NASA not Nasa. It’s an acronym not a word.
This a NASA article on a NASA web site
Nasa Set to Demonstrate X-Ray Communications in Space
21–27 of 27 posts
Re: Nasa Set to Demonstrate X-Ray Communications in Space
#22NASA not Nasa. It’s an acronym not a word.
"A growing convention, which I first came across in Robert Bringhurst’s The Elements of Typographic Style, dictates that if an acronym is pronounced as a word, then it should not be written in all caps. (As opposed to initialisms, which are pronounced as a series of letters. Compare Nato to USA.)"
http://scratchtap.com/when-acronyms-should-not-be-capitalize...
Re: Nasa Set to Demonstrate X-Ray Communications in Space
#23A wild idea I had never even thought of, X-rays are of high enough frequncy that they can penetrate the plasmasheath of high velocity vehicles. Seemingly this is for hypersonic transport, and rentry vehicles, my mind is quite boggled.
What is the mechanism by which a plasmasheath blocks radiowaves, and why would x-rays be an exception?
Re: Nasa Set to Demonstrate X-Ray Communications in Space
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the mechanism by which a plasmasheath blocks radiowaves, and why would x-rays be an exception?
It is actually pretty simple. Plasma is conductive. Most conductive things Will block radio waves at GHz and below
Re: Nasa Set to Demonstrate X-Ray Communications in Space
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is actually pretty simple. Plasma is conductive. Most conductive things Will block radio waves at GHz and below
If it is conductive, can't you make it part of the antenna?
Re: Nasa Set to Demonstrate X-Ray Communications in Space
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the mechanism by which a plasmasheath blocks radiowaves, and why would x-rays be an exception?
This is similar to how a metal box blocks radio waves, and how x rays can still penetrate it.