may
infringe a right of privacy or publicity. Photos may not be used to
state or imply the endorsement by NASA or by any NASA employee of a
commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that
might mislead. Accordingly, it is requested that if a NASA photograph is
used in advertising and other commercial promotion, layout and copy be
submitted to NASA prior to release." Quote from:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html

Which then lists every available picture from the Apollo 17 mission.

I'd guess, and IANAL, that if you work for a USA based organisation,
then USA law would generally apply to you unless overridden by local
law. So, in this case, all pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts would
appear to be copyright free fo non-commercial use.

As copyright law is pretty much the same in the UK and USA, I'd say any
difference would be of academic interest only. But I could be wrong...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:55:09 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

By that standard, I can jump into orbit (though not into space).

That's correct, you can - and do.

I've no problem with that if you are working to Humpty Dumpty rules
But IIRC in general English usage "to orbit" means to "to go round" and
"orbit" (in the astron sense) means the *repeated* elliptical course of
a satellite etc or (more recently) one complete circuit.

You could argue the words "geostationary orbit" are mutually
exclusive.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:32:16 +0100, Graham. wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:55:09 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

By that standard, I can jump into orbit (though not into space).

That's correct, you can - and do.

I've no problem with that if you are working to Humpty Dumpty rules
But IIRC in general English usage "to orbit" means to "to go round" and
"orbit" (in the astron sense) means the *repeated* elliptical course of
a satellite etc or (more recently) one complete circuit.

You could argue the words "geostationary orbit" are mutually exclusive.

Good one. And why the term 'Clarke orbit' is better.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, "Bob Eager" writ:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:32:21 +0100, Percy wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, "Jules Richardson" writ:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:35:05 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Oh, certainly. Several orders of magnitude. But I'm curious what it
was about the technology - rather than financial or societal
problems, say - which would have prevented it from happening.
Granted, stuff would presumably have to be assembled in Earth orbit,
which certainly would have made it *extremely* hard (it's not like
it's easy now, and that's with experience developed over decades to
draw on), but e.g. were there materials not discovered then which are
absolutely necessary to get the job done, or was the level of
on-board computational power needed simply beyond what could be done
at the time etc.?

I'm also wondering about the relative MTBF of the electronic
assemblies.

Hmm, interesting point!

For the lunar flight, was the computer powered up all the time, or did
it only come into play toward the end of the flight when alignment was
most critical?

The LEM landing computer was only powered up during preparation for
landing whilst in lunar orbit. Up to that point the LEM had no power as
it's batteries were only designed to support the lunar part of the
mission.


I was only talking about the LEM landing computer as an example. The LEM
actually had 2 computers of its own which were also duplicated in the CM
but its own were not powered up during flight.

The flight computer was (IIRC) on all the time. There were five - four
identical ones and a fifth, to the same spec, from a different supplier.
Three of them ran at once and checked each other, with a faulty one
replaceable (probably manually) by one of the others.

Would you cite the source of this information?

--
P

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:09:01 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:18:58 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:


Assuming they were told "Go to the moon and take some pictures" as
part of the mission briefing, then the copyright belongs to whoever or
whichever organisation asked them to take pictures. They don't need to
be told what pictures to take, just take them during the mission.

If I am wandering round taking pictures when I'm at work, but haven't
been asked to, then the copyright in those pictures is mine. If I take
pictures while I am at work, at the request of the Company that I work
for, they own the copyright.

Example:- If I take a picture of the waterfront in Donegal while I'm
walking from the hotel to the coach because I like the look of it,
that's my copyright. If I take the same picture at the boss's request,
it's his copyright.

In the case of the Apollo pictures, then NASA might have a case for
charging the astronauts freight charges for moving the weight of the
film, if they used their own film on their own time.

(Simplified, but I believe basically right.)

Possibly.

But if I am employed and working in England, then English law applies.
If I were employed and working in the USA, then USA law applies (and,
maybe, state law). Which law applies up there?

NASA`say:- "No copyright is asserted for NASA photographs. If a
recognizable person appears in a photo, use for commercial purposes may
infringe a right of privacy or publicity. Photos may not be used to
state or imply the endorsement by NASA or by any NASA employee of a
commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that
might mislead. Accordingly, it is requested that if a NASA photograph is
used in advertising and other commercial promotion, layout and copy be
submitted to NASA prior to release." Quote from:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html

Which then lists every available picture from the Apollo 17 mission.

I'd guess, and IANAL, that if you work for a USA based organisation,
then USA law would generally apply to you unless overridden by local
law. So, in this case, all pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts would
appear to be copyright free fo non-commercial use.

As copyright law is pretty much the same in the UK and USA, I'd say any
difference would be of academic interest only. But I could be wrong...

IANAL but, AFAIK, copyright law does differ between countries. One
area is USA's "fair use", which does not have a direct equivalent in
UK law.

IIRC in general if someone is instructed to take photos then the
copyright would be shared between the taker and the organisation or
person that instructed them.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:47:07 +0100, Percy wrote:

I was only talking about the LEM landing computer as an example. The LEM
actually had 2 computers of its own which were also duplicated in the CM
but its own were not powered up during flight.

I was really responding to the thread in general.

The flight computer was (IIRC) on all the time. There were five - four
identical ones and a fifth, to the same spec, from a different supplier.
Three of them ran at once and checked each other, with a faulty one
replaceable (probably manually) by one of the others.

Would you cite the source of this information?

It was in an issue of the RISKS journal from the ACM, many many years
ago. Probably in comp.risks too. I didn't (and don't) have time right now
to chase up the precise issue.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:12:27 +0100, Mark
wrote:



IANAL but, AFAIK, copyright law does differ between countries. One
area is USA's "fair use", which does not have a direct equivalent in
UK law.

IIRC in general if someone is instructed to take photos then the
copyright would be shared between the taker and the organisation or
person that instructed them.

USA has some differences with regard to registering copyright.

But again the issue of jurisdiction appears. Maybe in the originating
country all is as you say, but in the country in which the photo was
actually taken the law says it is 100% the photographer's copyright? Or
100% the employer's?

It could be argued that while on board a spacecraft whatever laws apply to
ships should apply. But would this also hold while walking on the surface
of the moon?

--
Rod

John Williamson wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
Graham. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:36:36 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:23:30 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

You would enjoy it. I did. It's worth looking around. The
astronauts may be having dinner elsewhere in the UK just
before or after the Ponty event. They need to make a
living:-)
I think it's a bit sad they have to, but I suppose an Air
Force /NASA pension isn't all that. Neil Armstrong did all
right for himself, but he had a magic kudos attached to his
name.
Have you tried their own web sites for info?
No, never even thought of that.
One or two are bound to visit Ireland - like Dublin or
Armagh, so I'll keep an eye out.
The best thing about these dinners is the small talk. The
Apollo 11 astronauts used their own cameras for some of the
shots and they never realised the full potential of copyright.

I think whoever said that about their own cameras and pictures was
being ironic. Every gram was accounted for, although there were
some instances of smuggling, those for commercial gain were
treated accordingly.

They might have been NASA cameras but the crew had the rights to the
pictures. They had no training on what to do with such pictures and
just let people use them.

Assuming they were told "Go to the moon and take some pictures" as
part of the mission briefing, then the copyright belongs to whoever or
whichever organisation asked them to take pictures. They don't need to
be told what pictures to take, just take them during the mission.

If I am wandering round taking pictures when I'm at work, but haven't
been asked to, then the copyright in those pictures is mine. If I take
pictures while I am at work, at the request of the Company that I work
for, they own the copyright.

Example:- If I take a picture of the waterfront in Donegal while I'm
walking from the hotel to the coach because I like the look of it,
that's my copyright. If I take the same picture at the boss's request,
it's his copyright.

In the case of the Apollo pictures, then NASA might have a case for
charging the astronauts freight charges for moving the weight of the
film, if they used their own film on their own time.

(Simplified, but I believe basically right.)

Well Buzz claimed that they were his pictures (the ones he took).

He had no idea how valuable they could be. "The world had just had it's
biggest ever party and we [Buzz, Armstrong and Collins] were not invited"

--
Adam

On 28/08/2012 22:32, Graham. wrote:
You could argue the words "geostationary orbit" are mutually
exclusive.

You could. You could also be wrong. :P

An orbit, using Wikipedia's easily found words is "the gravitationally
curved path of an object around a point in space". Seems pretty clear to
me that a satellite going around a planet in a circle once every 24
hours is indeed in orbit.

If the object happens to be turning at the same speed - well, then the
orbit is geostationary.

Andy

Robin wrote:
By that standard, I can jump into orbit (though not into space).

That's correct, you can - and do.

I've no problem with that if you are working to Humpty Dumpty rules
But IIRC in general English usage "to orbit" means to "to go round"
and "orbit" (in the astron sense) means the *repeated* elliptical
course of a satellite etc or (more recently) one complete circuit.

That reminds me of a fat bird I once shagged.

I was ****ed and I cannot remember if I got into orbit or indeed if did a
complete circuit.

ISTR getting into local geostationary orbit before I made my landing entry.

--
Adam

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:51:11 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:
That reminds me of a fat bird I once shagged.

I was ****ed and I cannot remember if I got into orbit or indeed if did
a complete circuit.

ISTR getting into local geostationary orbit before I made my landing
entry.

splashdown?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, "Bob Eager" writ:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:47:07 +0100, Percy wrote:

I was only talking about the LEM landing computer as an example. The LEM
actually had 2 computers of its own which were also duplicated in the CM
but its own were not powered up during flight.

I was really responding to the thread in general.

The flight computer was (IIRC) on all the time. There were five - four
identical ones and a fifth, to the same spec, from a different supplier.
Three of them ran at once and checked each other, with a faulty one
replaceable (probably manually) by one of the others.

Would you cite the source of this information?

It was in an issue of the RISKS journal from the ACM, many many years
ago. Probably in comp.risks too. I didn't (and don't) have time right now
to chase up the precise issue.

OK Bob, That's the Space Shuttle. I knew it wasn't the Apollo but I was
interested in where you had got the info.
--
P

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:05:49 +0100, Percy wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, "Bob Eager" writ:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:47:07 +0100, Percy wrote:

I was only talking about the LEM landing computer as an example. The
LEM actually had 2 computers of its own which were also duplicated in
the CM but its own were not powered up during flight.

I was really responding to the thread in general.

The flight computer was (IIRC) on all the time. There were five - four
identical ones and a fifth, to the same spec, from a different
supplier.
Three of them ran at once and checked each other, with a faulty one
replaceable (probably manually) by one of the others.

Would you cite the source of this information?

It was in an issue of the RISKS journal from the ACM, many many years
ago. Probably in comp.risks too. I didn't (and don't) have time right
now to chase up the precise issue.

OK Bob, That's the Space Shuttle. I knew it wasn't the Apollo but I was
interested in where you had got the info.

I did begin to wonder if it was the Shuttle....it's a long time since I
read it and I threw out my old copies of SEN about ten years ago.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:20:51 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:51:11 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:
That reminds me of a fat bird I once shagged.

I was ****ed and I cannot remember if I got into orbit or indeed if did
a complete circuit.

ISTR getting into local geostationary orbit before I made my landing
entry.

splashdown?

A soft landing with a chute?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:04:12 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

See, that's what happens when geeks do publicity - feck all.

Probably because most of the time, geeks don't actually *want*
publicity

I would not call an experienced combat pilot a geek.

No, not him; he doesn't arrange for people to come to the dinners,
does he? It's some other person in Pontefract, or wherever.
The other person is likely to be of the geeky persuasion, ykwim, and
has the organising and promotion ability of a lemur.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:18:58 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Example:- If I take a picture of the waterfront in Donegal while I'm
walking from the hotel to the coach because I like the look of it,
that's my copyright.

If your own camera, yes. See below, though.

If I take the same picture at the boss's request,
it's his copyright.

If he pays for the film/camera/digital electrons you take it on.
It has to be by arrangement with him.

Otoh, some employment contracts might specify that any pictures you
take on company time belong to the company - if I took a world-selling
Press pic of an incident in Donegal, on company time, the company
could go whistle.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:09:01 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

I'd guess, and IANAL, that if you work for a USA based organisation,
then USA law would generally apply to you unless overridden by local
law. So, in this case, all pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts would
appear to be copyright free fo non-commercial use.

As copyright law is pretty much the same in the UK and USA, I'd say any
difference would be of academic interest only. But I could be wrong...

US taxpayers paid for the NASA pics, so any use by a US entity is
pretty much fair game - to an extent.

UK taxpayers didn't pay anything towards the pics, but NASA is ok with
them being used for personal or illustration/educational purposes
outside the US. I don't know what the situation is with say, a UK
/German company using a moonshot pic - it has been done plenty of
times, so there's a procedure in place, long ago.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:40:30 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

USA has some differences with regard to registering copyright.

Not really. You CAN register copyright of an image (since we're
talking about pics, here), but if you don't, the simple copyright that
exists in the taking of the image still exists. Just that registering
it avoids future arguments.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:04:12 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

See, that's what happens when geeks do publicity - feck all.

Probably because most of the time, geeks don't actually *want*
publicity

I would not call an experienced combat pilot a geek.

No, not him; he doesn't arrange for people to come to the dinners,
does he? It's some other person in Pontefract, or wherever.
The other person is likely to be of the geeky persuasion, ykwim, and
has the organising and promotion ability of a lemur.

Oh you mean him in charge of organising these events:-). He is a weapons
grade bell end.

--
Adam