It seems to me that not that long ago, people used to refer to things being "in orbit" [around the earth]. Nowdays, the vernacular seems to be "on orbit".
I was just wondering if anyone knew when the nomenclature changed, and also why ?
After all, when you're *in* orbit, you're not actually *on* anything :)
In article <34CFD0FE.6...@ozemail.com.au>, iand <i...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >It seems to me that not that long ago, people used to refer to things >being "in orbit" [around the earth]. Nowdays, the vernacular seems to be >"on orbit". >I was just wondering if anyone knew when the nomenclature changed, and >also why ?
Actually, the only person I've noticed using ``on orbit'' is myself, and I believe it's grammatically incorrect. If you care, I got into the habit as a reminder to myself when I was studying Russian, since they use ``na'' rather than ``b'' to describe an object orbiting a planet. (Neither of which translates well, but ``na'' is closer to the English ``on'' and ``b'' closer to ``in''.)
In article <6aoolr$...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote: >In article <34CFD0FE.6...@ozemail.com.au>, iand <i...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >>It seems to me that not that long ago, people used to refer to things >>being "in orbit" [around the earth]. Nowdays, the vernacular seems to be >>"on orbit". >>I was just wondering if anyone knew when the nomenclature changed, and >>also why ?
>Actually, the only person I've noticed using ``on orbit'' is myself, >and I believe it's grammatically incorrect. If you care, I got into >the habit as a reminder to myself when I was studying Russian, since >they use ``na'' rather than ``b'' to describe an object orbiting a >planet. (Neither of which translates well, but ``na'' is closer to >the English ``on'' and ``b'' closer to ``in''.)
The shuttle status reports also report the status of the orbiter as being "on orbit" rather than "in orbit." I would liken it to being "on station" which may also be grammatically incorrect but at least has an aire of consistency. <s>
-- Richard Hurd Member of Technical Staff Lucent Technologies, Microelectronics Group, Allentown PA
In article <6aoolr$...@lace.colorado.edu>, Frank Crary
<URL:mailto:fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote: > In article <34CFD0FE.6...@ozemail.com.au>, iand <i...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > >It seems to me that not that long ago, people used to refer to things > >being "in orbit" [around the earth]. Nowdays, the vernacular seems to be > >"on orbit". > >I was just wondering if anyone knew when the nomenclature changed, and > >also why ?
> Actually, the only person I've noticed using ``on orbit'' is myself, > and I believe it's grammatically incorrect. If you care, I got into > the habit as a reminder to myself when I was studying Russian, since > they use ``na'' rather than ``b'' to describe an object orbiting a > planet. (Neither of which translates well, but ``na'' is closer to > the English ``on'' and ``b'' closer to ``in''.)
The KSC Shuttle status reports give the location of orbiters currently flying as "on orbit". I suppose the analogy would be with "on station".
-- Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Frank Crary (fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: Actually, the only person I've noticed using ``on orbit'' is myself, : and I believe it's grammatically incorrect. If you care, I got into
No, I've heard lots of JSC folks talk about `on orbit'. I claim to detect a nuance of meaning: `in orbit' can be applied to an inert object and means that something is in orbit (duh). `on orbit' is applied to active vehicles, particularly human-carrying spaceships, and seems to carry the extra connotation of being in an operating mode that is different from the launch or landing phases. Grammatically, it seems to be an abbreviation of `[while] on [the] orbit[al phase of the mission]'. Thus, [in orbit] is a dynamical state, while [on orbit] is a state of mind :-). Jonathan
In article <34CFD0FE.6...@ozemail.com.au> iand <i...@ozemail.com.au> writes: >It seems to me that not that long ago, people used to refer to things >being "in orbit" [around the earth]. Nowdays, the vernacular seems to be >"on orbit". >I was just wondering if anyone knew when the nomenclature changed, and >also why ? >After all, when you're *in* orbit, you're not actually *on* anything :)
I suppose Space has finally gone mainstream when the dictionary writers notice you......
These are my own personal opinions, and do not necessarily represent those of the Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.
William E. Wiesel ph: 513-255-6565 ex 4312 Professor of Astronautical Engineering net: wie...@afit.af.mil Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics fax: 513-476-7621 Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7765
In article <34d0dcb...@cfanews.harvard.edu> j...@urania.harvard.edu "Jonathan McDowell" writes:
> No, I've heard lots of JSC folks talk about `on orbit'. I claim to > detect a nuance of meaning: `in orbit' can be applied to an inert > object and means that something is in orbit (duh). `on orbit' > is applied to active vehicles, particularly human-carrying spaceships, > and seems to carry the extra connotation of being in an operating mode that > is different from the launch or landing phases. Grammatically, it > seems to be an abbreviation of `[while] on [the] orbit[al phase of the > mission]'. Thus, [in orbit] is a dynamical state, while [on orbit] > is a state of mind :-). > Jonathan
It seems to have come in with the Shuttle era - go through some of the PAO transcripts on mission commentary, and it is used in the early flights. I can't remember its use on Skylab ops.
-- Some people make things happen; some watch things happen; while others wonder what has happened.
Rich Hurd <rh...@REMOVECAPSlucent.com> wrote in article <6aq34d$1ig_...@micro.lucent.com>...
> The shuttle status reports also report the status of the orbiter as being "on > orbit" rather than "in orbit." I would liken it to being "on station" which > may also be grammatically incorrect but at least has an aire of consistency. > <s>
Ah, thank you Mr. Hurd! You've just elegantly stated the rule by which most bureaucratese is formed (I've been trying to do that for some time now--why? Well the first step in curing a disease is being able to culture it... :o) -- When you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn?
In article <01bd2fee$78e2e6e0$f654a...@SCHORN-PETER.jsc.nasa.gov>, "Kermitus" <peter.a.scho...@jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Ah, thank you Mr. Hurd! You've just elegantly stated the rule by which >most bureaucratese is formed (I've been trying to do that for some time >now--why? Well the first step in curing a disease is being able to >culture it... :o)
<deep bow> With pleasure. When you get done curing this disease, let's wander over to Treasury and see what we can do with the IRS, okay?
-- "Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful." Richard Hurd Microelectronics Group, Allentown PA
