"TOliver" <toliverjr
...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> "Lon" <lon.stow...@comcast.net> wrote...
>> I got credit, but only after redoing the experiment multiple times and
>> showing the results as the mean, median, and standard deviation ona
>> splatter graph, plus calculating and correcting for the stretching of the
>> cheap string, the gross inaccuracy of the cheap scales, and the friction
>> of the cheap pulley setups and recalculating... yet again to a
>> non-integer number just slightly smaller than the theoretical actual
>> advantage, with a note that the presumed advantage was integral and that
>> my results may not have included as yet undiscovered variables and that
>> it would be unethical and unscientific to include results not consistent
>> with experimental behavior. Grudging credit, but credit. And
>> eventually became somewhat friends with the teacher once he understood
>> the first result wasn't *fully* intended as a smart ass result.
> Sadly, celestial navigation (by sextant, either marine or aircraft models)
> is no longer taught to aviators and future sea officers, satellites having
> replaced stars, and electronic readouts subbing in for tradition.
<snip>
The tools and knowledge for celestial navigation were still in place on at
least one USN combat vessel in late January of 2003 when the ship on which I
was stationed had both Inertial Navigation Systems go down, followed all too
shortly by the GPS antenna. For close to a week and a half an Aegis class
destroyer ended up piloted through shallow extreme-Northern Arabian Gulf
waters by a combination of extremely cautious steering, celestial
navigation, dead reckoning, and the occasional check by landmarks if we got
too close to an oil platform.
Our Quartermasters and the NavO were nervous wrecks the entire time and
nearly wept with gratitude when tech reps came out and got the electronic
systems running, but they did a fine job and not once did we run aground on
one of the multitude of sand bars that lie in wait for the unwary navigator
in that area.
More nerve-wracking for the rest of us was the fact that all our weapons
systems with the exception of the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System are
dependent on the INS for levelling information, the failure of which turned
them into so much useless scrap. Those of us dealing with our one offensive
weapons system, Tomahawk, regarded it as a grand vacation during which we
didn't have to notify the entire chain of command up to CentCom that we
would be down for routine maintenance.
Andrea "few things are more offensive than a Tomahawk" Jones
