+1701eh Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 RES2100's Silver peak comes to mind... made of quartz. I think you can canoe to it, but I was considering the hike last summer. Time ran out though Bingo... almost. You have named the highest peak. You have named the rock, or close enough (quartzite). Now just name the actual range... I didn't know the name of the range until I looked it up. Now that I've done that, I do remember hearing of it before. Let's see if somebody else know the name Quote Link to comment
+ElectroQTed Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 LaCloche Mountain Range. (Didn't look it up either) Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 LaCloche Mountain Range. (Didn't look it up either) La Cloche is correct. The highest peak is Silver Peak and it has a cache on it. The range started to form 2.5 billion years ago, and is predominantly made of quartzite, which is sparkling white. The Group of Seven liked to hang out in this area a lot. In my humble opinion, this area is one of the crown jewels of Canada. Sorry for making the question too hard. Now, if anybody knows if there is a trail out of Killarney lake up Silver Lake, please PM me. I'm leaving on Sunday. Cheers! Quote Link to comment
+shearzone Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 (edited) LaCloche Mountain Range. (Didn't look it up either) La Cloche is correct. The highest peak is Silver Peak and it has a cache on it. The range started to form 2.5 billion years ago, and is predominantly made of quartzite, which is sparkling white. The Group of Seven liked to hang out in this area a lot. In my humble opinion, this area is one of the crown jewels of Canada. Sorry for making the question too hard. Now, if anybody knows if there is a trail out of Killarney lake up Silver Lake, please PM me. I'm leaving on Sunday. Cheers! Looks like a nice place, I'd like to visit it one day. Edited July 28, 2006 by shearzone Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Looks like a nice place, I'd like to visit it one day. Yep, it's nice all right. Of course, the "mountains" are not like those young-pup mountains out your end of the country (my favourite of which is Castle Mountain). After 2 billion years, and relentless scouring by glaciers, they are worn down. But the beauty of the area is amazing. To get into the interior of Killarney for 3 days (in the middle of the week) we had to book months in advance! Feel free to check out some more photos from our last trip HERE. Just click on the "Sudbury-Killarney 2002" photo album. (By the way, now I see the meaning behind your handle "shearzone"!) Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 Okay Ted, let's hear a Geoquestion from you now. Quote Link to comment
+ElectroQTed Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Okay Ted, let's hear a Geoquestion from you now. I didn't really think it was my turn as I only answered 1/3 of the question, but here goes: A 5 part question - just kidding! (Personally, I think we should keep them to a single question to help move things along.) What is the name of the constellation of satellites who's predictable glints can sometimes be seen in broad daylight with a maximum magnitude of -8 (30 times brighter than Venus)? Quote Link to comment
+1701eh Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Okay Ted, let's hear a Geoquestion from you now. I didn't really think it was my turn as I only answered 1/3 of the question, but here goes: A 5 part question - just kidding! (Personally, I think we should keep them to a single question to help move things along.) What is the name of the constellation of satellites who's predictable glints can sometimes be seen in broad daylight with a maximum magnitude of -8 (30 times brighter than Venus)? Navsat? Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) UFOs? Sputnik? Laika and the Cosmonauts? Okay, I'm a terrestrial radio guy. At least that's my excuse. Edited August 2, 2006 by Couparangus Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 What is the name of the constellation of satellites who's predictable glints can sometimes be seen in broad daylight with a maximum magnitude of -8 (30 times brighter than Venus)? Iridium network. Quote Link to comment
+ElectroQTed Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 What is the name of the constellation of satellites who's predictable glints can sometimes be seen in broad daylight with a maximum magnitude of -8 (30 times brighter than Venus)? Iridium network. BINGO! A detailed description of Iridium Satellites and how the flare (glint) is created can be found Here. Heavens-Above has predictions for Iridium Flares as well as other satellites. Whenever we go camping, I bring along a printout for a weeks worth of flares. If the weather permits, we'll venture to an area with a clear view of the sky and watch them. The 'wow' factor has still not worn off for me. I've yet to see a daytime flare, but the bright ones at night are amazing! You're up GrosseFamille. Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Woohoo! Here goes.. (I know this from discussions on our local forum). What are the NMEA Satellite IDs for the 2 new WAAS satellites that are partially available now but will be fully operational this fall? Quote Link to comment
CharlieZulu Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Woohoo! Here goes.. (I know this from discussions on our local forum). What are the NMEA Satellite IDs for the 2 new WAAS satellites that are partially available now but will be fully operational this fall? 35 and 47? BTW, my Company provided almost all the antennas on the Iridium satellites.... it was quite an exciting project from a technical point of view, but a financial and marketing disaster! Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Woohoo! Here goes.. (I know this from discussions on our local forum). What are the NMEA Satellite IDs for the 2 new WAAS satellites that are partially available now but will be fully operational this fall? 35 and 47? BTW, my Company provided almost all the antennas on the Iridium satellites.... it was quite an exciting project from a technical point of view, but a financial and marketing disaster! Nope! 35 is an current WAAS satellite.. I don't know about 47.. Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 33 and 37? No. These are 2 EGNOS satellites. And for the previous answers, 47 is also a current WAAS sat. Quote Link to comment
CharlieZulu Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 last guess.... 51 and 48?? Should I "pAnik"?? Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) last guess.... 51 and 48?? Should I "pAnik"?? No! Don't pAnik! You got it! You're next CZ! Edit: More info here: http://gpsinformation.net/exe/waas.html Edited August 2, 2006 by GrosseFamille Quote Link to comment
CharlieZulu Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Whew! pAnik.... get it everyone?? OK, here comes a 2-parter: Staying on the satellite theme, then... large communications satellites operate in geostationary orbit. As the name implies, these satellites appear to be stationary when observed from a point on the earth, even though our planet is spinning pretty quickly. The advantages are fairly obvious.... a satellite can be designed to provide service to a specific region, signals can be sent up from a simple terminal which does not require tracking and so on. (ever seen those satellite trucks at sports events, etc?) A pretty famous guy came up with this concept... long before satellites or launch vehicles were even invented. Anyone know who this is? In what publication did he publish this seemingly crazy idea? Quote Link to comment
+1701eh Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Whew! pAnik.... get it everyone?? OK, here comes a 2-parter: Staying on the satellite theme, then... large communications satellites operate in geostationary orbit. As the name implies, these satellites appear to be stationary when observed from a point on the earth, even though our planet is spinning pretty quickly. The advantages are fairly obvious.... a satellite can be designed to provide service to a specific region, signals can be sent up from a simple terminal which does not require tracking and so on. (ever seen those satellite trucks at sports events, etc?) A pretty famous guy came up with this concept... long before satellites or launch vehicles were even invented. Anyone know who this is? In what publication did he publish this seemingly crazy idea? Albert Einstein Theory of Relativity (theorum Relativum or something like that) Quote Link to comment
+geek-e Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Herman Potocnik in the book "The Problem of Space Travel - The Rocket Motor". Quote Link to comment
+The red-haired witch Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Jules Verne? Quote Link to comment
+1701eh Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Nope. It must have been Sir Isaac Newton then. I recall that it was about placing a cannon on a high enough hill so that when you shoot the cannon, the cannonball's arc exceeds the earth's curvature enough that it never falls to earth. I don't recall the name of Newton's work other than I think it was short and latin. Something like my previous answer of 'Theorum Relativum'. Quote Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Isaac Newton eh? "De motu corprum in gyrum" which i think translates to the motion of bodies in orbit? I like fighting with Physics PhDs in my spare time (no really..) Quote Link to comment
+northernpenguin Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) Isaac Newton eh? "De motu corprum in gyrum" which i think translates to the motion of bodies in orbit? I like fighting with Physics PhDs in my spare time (no really..) I'm going to guess that it was Galileo. That's a name I hear thrown around a lot when it comes to space stuff. As for the publication, not sure - I wasn't around to read it at the time it was published Edited August 3, 2006 by northernpenguin Quote Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Isaac Newton eh? "De motu corprum in gyrum" which i think translates to the motion of bodies in orbit? I like fighting with Physics PhDs in my spare time (no really..) I'm going to guess that it was Galileo. That's a name I hear thrown around a lot when it comes to space stuff. As for the publication, not sure - I wasn't around to read it at the time it was published Are you insinuating that I was around when newton was getting whacked with apples? I am not as old as I look young fella! Quote Link to comment
CharlieZulu Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Arthur C Clarke AV is correct, but it's a two part question! He is still kicking around and lives in Sri Lanka. Among other little things, he wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey. Quote Link to comment
+The Blue Quasar Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Oh man, I hadn't looked at this thread for a bit... and finally part of a question that I knew But sadly like most I don't know the publication... Arthur C Clark suggested the "Geosyncronous Orbit", also known as "Clark Orbit" being a fixed point above the Earth. Some people think, erroneously, that it is equi-distant between the Earth and the Moon. Obviously that can't be right since the Moon orbits, as well as the gravitational equalibrium point between the Earth and Moon is not halfway between them. The trick for the Clark Orbit is for the velocity of the satellite motion to match that of the Earth, while maintaining the balance between gravity's pull on the satellite with the escape velocity that would allow it to fly off on its own. While it seems obvious to us now, this was great idea that took a great thinker to bring forward. Okay... I'm done adding nothingness to this thread The Blue Quasar Quote Link to comment
+Dave + Jen Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Was the publication Astounding SF, actually written as a blurb of science fiction rather than science fact? I think I've read them all. But, A.C.C has been known to write about Lagrange points as well. Quote Link to comment
+The red-haired witch Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Could it be Rama? Only other title of one of his novels I can remember right now... and it takes place on an alien satellite/space station, so it could be. Though I know he also wrote non-fiction books (no idea of the titles of those) Quote Link to comment
+AV Dezign Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Arthur C Clarke AV is correct, but it's a two part question! He is still kicking around and lives in Sri Lanka. Among other little things, he wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey. I just remember readiung it years ago, where ACC talks about several theories, but the title totally escapes me. Quote Link to comment
CharlieZulu Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Well, I'll give a little hint.... the idea was not published in a book or novel. Quote Link to comment
+1701eh Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Well, I'll give a little hint.... the idea was not published in a book or novel. Scientific American? Quote Link to comment
+AV Dezign Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Well, I'll give a little hint.... the idea was not published in a book or novel. I gave up and looked it up, I have to admit that I would never guess this correctly. I'll let others take wild guesses and see if anybody can actually get it witout looking it up. Quote Link to comment
CharlieZulu Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Well, I'll give a little hint.... the idea was not published in a book or novel. Scientific American? Nope. Another hint... it was a British publication, and the year was 1945. Quote Link to comment
+1701eh Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Well, I'll give a little hint.... the idea was not published in a book or novel. I gave up and looked it up, I have to admit that I would never guess this correctly. I'll let others take wild guesses and see if anybody can actually get it witout looking it up. Ditto! Not on my top 1,000,000 list... Quote Link to comment
+geek-e Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Arthur C Clarke AV is correct, but it's a two part question! He is still kicking around and lives in Sri Lanka. Among other little things, he wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey. Herman Potocnik published the book "The Problem of Space Travel - The Rocket Motor" in 1929 were he conceived a space station in detail and calculated its geostationary orbit. The paper you are talking about for Arthur C. Clarke was published in 1945 entitled "Extra-terrestrial Relays" Quote Link to comment
CharlieZulu Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Well, .........we're geting pretty close, so I'll give it to ya.... the article was titled "Extra-Terrestrial Relays — Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?", and it was published in Wireless World in October 1945. "Rocket Stations"... I love it !! Here is an interesting reference Over to geek-e, and sorry to have dragged this out.. PS I must admit I was not aware of the Potocnik work! This is the fun of this Geopub Quiz... you might learn something! Quote Link to comment
+geek-e Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Thank you charliezulu. I have another two part question. How long ago was the art of navigation born and in what country? geek-e Quote Link to comment
+The Blue Quasar Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I'll take a wild swing on this one.... 800's in Norway The Blue Quasar Quote Link to comment
+1701eh Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Thank you charliezulu. I have another two part question. How long ago was the art of navigation born and in what country? geek-e 10,000 BC in Atlantis... Go ahead... Prove me wrong... I dare ya Quote Link to comment
+The red-haired witch Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 A couple of million years ago, somewhere in Africa (no country existed at the time...) Homo Erectus certainly had to invent navigation to find their way to Europe and Asia. (But I do like the hard to disprove Atlantis theory ) Quote Link to comment
+graylling Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I would hazard a guess and say the Phonecians were probably the first great trading culture. I believe somewhere around 3500 BC in Greece. For a real look at the history of navigation. Check this. Quote Link to comment
+geek-e Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 To keep this going I will give a hint. It happened on the Indus River and happened at the beginning of the Bronze Age. Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 To keep this going I will give a hint. It happened on the Indus River and happened at the beginning of the Bronze Age. The Bronze Age started around 3,500 BCE, and the Indus Valley Civilization started around 3,300 BCE. Obviously there were no modern countries present, but the IVC was located in present-day Pakistan and parts of India. Therefore, my guess is around 3,000 BCE in modern-day Pakistan. Quote Link to comment
+geek-e Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 dano you are correct. Navigation was born over 6000 years ago on the Indus River in India. Good job. Lets have a question. geek-e Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Two moose, both claimed to be the "world's largest" when these pictures were taken in 1986. Name their locations (city and province). Moose #1: Moose #2: Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.