|
|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
23-November-2004, 03:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Apollo quiz
Standard rules apply except that in the interests of giving everyone a chance, Jay is only allowed to answer once per page.
 1. What was the name of the Apollo 10 LM?
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131 
|
|
23-November-2004, 04:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Correct.
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131
|
|
23-November-2004, 05:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Apollo quiz
Quote:
__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut
|
|
23-November-2004, 05:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Er... only twice.
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131
|
|
23-November-2004, 07:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
OK, I'm back, and I've done my "research"...so...
During the 3rd Moonwalk of Apollo 17, Capcom Robert Parker saw something strange on the Rover video. He radioed the crew, saying..."17, what's out there in the distance on a hillside in the field of view of the camera"? Within moments it was determined to be something quite ordinary, Bob then stated..."We thought we had an artifact or something like that...". The question is... What did Bob Parker "mistake" for an artifact?
|
|
23-November-2004, 08:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
A Rock?
__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.
|
|
23-November-2004, 09:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Research skills are always more prized than memory. The engineer's hierarchy is never to compute what you can measure, and never measure what you can look up. (Although sometimes the last two are reversed, depending on context.)
When I interview C programmers I always ask them to write code on the whiteboard to sort an array of ten integers using the Quicksort algorithm. Here is the correct answer (apologies to non-programmers): Code:
int array[ 10 ]; /* presumed initialized */
int compare( const void *a, const void *b )
{
return *((int *) a) - *((int *) b);
}
qsort( array, 10, sizeof( int ), compare );
The next most correct answer is "Knuth, volume 3" referring to Donald Knuth's seminal The Art of Computer Programming. That is, the candidate knows the proper reference for finding a definitive implementation of the algorithm. The next most correct answer is "Why does it especially have to be Quicksort?" indicating that the candidate is willing to challenge the assumptions on which the problem is based and think outside the box. There are many methods for sorting data, each with attendant strengths and weaknesses. The incorrect answer is an attempt -- successful or otherwise -- to write out the Quicksort algorithm in C. Why the devious approach? Few people have the Quicksort algorithm memorized correctly, which means an engineer who tries to reconstruct it from memory will waste time getting his implementation to work. There's no advantage to reinventing that wheel. A good C programmer knows what's in the standard C library and how to make effective use of it. The C library implementation of Quicksort is fully debugged and likely optimized for the particular computer. Too many software engineers are eager to build systems from the ground up instead of building on what's already there. And finally, if for some reason you can't use the C library (e.g., you're on an embedded system), then for heaven's sake make sure you get it right when you type it in. There's no shame in having Knuth's books in your lap when you have to recreate these basic program elements. You get full points for doing your best to get it right the first time. Other engineering disciplines aren't usually as susceptible to this point as software engineering simply because they're more used to working from references and consulting appropriate printed authority. But still, the ability to get it right by knowing where to look is the prized skill. [/code]
|
|
23-November-2004, 09:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Did any LM's fly with a contact probe on each of the four pads?
Yes. AS9-21-3183.
|
|
23-November-2004, 10:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
*Particularly since he isn't
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
|
|
23-November-2004, 10:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jay's half correct but I didn't phrase the question well.
Technically you only asked a yes-no question. Your turn Jay. What important change was made to the LM guidance and control systems between Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 to make landing under manual control easier?
|
|
#23 ( |
