aviationweek.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:100.000 years by bware · 2011-05-26 04:47 · Score: 1 · on Fukushima To Become Nuclear Dump?

Besides, moon shots with unmanned vehicles are pretty cheap, and probably comparable to the costs of developing the deep water surveying and placement technologies needed to set casks in subduction trenches.

Where do you get that moon shots are cheap? A Delta IV Heavy launch costs upwards of $300M, independent of the cost of the payload. Word on the street is that the real cost is something like $700M (big launch vehicles are heavily subsidized by the military. Shuttle launches cost something like $1B). SpaceX claims that they'll get that cost down to $60M for the equivalent of a DIV medium, but that won't go to the moon. I wish them the best, but I'll believe it when I can use my Visa Plutonium to make the deposit on one.

In addition, a not small percentage of these will fail. And rockets, like nuclear power plants, tend to work when they work, and fail spectacularly when they don't, and for the same reasons. Lots of energy in a small volume. Something between 7-10%. So every 15 launches, you get to write off a complete launch facility due to radioactive contamination (blowing up on the launch pad - best case), and a whole lot of downwind real estate (airburst - worst case).

Even in the best case, it ain't cheap to abandon a launch site - "the $4 billion SLC-6 was refurbished at a cost of about $300 million to accommodate Delta IV missions.".

Subduction zones don't seem like a great idea; too many unknowns, though I'd bet that undersea researchers would be thrilled to get a fraction of the cost of moon shot to explore the idea. The next generation deep sea submersible had an estimated cost of $21M in 2008.

They only found the "chassis" of the FDR by Solandri · 2011-04-29 11:22 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Mystery Air Crash Black Box Found Sans Memory Part

To answer everyone's question, all they found is the chassis housing the FDR. It connects to the plane's avionics and does the actual flight data recording, which it then writes to flash memory in a separate memory module. It is only important before the crash. The memory module plugs into this chassis and screws on (you can see the 4 screws on the chassis and the screw holes on the memory module's feet if you click on the pic in the link). During the crash, the two got separated. The memory module itself is the part that's designed to be crash/fire/water-proof, and the locater beacon they were listening for immediately after the crash is attached to the memory module.

Other news: China confounded by SpaceX prices by FleaPlus · 2011-04-16 09:07 · Score: 2, Informative · on China Aims To Build World's Largest Rocket

China's space program makes pronouncements like this all the time, but they don't yet have the ability to make things like this happen. Heck, just the other day personnel from China's aerospace organization said that they were confounded by SpaceX's price/kg and unable to compete with it:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/04/15/11.xml&headline=China%20Great%20Wall%20Confounded%20By%20SpaceX%20Prices

Heck, SpaceX has designs for both 125 and 140 tonne vehicles, but it doesn't mean it plans on building them before it makes economic sense.

Re:NASA and SpaceX studying super heavy lift by ColdWetDog · 2011-04-16 07:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait · on China Aims To Build World's Largest Rocket

SpaceX and NASA are studying the possibility of a 150 ton payload class heavy lift launcher, based on SpaceX Falcon technology. NASA Studies Scaled-Up Falcon, Merlin

My space penis is bigger than your space penis.

NASA and SpaceX studying super heavy lift by Gary+W.+Longsine · 2011-04-16 07:45 · Score: 3, Insightful · on China Aims To Build World's Largest Rocket

SpaceX and NASA are studying the possibility of a 150 ton payload class heavy lift launcher, based on SpaceX Falcon technology. NASA Studies Scaled-Up Falcon, Merlin

Re:Hmm, bad planning much? by timeOday · 2011-03-23 13:06 · Score: 1 · on Japanese Chip Shutdown Causing Shortages

Yup, all those dumb consumers should have paid more for electronics to preserve diversity among producers, what were they thinking?

Seriously, defense is probably the only industry critical enough and rich enough to even attempt such a thing, but even they get criticized for the inefficiencies inherent in the approach, such as giving preferential treatment to small businesses, subsidizing Boeing, and so on.

Re:Accuracy? by westlake · 2011-03-19 18:46 · Score: 1 · on Japan Reluctant To Disclose Drone Footage of Fukushima Plant

I might have to call this one bullshit. I briefly checked Asahi, Mainichi and Yomiuri, the three major newspapers in Japan. Only Mainichi has this news.

Few details, but here is a samplng of stories about eployment of the Global Hawk UAV and its capabilities:

Global Hawk offers images of quake's destruction [March 18]

Guam Global Hawks Surveying Earthquake Damage [March 18]

Japan Earthquake: Global Hawk UAV May Be Able to Peek Inside Damaged Reactors [March 17]

Why the US Navy wants a Laser Weapon by bughunter · 2011-02-19 06:40 · Score: 1 · on US Navy Breaks Laser Record

The US Navy is really pushing "ammo-less" weapon systems because of the nature of the threat of the Chinese arsenal, especially the air force.

In a nutshell, the US could fire everything it had at Chinese jets, and score a kill with each shot, and still face an overwhelming force. The same goes for US bullets and PRC soldiers. So of course they want lasers. All you need is electricity... and lots and lots of technicians.

(Nobody's asking why the US is attacking China in these scenarios... that's the most bothersome part.)

Why the US Navy wants a Laser Weapon by bughunter · 2011-02-19 06:40 · Score: 1 · on US Navy Breaks Laser Record

The US Navy is really pushing "ammo-less" weapon systems because of the nature of the threat of the Chinese arsenal, especially the air force.

In a nutshell, the US could fire everything it had at Chinese jets, and score a kill with each shot, and still face an overwhelming force. The same goes for US bullets and PRC soldiers. So of course they want lasers. All you need is electricity... and lots and lots of technicians.

(Nobody's asking why the US is attacking China in these scenarios... that's the most bothersome part.)

Re:Is that enough money? by Teancum · 2011-02-17 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful · on X Prize $30 Million Robot Race To the Moon Is On

The real news of the day isn't the contest itself, which has been discussed elsewhere including on Slashdot previously. The big deal is that a contract for a flight to the Moon has been inked and a launch slot set aside to put the vehicle up there.

I don't know how much this particular group is going to be making in terms of a profit, but they got their rocket and have some serious money behind them in terms of helping to finance this trip. This particular team is also the one to beat, or at least a top contender as well. I'm sure that over the next few months that several other teams are going to be announcing flight schedules too.

The low-cost launcher to watch for that might turn a "profit" is ARCA who has already launched a vehicle and has a rather unique approach for orbital spaceflight. Stuff is happening and money is being spent, so this is a good question to ask.

Re:Frankenstack by adamgundy · 2011-01-13 04:23 · Score: 1 · on NASA Pitches Heavy Lift Vehicle To Congress

took a while to find... it was from an interview with Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awst/2010/11/29/AW_11_29_2010_p28-271784.xml&headline=NASA%20Studies%20Scaled-Up%20Falcon,%20Merlin

he says they're leaning towards a 1.7 million lbf engine, but they've also been looking at a 3.5 million lbf engine with a throttle setting for use in smaller rockets (back to 1.7, presumably).

the F-1 engine from the Saturn-V (Apollo), for reference, was only 1.5 million lbf, and still holds the title for 'largest rocket engine'.

Re:Reuse shuttle parts? by FleaPlus · 2011-01-12 14:24 · Score: 1 · on NASA Pitches Heavy Lift Vehicle To Congress

> Let's just ask Elon what a Falcon XX will cost instead.

A rocket closely resembling the Falcon XX was actually part of the analysis, and was one of the two designs which scored well. The initial analysis assumed a traditional government acquisition process though, which of course negates many of SpaceX's advantages, although we'll presumably see an analysis incorporating SpaceX's proposed fixed-cost acquisition in the next NASA report to Congress (due in a couple months).

I assume the reason the shuttle-derived rocket was chosen as the main "design reference" is because it more closely fits what Congress asked for.

Also, here's what Elon Musk estimates a SpaceX-built heavy lift rocket will cost (compared to the $12B+ for the current NASA design):

Based on a roughly evenly split $10 billion budget for heavy lift, with half for the boost stage and half for the upper stage, "we're confident we could get a fully operational vehicle to the pad for $2.5 billion--and not only that, I will personally guarantee it," Musk says. In addition, the final product would be a fully accounted cost per flight of $300 million, he asserts. "I'll also guarantee that," he adds, though he cautions this does not include a potential upper-stage upgrade.

Re:Reuse shuttle parts? by Tekfactory · 2011-01-12 09:44 · Score: 1 · on NASA Pitches Heavy Lift Vehicle To Congress

According to Elon's testimony before congress SpaceX already has plans for a heavy lift vehicle should NASA ask for such a vehicle.

Ooh I was just going from memory of the Wiki article, I hadn't read this

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/05/07.xml

Presuemable its $1 Billion to develop the Merlin 2 engines...

I guess all they have to do is bid it at what Constellation is budgeted for...

High-speed taxi test? by demonbug · 2011-01-05 12:01 · Score: 3, Insightful · on First Pictures of Chinese Stealth Fighter

Are they looking at different photos than what were published? The side-view photo certainly doesn't appear to be a high-speed test. Hard to tell with all the grain, but I would expect some blurring of the background and/or jet exhaust if it was traveling at high speed, but you see neither in those two photos. For all I can tell it could be a mockup sitting still on the tarmac. Not to say the Chinese haven't conducted high-speed tests of it, I just disagree with the claim that these photos show any evidence of it.

Other Photos seem to have the same issues - that might be some heat waving in the Guardian photo, but tough to tell.

Claiming that this could be a prototype fighter that challenges the F-22 based on these photos is just ridiculous, and one would think a writer for Jane's would know better. It is quite possible, as China has really made no secret of the fact that they are pursuing aviation technology very aggressively (and I do seem to recall reports of large portions of engineering data for the F-22 being stolen a while back. My mistake - apparently it was the F-35), and no doubt they are working on bringing their high-tech fabrication technology up to speed. But there is a very big jump between putting together a stealthy-looking mockup (all that can really be determined from the photos) and producing an effective combat system, from airframe to FCS to weapons systems and avionics. Like I said, I don't doubt that this is their goal, and I don't doubt that they will be fully capable of it within a relatively short time, but a couple of photos really doesn't prove (or even really suggest) much of anything.

Re:Cost per pound by Idiomatick · 2010-12-08 17:17 · Score: 1 · on SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon Make It To Orbit

Since that was from 2004 and still talking about the Falcon 5...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awst/2010/11/29/AW_11_29_2010_p28-271784.xml&headline=NASA%20Studies%20Scaled-Up%20Falcon,%20Merlin

From another post about super-heavy rockets. Musk said that he'd personally guarantee he could go under 1000$/lb (At the very end of the article). This could happen in only a few short years. So he does seem like he's moving towards the 500$/lb price point.

SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA by FleaPlus · 2010-12-08 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful · on SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon Make It To Orbit

I didn't get around to making this a separate submission, but I figure folks might be interested in another SpaceX-related news item from an interview with Elon Musk. As some of you know, Congress has mandated that NASA construct a super-heavy lift rocket (at least 75mt payload) by 2016. This is expected to use cost-plus contracts, utilize as many Shuttle components/workers as possible, and is expected to cost at least $10B.

SpaceX has another (IMHO much better) proposal, though, which would be to build a 150mt rocket that's essentially an upgrade of the rocket which was launched today. This rocket would be able to lift heavier payloads than the Saturn V. SpaceX proposed to do this with a $2.5B fixed-price contract, where SpaceX eats any cost above this amount. Some remarks from Musk on this:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/06/5600599-spacex-gets-set-for-next-giant-leap

He's even starting to think ahead to the next giant leap -- the development of a super-heavy-lift rocket, more powerful than the Apollo era's Saturn 5, which could put 150 metric tons of payload into Earth orbit. Musk said facilities in Utah, Alabama, Ohio, Florida and other places around the country could be involved in the project, and he's willing to build the rocket for $2.5 billion. "Anything above that, SpaceX will pay for," he promised. ...
Musk said his $2.5 billion figure for a super-heavy-lift rocket was based in part on the concept that 80 percent of the money Congress is expected to devote to heavy-lift development would go toward the standard cost-plus method for funding spacecraft development, with 20 percent going to the kind of fixed-price, milestone-based approach that is being used for the NASA program that's funding SpaceX's effort. "I find myself in this bizarre position where people are saying, 'You couldn't possibly do it for such a low amount as $2.5 billion,'" he said. "And actually, I have trouble trying to figure out how we'd spend so much money. In order to get to $2.5 billion, I'd have to assume that a whole bunch of things go horribly wrong during the development process."

Re:Gov't Sponsored DDoS by copponex · 2010-11-30 04:29 · Score: 1 · on DDoS Attack On Wikileaks Increasing

The US government clearly has a motive. The US government clearly has the resources. The US government has clearly committed far worse crimes in order to eliminate enemies of the state. If you have a more likely candidate that has the same amount of resources, motive, and previous activity, I'd be interested to hear about who that is.

This is elementary deduction. It's very likely that this is being done by the US government, even if just as convenient practice for the new Cyber Warrior program.

Re:Why Belize? by brinic · 2010-09-12 00:03 · Score: 1 · on Boeing Hummingbird Drone Crashes In Belize

A great vacation spot for diving, but flight testing?

They were testing the DARPA developed Forester foliage-penetrating radar over Belize's dense jungle canopies. They needed a stable platform, so it had to be a rotorcraft. Not sure why they chose a a fairly new unmanned aircraft as the test bed. Aviation Week has been covering the A160T and the testing down there pretty extensively.

Re:Terrain by brinic · 2010-09-11 23:56 · Score: 2, Informative · on Boeing Hummingbird Drone Crashes In Belize

According to Wikipedia: "In August 2010 the A160 Hummingbird is undergoing jungle test flights in Belize". So it wasn't just having a joy ride in open skies, it was in a tricky terrain to navigate, for *any* kind of autonomous vehicle.

Aviation Week reported on its blog that that the A160T crashed on approach, close to the landing site.

Linked article is lacking details by Solandri · 2010-08-02 15:42 · Score: 3, Informative · on Boeing's Hybrid Electric Airliner of the Future

The press release is devoid of details, but a google search turns up that they're decoupling the jet engine (which generates the power) from the bypass fan (which generates most of the thrust).

For those not up to speed on jet engine technology, modern turbofans are essentially ducted propellers. The engine itself occupies a small section in the center. It burns fuel and throws the air it consumes out the back at a higher speed. This generates about 20% of the total thrust. The rest of the energy goes into spinning the bypass fan blades. Just like a propeller, they grab large chunks of air which never goes through the combustion chamber, and push it out the back at higher speed to generate about 80% of the thrust.

In current engine designs, the blades of the two are locked together (although some of the compressor blades inside the engine may rotate at a different speed). For the bypass fan blades to be spinning, the engine must also be on and spinning. The idea behind this hybrid is to decouple them so they can operate independently of each other. The bypass fan would be spun using an electric motor. I don't know the numbers involved, but theoretically that would mean you could always run the jet engine at its most efficient RPM to generate electricity, and even turn it off if there's little thrust required and the batteries have enough juice to run the bypass fan (e.g. descent).

Re:I've thought of that myself by istartedi · 2010-07-16 13:34 · Score: 1 · on Germany To Test Actively-Cooled Spacecraft

You also have to carry all that nitrogen from the moment of launch all the way through reentry.

This is the *weight* issue I touched upon. What I should have said was, "in space, weight is money". Every kg of non-payload you have to carry is something that could have been payload. Here are some ballpark figures for orbiting on a per-kilogram basis.

Don't get me wrong; it sounds like an interesting research project. Who knows, there might be some point in the future where this technology offers the best approach. That's why you do basic research. Don't get me right either. Somebody still has to count the beans. Heheh... don't get me wrong, and don't get me right. I like that...

Re:Too late by FleaPlus · 2010-07-15 13:26 · Score: 1 · on Senate Bill Adds Shuttle Flight, New Shuttle-Derived Vehicle

Well, X-37B and X-38 seem to share a lot other than size, and the program's been in development all of that time.

SpaceDev's (now Sierra Nevada's) Dream Chaser is an upgraded version of the X-38 and planned to launch on an Atlas V, and is one of the top contenders for commercial access to LEO under the White House's plans for NASA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceDev_Dream_Chaser
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2010/02/22/AW_02_22_2010_p53-204735.xml&headline=Sierra%20Nevada%20Building%20On%20NASA%20Design

Re:How, exactly? by Locke2005 · 2010-04-29 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative · on Gardening On Mars

Never let the facts stand in the way of a good anti-Obama rant!

Obama's strategy, which increases NASA's budget by $6 billion over the next five years, looks to commercial space vehicles to take over the role of transporting astronauts to and from low Earth orbit and focuses the agency's efforts on technologies that will take explorers to destinations beyond the Moon.

Canceling Constellation != "draining the lifeblood out of every avenue of manned exploration", and in fact, Obama is increasing NASA's budget!

No problem, just cost and fuel economy. by Animats · 2010-04-17 07:44 · Score: 3, Interesting · on At Last, Flying Cars?

There's no fundamental problem in building a modest-size VTOL craft. Many have been built. The fuel consumption and cost will be high, but for the military, that's OK.

The big problem back in the 1950s was stability. Now that unstable aircraft are routinely computer-stabilized, that's far less of a problem. It's going to need a jet engine. Piston engines don't have the power to weight ratio needed. That's what runs up the cost. A basic problem with jet engines is that they don't get much cheaper below small bizjet size. That's why general aviation is still piston-powered, despite Williams, etc.

It's not going to be a pure-thrust VTOL, like the Harrier. That takes so much engine power that it's only feasible for fighters, which are mostly engine anyway. Ducted fans, maybe. Successful ducted-fan aircraft have been built, and with modern stabilization, there are several robotic ducted-fan craft. With better stablization, the fans can be pulled in closer to the body, making for a much more compact craft.

There's a new Israeli ducted-fan craft, the AirMule, which is currently in early flight test and can hover tethered.

A big problem with single-engine VTOL aircraft is that they fall like a rock if they lose engine power. Aircraft can glide and helicopters can autorotate, but VTOLs can do neither. Ejection seats are indicated.

Re:Stupidity of leadership... by eldavojohn · 2010-02-24 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful · on US Unable To Win a Cyber War

In short, cyberwarfare won't work for the exact same reasons that censorship won't work, there's too many people working against the attackers who can communicate too quickly and too effectively.

Quiet, you fool! Imagine if they can convince the United States government that part of its defense budget should go to increasing cyber security! We already know the DoD uses Linux and wants more. Just think what a very tiny fraction of the US Defense budget could do for security in Linux and its subsequent adoption for corporations!

And for those of you that argue the enemy will then use Linux: who cares? Bullet proof protection on both sides would prevent any attempt of an offensive from ever sparking a war. In light of recent economic ups and downs, I would argue at this point it's more important to make the corporations feel 100% safe and secure -- unlike Google in China.

inspiration by Gary+W.+Longsine · 2010-02-01 17:25 · Score: 1 · on Cool NASA Tech That Will Never See Space

Killing Constellation might actually be the best thing for increasing the chances that a kid gets to fly in space. Constellation was going to lock us into a flight architecture that was not suitable for anything other than occasional grandstanding flights to the Moon or Mars. It was not suitable for the basis of a space economy or a scalable transportation system that could support a lunar mining base and orbital facilities to build solar power satellites, for example. NASA clearly doesn't have a direction to get people into space, but now that it's out of the way, maybe other efforts can get a toe hold. (NASA hasn't yet arrived at a formula for stimulating this, the COTS model was fundamentally flawed, but I suspect that perhaps as few as five more years of floundering, and buying rides from Russia, along with watching China and India get into space, will focus America on this problem.) Here are a few potential contenders:

Skylon
Mystery Lockheed Martin Test Program
Vulcan (DARPA)
SpaceX Falcon

Right now, there are too many disposable rockets, chasing too small a launch market. Most of the private efforts are not able to get sufficient funding for the sort of technology advancement which will be required to get the cost per pound in orbit down by much, which in turn is required if anything useful is gonna happen up there. A seldom-recanted but critical part of the X-33 story was that the business model for VentureStar fell apart. There were at least one, if not two satellite phone companies planning to orbit hundreds of telecom sats. They were looking for large buys, on the order of a flight per week, for years on end, of Shuttle-class payloads (50,000 lbs), and wanted lower cost per pound. When those companies looked like they were going to fail, the primary contractor concluded that the remaining launch market (NASA plus industry at roughly the level we see today) wasn't big enough to justify private funding for the VentureStar, even after they X-33 notorious technical issues were studied and believed to be resolvable.

B2 jr.? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-05 11:13 · Score: 0 · on US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

Isn't this just a scaled down B2?

LOL at the useless cockpit bulge.

Re:That's a pretty easy thing to confirm by Kagura · 2009-12-05 06:43 · Score: 0, Redundant · on US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

Here's another photo that is much higher quality.

Re:top secret by Kagura · 2009-12-05 06:41 · Score: 4, Informative · on US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

Here's another photo that is much higher quality.

Re:That's a pretty easy thing to confirm by Kagura · 2009-12-05 06:07 · Score: 0, Redundant · on US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

The RQ-170 is impossible to photograph.

Re:top secret by Kagura · 2009-12-05 06:04 · Score: 3, Informative · on US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

In any case, here's a photo of the RQ-170 Sentinel.

Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for? Obviously they weren't too worried about it if this Bill Sweetman guy was able to see it at the Kandahar International Airport.

Re:Just another great goverment run program... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-19 16:37 · Score: 0 · on FAA Computer Glitch Causes Widespread Airline Delays

This was a private contractor (Harris Corp.) fucking up the network:

From aviationweek.com::

Initially, some lawmakers and media outlets blamed the "antiquated" ATC system, but this changed when it became clear the problem lay with the FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI), a new system installed and operated over the past few years by Harris Corp. under contract to the FAA. Now, scrutiny has shifted to the outsourcing issue.

Re:What happened during stage separation? by bill_mcgonigle · 2009-10-28 07:28 · Score: 1 · on "Frickin' Fantastic" Launch of NASA's Ares I-X Rocket

It could have been a man-rated Delta IV Heavy. Opportunity cost is why I continue to rag on NASA.

It seems to matter whether the moon or the ISS are the more important targets.

Stealthy Sukhois by skarhand · 2009-08-31 01:34 · Score: 1 · on India's First Stealth Fighter To Fly In 4 Months

There is an interesting post regarding stealth elements of sukhoi planes in a blog on the aviation week website: link. Supposedly, they apply radar absorbent material directly to the compressor blades and use spray-on RAM on the external stores. This alone does not make it a stealth plane, but the reduced signature is very useful when combined with jammers. The link about the "Have Glass" program contains further info about this kind of stealth features in russian and western planes.

planes and jet fuel by falconwolf · 2009-08-11 13:01 · Score: 1 · on Chevy Volt Rated At 230 mpg In the City

Eventually it'll become simply a niche product for things that simply can't run practically on electricity (such as airplanes, where without an ungodly wingspan and crippled speed a batter just can't hold enough energy to make up for it's weight).

Aircraft manufacturers and airliners both are testing using biofuels. Virgin Atlantic flew a Boeing 747 from London to Amsterdam with BioJet-A fuel. In another test a biofuel was used in another Boeing that flew across the Pacific. Of course I don't think it's realistic to believe biofuels will fuel most air travel.

Electric powered planes are also being developed. "Electric Aircraft Technology Effort Gets Boost at Oshkosh". Even the Chinese are developing them.

Falcon

The Wall Street Journal story is misleading, IMO. by Futurepower(R) · 2009-06-28 03:56 · Score: 5, Insightful · on Investigators Suspect Computers Doomed Air France Jet

Remember that the Wall Street Journal authors apparently have no knowledge whatsoever of technical things. That doesn't stop them from writing articles about technical things, however.

Air France didn't begin replacing the malfunctioning pitot tubes in the Airbus until April 2009, and the tubes were not replaced yet in the crashed aircraft. The computers were not at fault apparently; there is no reason to suspect a computer malfunction.

Notice that the Wall Street Journal article, Computer Failures Are Probed in Jet Crash, says exactly that: "... seemingly beginning with malfunctioning airspeed sensors..." The "airspeed sensors" are the pitot tubes, which in the Airbus have been known for many years to collect ice in unusual conditions, and to stop giving reliable data.

The computers did what they were programmed to do, apparently. They stopped operating when they calculated that the data was bad. At that point the pilots needed to fly the plane themselves. However, the aircraft was operating in what is known in the aircraft industry as the coffin corner". There was apparently no way a human could fly the aircraft safely at the speeds necessary to get the craft to France in time, since in a severe thunderstorm the airspeed could not be known accurately enough to prevent overstressing the aircraft.

The Wall Street Journal apparently has NO new information. Here is a quote from the article: "The Air France crash could become the first since the 1980s in which U.S. and European investigators try to piece together a probable cause in a high-profile crash without the help of information from at least one of the plane's black boxes -- the digital recorders containing detailed flight data and cockpit conversations from the flight." There is apparently NO honest reason for the Wall Street Journal to publish an article now, claiming "Computer Failures".

Quote from a June 25, 2009 Aviation Week article, EASA: No Action Soon On A330 Pitot Tubes published three days ago: "The pitot tubes have come under fire in the wake of the crash of AF447 because the accident aircraft, an A330-200, broadcast maintenance messages just before all contact was lost, indicating inconsistent speed information and potential problems with the pitot tube."

Should the Wall Street Journal be trusted for financial information? Apparently the publication did NOTHING to stop the present corruption in the financial departments of the U.S. government. Warren Buffett very publically called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" beginning in 2002. The corruption was caused by the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term.

Apparently the Wall Street Journal always serves the profit of its advertisers and others in the U.S. financial industry. If publishing the article at this time and in the way it did indicates anything other than ignorance, it could be theorized that someone connected with the publication has investments in Air France or Airbus Industries.

Other similar incidents concerning the Airbus 330 are being investigated, according to a June 25, 2009 Associated Press news release, US panel probes 2 incidents involving Airbus A330s. The Wall Street Journal has access to the Associated Press, obviously. Why did it publish its misleading article two days later, which appears to blame the "computers"? The REAL story is apparently that apparently such incidents with the Airbus are common.

Here

Re:Why are they just doing this now? by DustyShadow · 2009-04-20 14:11 · Score: 4, Informative · on US Military Issuing iPod Touches To Soldiers

Here is a better link.

Re:Man still in the "nuclear loop" just not flying by catdriver · 2009-04-17 15:38 · Score: 1 · on Predator C Avenger Makes First Flights

It wouldn't fit in the bay:

B61 - 11.8 feet (141.6 inches) long

Predator C's weapons bay - 10 ft long