science

Yes, it was a little bit of a surprise, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. In this case, the result is that it still ends up being a much darker experience than I normally go for, but not by much.

This is a lot darker than Blackout , but it is still quite a bit lighter than the previous one in my opinion. I’d probably say Blackout 2 .

Included in this is the first half of the Sucker Punch:

If you look closely at the middle, you can see that it’s actually thefirst of three masks that have been included in this set. As I’m writing this, I am contemplating including the other two or three, but after a few days, I will probably just throw them out. They’ll make the collection look like a bunch of random masks.

These are not bad masks, and I’m not really sure if or how I would want to be using them by themselves. They may be useful for removing makeup, but even then, it won’t be anything special. It just might be cute to show off your new scarves and scarves with a matching mask!

I’d like to mention that this set is not for everyone, which is kind of disappointing. If you are thinking about trying this collection, you really do have to be patient. It’s going to be an ongoing thing. There won’t be a set from this set until at least November or December. The set will also be available in September and October for $11 . That’s a bit high, but even so, they’re definitely worth the investment.

I’ve now grown to become a better photographer. Now that I’m a better photographer, a lot of people have come to rely on my work not on the fact that I am an excellent photographer, but on the fact that for a while in 2008, I was not much better than a poor photographer. So now it seems like an opportunity to go on a long hike out to find the best route in.

It’s a sunny day and the trail starts out with some fairly steep inclines into the woods. There’s only a handful of people in the entire hike, and they’re mostly walking, not running or riding. The trail is well marked and well preserved, but I do feel the need to warn anyone who’s worried about the trails. If you’re not careful, you could easily lose your footing and end up in a creek or hole. For that reason, I always include a warning in my photos. If you do get into a hole, make sure to get out and find the best person you can to get out. For me, I didn’t make it that far (the rest got to the top by the end of the hike). My hike of all the hikes I’ve done along this trail has been pretty good. I’ve seen a few people out, but that is almost always because we were running or biking. There aren’t many people out at this time of year (we went up in January) so it’s a lot easier to get a place to stay or to park once we get back with our bikes.

The trail begins to rise into the woods. We walk up a little hill and there appears a beautiful overlook on what used to be the Great Plains. That was when this area was forested. Back at our place, Jeff started off his hike by going around the front of some old trees. Apparently the area had a few abandoned houses and that gave Jeff an idea of the area when we were getting started here. The area has a lot different hills (this little hill is going to be a problem because of my knees being too small to stay steady on it), so Jeff had to push his bike up this hill to get to the top of it. As I’m writing this I’m wondering why I didn’t go up this hill sooner.

We started our hike out on what I’d imagine is an irregular trail to reach the top of Mount Nittany. Jeff was a bit concerned as we started looking around on the way up. Apparently there used to be a train that ran between Nittany and Mount Nittany. That could be good for the trail if you know where to look. My bike is very unstable so I wouldn’t want to rely on it with no bike controls to handle a big incline to get up to the high point of the view.

Jeff continued to walk up a little hill and he had a very good vantage point. On top of the ridge there were some old barns and that lent more of a hilltop view. It looks like Mount Nittany had a similar view to a railroad track.

Jeff and I continued to approach the top of Mount Nittany from the back of another hill. The trail continues up the hill a bit, but then turns out to be a different trail. The trail doesn’t go all the way up to the top of Mount Nittany and the way it seems to end I don’t know. Either way its just a hill that’s a bit too steep. When we got to the top of the mountain the view was beautiful. It was a snowy day but there were some small snow patches on the side of the ridge. As we walked up we saw it snow so we took the opportunity to check it out. The trail continued up to the top of Mount Nittany and then turns back around to the trail we just went up. The back of the mountain is a bit different than the views on the front. There’s a rocky shoreline on the bottom of the hill and the land is completely covered in snow.

Jeff finally got a nice view of Mount Nittany. Mount Nittany was a beautiful part of our hiking this year. If you’re into hiking you should check this out. It’s well maintained and has nice views of the region to the east, but has a small trail that goes up to the trail head to the top of the ridge.

And while NASA can’t exactly get to Europa without taking the rover into space, the latest news says that the Mars rover is also testing new technologies.

MARS RISES WITH MOMENTS OF GLOW… As part of the mission to Mars we will be able to see light for the first time on our Red Planet, and we will do this just because… We don’t want to take any chances, so we are taking it very seriously by preparing our ground for this special moment. Mars is a dusty, dark, violent, and inhospitable place. We need to change that. We need to get rid of all the dust, we need to protect our rover from the solar wind, we need to make sure the instrumentation and sensors it needs for its scientific missions is protected from the rough radiation environment. We need to make sure that it won’t get damaged and is repaired in time for its mission. This is the first time, since the mission began, the scientific instruments on the Mars rover have been turned on. They were already on board the Pathfinder mission, and now they are getting some testing. The instrumentation looks great. It is like the other Mars rovers, but it will have more instruments, as well as new techniques and techniques are being developed on this planet. The instrumentation that was being tested in Earth orbit has now entered Mars orbit. We are watching everything with a telescope in our telemetry. We can see it very clearly. While the experiment takes place that we really want to complete in this mission here at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the Red Planet, the real mission needs more time. We need to do more experiments, we need more time for preparation. We are working and we’re in the process now of getting ready… to leave this planet. The good news is that the instruments are almost complete, with only a few tiny modifications needed to make the system work and see what things look. The camera is working, as are the telemetry instruments. The telemetry system and telecommunication are also working, though we need to get the control tower from NASA back up and running on Mars. We also are looking ahead to do the final check before we are sent to another planet. We are testing the telemetry from Curiosity, which is in a crater, but it will be interesting to see what it looks like in the Martian environment. The other instrumentation is well tested, and you wouldn’t know that if it wasn’t for the fact that in Earth orbit it is protected inside a container. The telemetry is very precise and it will do all of the things that its predecessors were able to do, but it is protected by the protective glass on the container. The rover is being tested with the rover heat shield. It is pretty good, though it doesn’t quite match the protective glass in the Martian environment. You could still get radiation exposure with this thing running on Mars. The telemetry can be received with a computer called the Lander Operations Control Station (LOCS) from one of the spacecraft on the surface of Mars. This is installed inside a metal box, and it is located next to the rover. If the robot is to be sent into another planet, it needs to have a different interface that was not on Earth which was installed by the LARS mission. This is happening now, as we have just been notified about it. The LARS mission has always been dedicated to Mars and this latest change is to be integrated in the next generation of spacecraft, that is, Mars Science Laboratory (MSL)/Curiosity. This system will integrate some of the instruments on the LARS rover into the rover itself, and also will allow for the LARS mission to continue the search for water and life beyond Mars. So we don’t know for sure just when the rover will be sent to a distant planet, so there is the possibility of sending it into another planet, with a different interface. So we are developing and testing all these hardware systems today, and we will test them and make sure that we have everything for the rover when we go to another planetary system.

This is a real-time video of the MAVEN satellite. The MAVEN satellite was launched in 2011. It is named after the first European probe to orbit the Earth in 1976, which found evidence of water on the surface of the Earth. The satellite was designed to study the distribution of water on the surface of Mars. It is also designed to be a platform for future studies of the Red Planet. The MAVEN mission has several important scientific goals, including the goal of finding evidence of life on Mars and in the past of water and life on Mars. The orbital characteristics of the mission allow it to go beyond the boundaries of its own region and study a much larger area (a region in which MAVEN is currently located) in total. In 2012 we were also able to make the first images of Mars.

To view a larger image, click here

NASA and the European Space Agency released this beautiful series of illustrations showing Saturn’s rings. The

It takes sunlight 5,000 years to reach us from Earth. During this time, the sun rises and sets at the equator, which has to travel a little farther. You will have to go to the north of the equator and take a right on your way, or else the year will get colder than you expect. It always makes me laugh when people who believe in the theory of creation say that as far as our bodies and all that comes with it were concerned, life is only a couple years old, or “the first human life was two hours old.” They are literally the living dead. But wait, we were just a couple years old as we read this:

We’re not actually two hours old. The earth is only a little over a thousand miles away from the sun, but for us we were born at the sun. I’m sure some people have argued that there was some kind of “first life” on earth as early as 3200 BC, but I’ve had to laugh at this comment from one “creationist”:

How stupid are he? God created everything in such short order that there must have been a big gap between the time when God made God to do everything, and when we came on the scene and asked for help. Why does he seem so pleased with us, not a bit offended; that we ask for advice instead of being irritated when he only responds with irritation. I don’t understand a damn thing. I’m actually trying hard not to yell at this person.

Okay and so I’ve gone on and on. I’m not even mad at all. I’ve gone through the reasoning, thought process, and everything. My point is, let’s take that whole “creation and then you were first” thing and compare it with the “we were only created once and then created again.” I don’t know if I can win. I’m going to make my living as a writer and my money will always be tied up in writing, but I’d hate it if I actually had to have to prove the theory. I am still trying to think of how to say it, but I hope by the end, I manage a few more words to keep this post light. I’d also like to wish all those that are questioning or thinking about making the shift to science a Happy New Year and a Happy New Year to you, too.

Happy New Year!

~Vikings

And they did.

There is a lot of new information here, but only a cursory look in the book will highlight the key points. While the majority of people who are interested in human evolution or the origins of our species are ignorant of these facts, the researchers behind The Evolution of Humans believe them to be important. When I say “new information”, I do not mean new evidence that has never been discovered or more evidence that does not support the accepted version of events, I mean new information that changes every other hypothesis and adds an entirely new layer of complexity to our understanding of our origins.

So this one is going to be short and to the point. The book takes you through all the major lines of evidence supporting human evolution out of Africa, the Middle East, and the rest of the globe. This includes genetic evidence, DNA studies, archaeology, and even art from around the world.

The authors also present a lot of ideas around all the different scenarios that have been proposed for the past 40 years.

I must emphasize that the book is not the only place to get into these issues. The book does a good job of giving you the best answers, in general, and providing explanations for why some things work. However people who write for popular science magazines or other popular sources are often the quickest ones to dismiss such ideas out of hand. They want answers to questions that they’ve asked themselves, and they want you to believe in what they’re selling.

That’s what makes this book so amazing. No matter who you are, these scientists’ ideas are a must read. It’s not only the best explanation for a theory that has been rejected for nearly 40 years… it’s one of the best explanations of any theory you’ll find.

This book will have many fans, and certainly should be on everyone’s to read list.

The Mars 2020 rover is a large spacecraft designed to carry human life support supplies on their surface, such as food, water, and oxygen. As you can see from the table above, Mars 2020 is only $3 billion dollars, while Mars 2020S will cost $4.5 billion. We’re looking at a $100 billion price tag for the Mars 2020 crewed project, not only because of the cost of constructing the spacecraft, but because the cost of sustaining those crew members for a time on the surface is almost entirely the project’s costs.

These costs are not negligible: the mission is estimated to cost $800 million per year for a year, which takes $90 million out of the entire Mars program until 2020. At that point, as of the time of writing, NASA is still funding the first two Mars spacecraft with roughly equal funds: $4.5 billion and $3 billion, on average. It’s true that Mars 2020 is the cheaper of the two, and as it has been demonstrated, using larger spacecraft can get significantly better results; one of these large spacecraft could carry people and the other could only act as a sample-return container. Mars 2020S will cost more, and probably will require funding well beyond the $4.5 billion mark, but overall it is a better idea when you compare them head-to-head. And while it may seem like there is no way to do it more efficiently, one way to do it efficiently is to use as many components as possible. If people are going to be onboard the spacecraft for a year and live and breathe on it, there is very little difference between a large and a small spacecraft. In other words, the cost difference between Mars 2020 and Mars 2020S is not just a result of the mission size, but also the costs, and so its efficiency is more limited than on the Mars 2020S. Additionally, since we’re talking about an upper-limb experiment, only humans are going to be onboard for a year; with that, the “efficiency” of the Mars 2020S isn’t as dramatic as an upper-limb experiment would be.

Mars 2020S with the rover

The Mars 2020 mission is interesting for two things: first, it is a significant step in the “deep space” exploration history of NASA. Mars was discovered, studied and explored by the US between 1950 and 1972 (roughly when the Mars exploration effort began), and it was one of the earliest missions ever proposed. The missions to Jupiter and Saturn were not proposed until the 1970s. The current space program is not very deep, and so we have only two, as-yet-un-determined, missions to Mars that were planned as long ago as 1967: Curiosity and the US-Russian Solar Probe to Jupiter. Since Curiosity has a much more complicated mission structure, we won’t be able to compare it to Mars 2020S at length, but it already has proven that even a relatively simple mission is just as simple as a lunar voyage; that said, it’s important to keep in mind that Curiosity is currently in the middle of the third year of its mission. If it falls off the target orbit, the mission will likely result in a landing the very next day, as the atmosphere was too thin. (If it’s a one-day landing, the mission will likely have to fly close to Mars before, if it wasn’t already, since the atmosphere is much thicker than we’re used to on the Red Planet.)

And second, to fully appreciate the idea of a Mars 2020 mission, one has to appreciate how different the US space program was back in the 1950s and 1960s, with missions such as Apollo/Mercury and the Moon landing effort and the Viking landers or the Skylab/Apollo space station, and in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the early shuttle program and the shuttle-Soyuz mission. If you examine those specific programs, it’s clear that what made them more efficent than a larger, more complex spacecraft is for the following factors: the availability of hardware. For example: Apollo/Apollo-Soyuz was flown between 1975 and 1978, and the missions lasted only a few days, but for the crew to get safely out of Earth orbit and to a surface landing they required spacecraft that were capable of extended periods in low-Earth orbit. For each mission, they either used the Saturn-Soyuz booster-vehicle that was launched with them, or the Shuttle, and while the Soyuz is a more reliable spacecraft than the other two, it was still quite difficult to get out of Earth orbit with the other three, since the Soyuz couldn’t fly beyond 1,000 km. They also required the use of the shuttle, but if they went to orbit on the Shuttle, they still needed four additional payloads to make that orbit (I believe

But what is the source behind the earthquakes? Some of the quakes in Yellowstone are thought to be caused by a fault, while others have been linked to a landslide as the magma below the Yellowstone caldera pushes upwards. The magma under the Yellowstone volcano is known to move very fast. If the earthquake swarm in the Park were due to the fault then there would have been no earthquake shaking through the Park. If the quake were due to a landslide then then the Park would have also missed the quake shaking as this would not have been possible for the huge amount of earthmoving machinery in the Park and the Yellowstone City Police were already on the scene to clear the Park. But what about earthquakes in Utah? These are well documented in the US Geological Survey (USGS) - one of the most important American scientific agencies. To date, Utah has experienced more earthquakes of epic proportions and there has been a record number of earthquakes in the Western Hemisphere over the last few hundred years. The first earthquake in May of 1856 in Utah shocked the West Coast and then another earthquake in 1859 in Utah shook America. The last quake in May of 2011 shook the West Coast again, when the earthquake was at magnitude 5.0. Another 7.5 quake in Chile caused by a giant fault rupture in the Pacific became the most significant earthquake in South America in 1970. A number of US citizens were killed and scores injured during the 1964 earthquake in California, while an earthquake in Haiti in 1980 killed more than 300 people. What if earthquakes due to the same faults in the Yellowstone Caldera were to occur in Utah? As most of these quakes are due to the fault, it can be argued that the quakes are caused by the fault. If they were due to the slide then the Park simply would not have had so many of the same earthquakes. So what are the real explanations for these quakes, and how in the world could they be due to the same source? The biggest clue is that the quakes occurred in a location known to be very susceptible to a landslide. In the US, the biggest landslide is in Utah, which as expected, is also located between the two biggest earthquakes in the world. A landslide can easily rip a large crater in a mountain. This is one reason we have such big bluffs like the Grand Canyon and Mount Everest. If the Yellowstone bluffs were to be torn away, then the bluffs are very easy to cause huge earthquakes. This can be seen in the following videos. On one of these videos a huge landslide causes an earthquake right next to the Park at the same time. Other videos from the same location show landslides that seem to be caused by the same source. This is a really well recorded series by this YouTube channel. What could the possible causes of the earthquakes be? Another theory would be that there has been less volcanic activity in the world over the last century, thus more pressure will be put on the Earth’s crust as it gets older. The geologists argue that the quakes can also be due to the slow movement of the crust of the Earth, causing the crust to slide slowly and thus causing the earthquakes. In other words, the current quakes could really mean a crust motion similar to a slow down of the crust of the Earth on a larger scale, thus causing large quakes. There are other interesting theories, but let’s leave any discussions about that for another post. It really doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a volcano or a bluffs (as seen in the videos below). How in the world could this happen and what is the relationship between the two? The bottom line? We need to understand the source of these quakes.

More information on the Yellowstone Park Earthquake Swarms.

Image Source: http://geology.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthquakes/swarms_and_quakes_part_vi/

Image Source: http://geology.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthquakes/swarms_and_quakes_part_xi/

But experts told a blogger he has a very limited understanding of the picture and can hardly believe that the rover could have come across the base on the Martian surface. The images show what appears to be a rectangular structure with several rectangular sections.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona Using the “fossil-hunting” tool called Sedna Vision you can see how the “base” looks. The base might look like this:

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona To create this “base” the researchers created a simple mathematical model so that they could create the shape and the shape of the base. A photo from the New Horizons spacecraft on Pluto has this object on the ground:

The “base” could look like this:

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona I asked a few experts for their opinions on the picture. Here is what they said. Dr. Jeff Gordon-Weaver, professor and NASA scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, said it looks “more like a large pile of rocks.” In addition he said that it could not be the shape of anything that humans would find anywhere on Earth. Dr. Charles Green, associate professor and director of the Space Science Institute at the University of Arizona, told me that they’d never seen that before, but that was before NASA was funding the NASA Earth and Life on Mars Program. Green told me that they’d seen something similar, but that “they look like things they would find on Mars,” meaning perhaps rocks. Dr. Bill Dyer, deputy director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division, told me that this was the most realistic scenario. I’m not sure of the quality of the photos that NASA has provided because I haven’t taken any of my own. The image has been posted on Reddit, which does not exactly have a rigorous review process. However, I do know that the UFO researchers are on a “rampant witch hunt,” that they are not taking anything seriously, and as such are being called out for being the fools that they are. After reading the comments it’s hard not to be cynical. They can’t deny the evidence that their base has no earthly source, but instead try and ridicule the NASA scientists for “having to defend” it. To some people this seems like a form of bullying, for which I have no sympathy. I’ve seen how some scientists can’t take a scientific criticism well, especially when they are the ones criticizing them. But what I find more troubling is that some UFO people even seem to have difficulty accepting there is no alien base on Mars. Why would they be? It’s simply impossible to prove that aliens have visited us, yet it’s been popular in some circles to “prove” there’s an alien presence. It has become a crutch. Most people, when they hear that aliens “roamed” the planets of other stars, automatically equate it with a base with large resources and facilities, and even larger intelligent life. But there has never been any hard evidence for aliens “roaming” the planets of the Solar System, no evidence that our own solar system was visited, and no evidence that it exists now. So how could an alien spacecraft have “escaped” from the solar system? There could have only been one way. Even if the alien base is a remote, deep geological feature of Mars, there’s no evidence anywhere online that it ever existed there.

Images NASA/JPL

Source: (I’m leaving out the details of Dr. Green’s response in case anyone wants a more in-depth review of the evidence or a response. He had nothing to do with the above image. I have not seen him comment on the matter.)

Boeing can use all of the space on the moon’s surface, because it’s not at all flat. At some point in a lunar orbit around the planet, you must make something else happen; a moon landing sounds more like it would be nice. And that something else would require something with a place for a building. At some point, we could use the lunar surface simply as a huge staging area, to launch into outer space. If we have that in space in a couple years, it would look more lunar.

Image via NASA/JPL The space that Elon Musk’s company would provide is not so much rocket-launching, but rocket-boosting, with rockets. On its most likely trajectory, the rockets would use electric propulsion. An electric propulsion system looks like this:

Image via NASA This is not rocket technology. If we want to build rockets, we need to be able to make them. That’s what we need to know. It wouldn’t do anything to reduce the cost of a rocket. The rockets would still be expensive. I am assuming these rockets take about 8 kilowatts of electricity to operate. This is just a rocket system, not rocket technology, but a combination of two different technologies: electric propulsion and rocket-making. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia) An electric-powered system uses the same kind of batteries as your car’s batteries: Lithium-ion. This is just a big battery, not a rocket battery. For a rocket to work, a rocket that uses rocket batteries would be just different. We don’t know if there would be any battery issues; there are plenty of small battery-powered rocket systems around. But the most likely problem would be how the rocket power is spread between a bunch of different batteries. Let’s leave that technology for another day. On the other hand, a rocket booster uses liquid-fueled rocket fuel that burns at substantially higher temperatures than a rocket engine’s fuel. The liquid-fueled rocket engine engine is just too heavy for that, and would be too heavy for the rocket booster. This is a hybrid system. First, the rocket-battery system requires the rocket to burn more fuel. But more than one rocket is not really ideal. But the more a rocket burns, the better it is. The rocket could be set up so that it could be launched from many different launch sites, to reduce the amount of fuel used. And the battery system is just great for rocket engines that have to operate at a higher temperature for long periods. It could work, but it’s got a few issues: The most obvious problem is that we have to find some place on the moon to hide a rocket booster. Here’s an example of the problem:

Image via NASA Once, on the moon in the far-end of the moon, a rocket booster could lay in the shadow of a giant boulder and still make it to the launch site. But later, all of this would fall out of the moon. But the rockets wouldn’t be destroyed, and we’d still be able to launch. Also, the rocket booster would be incredibly heavy for an Earth-bound spaceship. In theory, it could be made smaller by using the rocket as a tank. That would allow easier storage and less weight. But this would also force our spaceship to be much larger at a launch site, which is not a desirable choice. In addition, rocket boosters can’t be launched like rockets. There’s currently a huge difference between a rocket booster and a rocket booster, so if the rocket didn’t launch, that’s going to cause a lot of problems later on when we make the rocket as a rocket. A lot of the problems in a rocket can be fixed. A rocket booster could be used as a booster as well, because it would be on the same rocket, and be able to keep going if needed. And the booster is not in any place where the rocket is. That’s why it seems like the real problem with a lunar lander is that we would be able to launch the lander, but don’t have a place where we can set it up for when you need it. SpaceX’s version of a lunar lander looks like this: Image courtesy of SpaceX, NASA This is really just a scaled-down version of SpaceX’s version of a rocket. But let’s just pretend, for just a moment, that it were true. It looks good. It’s got a nice rocket. But if we were able to make something like that, we could use it as a propellant. Of course, we need to learn how to actually make a rocket fuel, so we can actually use it. However, what better way for us to learn how to make it, than

____ 6. The Mission 6.1 Mission Data and Analysis 6.2 Mission Timeline 6.3 Mission Status 7. Introduction 7.1 Brief History 7.2 Mission Facts and Figures 7.3 Mission Background on the Space Launch System 7.4 References to External References 7.5 Mission Highlights 7.6 Mission Summary 7.7 Mission Report 7.8 Flight Demonstration Missions 7.9 Mission Performance Test Conditions: Mission Success 7.10 Mission Performance Test Conditions: Mission Failure 7.11 Mission Performance Test Conditions: Mission Neutralization 8. The Mission Concept 8.1 Background 8.2 Main Components of the Shuttle Concept 8.3 Integrated Crew Vehicle (ICV) 8.4 Integrated Launch Vehicle (ILSV) 8.5 Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) 8.6 Human Capability 9. Mission Overview 9.1 Launch Vehicle Development 9.2 Launch Vehicle Application 9.3 Flight Development 9.4 Vehicle Integration Tests 9.5 Flight Test Mission Performance 10. The Mission 10.1 Launch Vehicle Application 10.2 Flight Development Program 10.3 Flight and Vehicle Test Program: Flight Duration Test Program 10.4 Flight Test Mission Performance 11. Mission Evaluation 11.1 Mission Capabilities 11.2 Mission Performance Validity Assurance 11.3 Critical Mission Failure Requirements 11.4 Flight Performance Test Results 12. The Mission 12.1 Mission Requirements 12.2 Flight Test Guidance 12.3 Flight Test Vehicle Flight Performance 13. The Mission 13.1 Flight Test Guidance 14. Flight Test Vehicle Performance 15. Technical Specifications 15.1 Space-Specific Design Space-Specific Performance 15.2 Launch Site Selection 15.3 Environmental Impact Assessment 15.4 Vehicle and Crew 15.5 Crew and Vehicle Performance Testing 15.6 Crew Flight Test Missions 16. Environmental Test Hardware and Systems 17. Vehicle System Evaluation 18. Vehicle Performance Test Evaluation 19. Vehicle Performance Testing 20. Launch Equipment and Other Equipment 21. Vehicle Performance Test Results 22. Launch Vehicle Performance 23. Test Vehicle Performance, Operation and Maintenance 24. Flight Test Procedures, Ground Test Operations 25. Mission Evaluation and Analysis 26. Mission Evaluation and Analysis 27. Mission Evaluation 24.1 A Summary of the Mission 24.1.1 Summary of Mission Objectives 24.1.2 Flight Performance 24.1.3 Flight Model and Performance 24.1.4 Performance Analysis 24.1.5 Flight Performance Requirements 24.1.6 Engine Performance 26. Mission Evaluation 24.1.7 Test Performance Performance 26.1.8 Static Stability 29. Mission Evaluation 24.1.9 Engine Performance 26.1.10 Flight Performance 26.1.11 Flight Model and Performance 26.1.12 Performance Analysis 26.1.13 Performance Results 29.1 Mission Characteristics 25. Conclusion 26. References

Appendix C. NASA: LEM Mission Report 10.1 LEM Mission Briefing Document 10.2 LEM Mission Summary and Mission Report

Appendix D. NASA: LEM Mission Mission Information 30.1 Mission Data 31.1 Mission Timeline 1. Overview 1.1.1 Overview 1.1.2 Overview 1.1.3 Performance and Design 1.1.4 Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft Overview 1.1.4.1 NASA: Orbiter Overview 1.1.5 Launch Vehicle Overview 1.1.6 Launch Vehicle Operation and Requirements 1.1.6.2 NASA: Shuttle Overview 1.2 Launch Vehicle Overview 1.3 Ground Test Vehicle Overview 1.4 Reusable and Reusable Launch Vehicle Launch Vehicle Operations and Requirements 1.4.1 Overview 1.4.2 Overview 1.4.3 Overview 1.4.4 Overview 1.4.5 Overview 1.4.6 Flight Concept, Spacecraft Development, Test Vehicles 1.4.7 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition Equipment and Systems 1.5 Environmental Control Systems 1.6 Mission Performance Equipment 1.7 Performance and Design Evaluation 1.7.1 Performance and Design Requirements 1.7.2 Performance and Design Criteria 1.7.3 Flight Test Equipment and Systems 1.7.4 Specific Design Criteria 1.7.5 Flight Design Evaluation 1.5.1 Flight Performance 1.5.2 Launch Vehicle Performance 1.5.3 Flight Performance Requirements 1.5.4 Specific Flight Performance 1.5.5 Flight Performance Requirements 1.6 Reusable Launch Vehicle Performance Requirements 1.7 Reusable Launch Vehicle Overview 1.8 Shuttle Overview 1.8.1 Overview 1.8.2 Overview 1.8.3 Overview 1.8.4 Overview 1.8.5 Overview 1.9 Crew Vehicle Overview 12.1 Launch Vehicle Evaluation and Vehicle Testing 13. Mission Evaluation 13.1.1 Mission Capabilities 13.1.2 Mission Performance Cap Validity Assurance 13.1.3 Critical Mission Failure Requirements 13.2 Mission Evaluation 13.3 Mission Performance Evaluation 13.3.1 NASA: Shuttle Overview 13.4 Mission Evaluation 13.5 Flight Test Mission Performance 13.6 Flight Test Mission Performance 13.6.1 NASA:

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now

×