Показват се публикациите с етикет free. Показване на всички публикации
Kedit
Kedit
 | Look up kedit in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
KEdit, or KEDIT may refer to:
- KEDIT, a clone of XEDIT for DOS and Windows, by Mansfield Software
- KEdit was formerly a simple text editor for KDE
 | This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. |
- Disambiguation pages
Kask
Kask
| Look up kask in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
Kask may refer to:
- Asta Kask, a punk band from Töreboda, Sweden
- A common Estonian surname (meaning birch), with notable bearers including:
- Janne Kask, former singer of the Swedish band Brainpool
- Jana Kask (born 1991), Estonian singer and the winner of Eesti otsib superstaari (Estonian version of Pop Idol) 2008
- Oskar Kask (1898–1942), Estonian politician (et)
- Teet Kask (born 1968), Estonian ballet dancer and choreographer
[edit]See also
- Kõiv, another Estonian surname meaning birch
- Karsk
 | This page or section lists people with the surname Kask. If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name(s) to the link. |
Source
Stanisława Umińska
Stanisława Umińska
 | This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2013) |
Stanisława Umińska (1901-1977) was a Polish theatre actress.
In early 1920s she was considered one of the rising stars of the Polish theatre, but in 1924 in Paris, France, she shot dead her dying fiance, Jan Żyznowski, upon his request as an act of euthanasia. Set free by the French court, she became a nurse and a nun in Poland.
[edit]References
- (Polish) Stanisława Umińska
- (Polish) Małgorzata Szeroczyńska, Eutanazja i wspomagane samobójstwo na świecie. Studium prawnoporównawcze
 | This article about a Polish actor or actress is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Source
The Lessons We Learned from Space Shuttle Enterprise
Space shuttle Enterprise soars during its first of five free flights. Credit: NASA
On this day 36 years ago, two astronauts aboard the space shuttle Enterprise took the ship out for its initial test flight. It cut loose from a 747 carrying it into flight, and landed perfectly under the guiding hands of Commander Fred Haise — of Apollo 13 fame — and pilot Gordon Fullerton.
Enterprise was designed as a test ship only, and was never intended to fly in space. Instead, it was used for a series of flying and landing approach tests to see how well the shuttle maneuvered during the landing. The astronauts first flew a series of “captive” flights aboard the 747, then cut the test shuttle loose for five free flights over several weeks.
What lessons were learned and what design changes did NASA implement from the Enterprise test program? And how did Enterprise help shape the future of the space shuttle program? A few clues emerge from the program’s final evaluation report, which was released in February 1978.
- Stopping a hydrazine leak. Hydrazine was used as a fuel for the maneuvering thrusters on the space shuttle, but the chemical is toxic and shouldn’t be exposed to humans. During the first captive flight, an auxiliary power unit was turned on about 18 minutes in. That was part of the plan, but the next part wasn’t: NASA observed fuel was being used much faster than expected in the next 25 minutes. It turned out that a bellows seal in the fuel pump had failed and caused “significant hydrazine leakage” in the shuttle’s aft bay.
- Preventing brake trouble or ‘chattering’. The first indication of trouble came after the second free flight. The astronauts felt a “chattering” (low-frequency vibration) sensation during braking as they were slowing down on the runway. This 16-hertz vibration happened again during “hard” braking on Flight 3. In light of the vibration, the brake control was modified and the astronauts did not feel the vibrations on Flights 4 and 5.
- Minimizing computer vibration. Enterprise’s Computer 2 fell out of sync with its fellow computers as the shuttle separated from the 747 on Flight 1, causing several computer errors. (The other three redundant computers effectively voted the computer off the island, to use Survivor parlance, and the flight carried on.) Ground tests of similar units revealed that the solder keeping the computer attached to the shuttle cracked when subjected to a slight vibration for a long period of time. NASA modified the attachments and the computers were just fine on Flight 2.
- Astronaut training. The astronauts experienced several control problems during Enterprise’s fifth free landing, when they deployed the speed brake to compensate for a landing that was a little faster than planned. As the pilot tried to control the shuttle’s sink rate, the elevons (a control surface for pitch and roll) were elevated more than usual, causing the shuttle to gently head back into the air and roll to the right before landing again. The astronauts could not see any unusual changes in pitch because the nose of the shuttle was not visible from the cockpit. Further, the center of gravity for the pitch changes was so close to the cockpit that the astronauts could not feel the sensation. ”The pilot was unaware of any problem other than that he was landing long and trying to get the vehicle on the ground near the desired touchdown spot,” the NASA report stated. Several recommendations came out of this incident, such as more simulations of landings, modifying the flight control system, and stating that speed brakes should not be used just before landing.
Bottom line, though, was NASA said the approach and landing tests accomplished all objectives. The authors of the report called for modifications to these problems and a few others, but said as soon as these situations were addressed the shuttle was performing well enough for further flights. You can read the whole report here.
Enterprise is now on display at the Intrepid Air & Space Museum in New York, but is temporarily closed to the public as the shuttle undergoes repairs from damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy.
© Elizabeth Howell for Universe Today, 2013. |
Permalink |
No comment |
Post tags: NASA, shuttle, Space Shuttle, space shuttle enterprise
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
The Lessons We Learned from Space Shuttle Enterprise
Space shuttle Enterprise soars during its first of five free flights. Credit: NASA
On this day 36 years ago, two astronauts aboard the space shuttle Enterprise took the ship out for its initial test flight. It cut loose from a 747 carrying it into flight, and landed perfectly under the guiding hands of Commander Fred Haise — of Apollo 13 fame — and pilot Gordon Fullerton.
Enterprise was designed as a test ship only, and was never intended to fly in space. Instead, it was used for a series of flying and landing approach tests to see how well the shuttle maneuvered during the landing. The astronauts first flew a series of “captive” flights aboard the 747, then cut the test shuttle loose for five free flights over several weeks.
What lessons were learned and what design changes did NASA implement from the Enterprise test program? And how did Enterprise help shape the future of the space shuttle program? A few clues emerge from the program’s final evaluation report, which was released in February 1978.
- Stopping a hydrazine leak. Hydrazine was used as a fuel for the maneuvering thrusters on the space shuttle, but the chemical is toxic and shouldn’t be exposed to humans. During the first captive flight, an auxiliary power unit was turned on about 18 minutes in. That was part of the plan, but the next part wasn’t: NASA observed fuel was being used much faster than expected in the next 25 minutes. It turned out that a bellows seal in the fuel pump had failed and caused “significant hydrazine leakage” in the shuttle’s aft bay.
- Preventing brake trouble or ‘chattering’. The first indication of trouble came after the second free flight. The astronauts felt a “chattering” (low-frequency vibration) sensation during braking as they were slowing down on the runway. This 16-hertz vibration happened again during “hard” braking on Flight 3. In light of the vibration, the brake control was modified and the astronauts did not feel the vibrations on Flights 4 and 5.
- Minimizing computer vibration. Enterprise’s Computer 2 fell out of sync with its fellow computers as the shuttle separated from the 747 on Flight 1, causing several computer errors. (The other three redundant computers effectively voted the computer off the island, to use Survivor parlance, and the flight carried on.) Ground tests of similar units revealed that the solder keeping the computer attached to the shuttle cracked when subjected to a slight vibration for a long period of time. NASA modified the attachments and the computers were just fine on Flight 2.
- Astronaut training. The astronauts experienced several control problems during Enterprise’s fifth free landing, when they deployed the speed brake to compensate for a landing that was a little faster than planned. As the pilot tried to control the shuttle’s sink rate, the elevons (a control surface for pitch and roll) were elevated more than usual, causing the shuttle to gently head back into the air and roll to the right before landing again. The astronauts could not see any unusual changes in pitch because the nose of the shuttle was not visible from the cockpit. Further, the center of gravity for the pitch changes was so close to the cockpit that the astronauts could not feel the sensation. ”The pilot was unaware of any problem other than that he was landing long and trying to get the vehicle on the ground near the desired touchdown spot,” the NASA report stated. Several recommendations came out of this incident, such as more simulations of landings, modifying the flight control system, and stating that speed brakes should not be used just before landing.
Bottom line, though, was NASA said the approach and landing tests accomplished all objectives. The authors of the report called for modifications to these problems and a few others, but said as soon as these situations were addressed the shuttle was performing well enough for further flights. You can read the whole report here.
Enterprise is now on display at the Intrepid Air & Space Museum in New York, but is temporarily closed to the public as the shuttle undergoes repairs from damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy.
© Elizabeth Howell for Universe Today, 2013. |
Permalink |
No comment |
Post tags: NASA, shuttle, Space Shuttle, space shuttle enterprise
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Eremiaphila heluanensis
Eremiaphila heluanensis
| Eremiaphila heluanensis | |
|---|---|
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Mantodea |
| Family: | Eremiaphilidae |
| Genus: | Eremiaphila |
| Species: | Eremiaphila heluanensis |
Eremiaphila heluanensis is a species of praying mantis in the genus Acontista in the family Eremiaphilidae.[1]
[edit]See also
- List of mantis genera and species
[edit]References
- ^ [1] Tree of Life Web Project. 2005
| This Eremiaphila-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Source
San Ramón River
San Ramón River
| San Ramón River | |
|---|---|
| Basin countries | Bolivia |
The San Ramón River is a river of Bolivia.
[edit]See also
- List of rivers of Bolivia
[edit]References
- Rand McNally, The New International Atlas, 1993.
 | This Bolivia location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Ulam number
Ulam number
An Ulam number is a member of an integer sequence devised by and named after Stanislaw Ulam, who introduced it in 1964.[1] The standard Ulam sequence (the (1, 2)-Ulam sequence) starts with U1 = 1 and U2 = 2. Then for n > 2, Un is defined to be the smallest integer that is the sum of two distinct earlier terms in exactly one way.
Contents[hide]
|
[edit]Examples
By the definition, 3 is an Ulam number (1+2); and 4 is an Ulam number (1+3). (Here 2+2 is not a second representation of 4, because the previous terms must be distinct.) The integer 5 is not an Ulam number, because 5 = 1 + 4 = 2 + 3. The first few terms are
- 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, 26, 28, 36, 38, 47, 48, 53, 57, 62, 69, 72, 77, 82, 87, 97, 99 (sequence A002858 in OEIS).
- 2, 3, 11, 13, 47, 53, 97, 131, 197, 241, 409, 431, 607, 673, 739, 751, 983, 991, 1103, 1433, 1489 (sequence A068820 in OEIS).
[edit]Infinite sequence
There are infinitely many Ulam numbers. For, after the first n numbers in the sequence have already been determined, it is always possible to extend the sequence by one more element:Un − 1 + Un is uniquely represented as a sum of two of the first n numbers, and there may be other
Source
