Slashdot Mirror

Not really. When you drop a stage, what exactly are you saving? You aren't dropping any payload. You aren't dropping any fuel. You are dropping a very heavy set of engines, but that's a complete waste since if you only had a single stage you wouldn't have a redundant set of engines to drop in the first place. The only thing you are able to drop is an empty fuel tank (aluminum cans are very light, no big savings). Splitting a rocket into stages isn't done to save weight (the extra engines weigh more than the tanks). The only reason to stage is to swap out the engine bells with ones that are more suitable to the current atmospheric pressure.

That is what was so exciting about the (now cancelled) aerospike engine was that its geometry was perfect for any altitude.

A Boeing 767 has a maximum fuel capacity of about 24000 US gallons. See
Boeing Product Information for more information.

If there was involvement, don't you think we would have done something to Saudi Arabia?

I would like to think so. I would like to be able to trust my leadership to make decisions based primarily what is best for the American people and for the rest of the "Free World." However, as you correctly observered, the Bush family is deeply involved in the oil industry. How do you know the lessor President Bush hasn't placed the interests of the oil companies that provide him, his parents, his extended family and just about every high ranking official in his administration tremendous wealth over and above any other? For the same reason you don't put the fox in charge of the sheep, you shouldn't trust oil magnates to provide unbiased leadership in middle eastern matters. Even defense contractors are prevented from hiring former government employees under certain circumstances to avoid just this sort of dangerous conflict of interest.

Since I'm doing all the research here, why don't you dig up some evidence Dick Cheney has complied with the standing request from the General Accounting Office's request for a list of people he consulted while forming the administration's energy policy? You know, the GAO may may need to sue the current administration to get access to this information. These are unprecedented times. I'm sure this information will get frozen using some wartime excuse.

...said they were the nicest guys ever, very respectable and successful in their community.

While we may not be able to blame Manson's parents for his crimes, can we blame George Bush's parents for any possible wrongdoing? Unlike the Mr. and Mrs. Manson, George HW Bush has a healthy history of compromising American policy and American law to the benefit of other, conflicting interests.

Yes, the British and Canadian contingient is recognized and appreciated. As is anyone else willing to send their money and their aircraft and their boys (and girls) to open a can of whoop-ass on all those who would destroy freedom in the world.

A cynic would note that the U.K. would likely not exist in its present form had it not been for its former colonies coming it its rescue about sixty years ago. Me, I'm not so certain, but I'm bloody sure that if it hadn't been for Tojo's insistience that Yamamoto awaken the sleeping giant, France would be speaking Russian these days... (not German; Hitler, like Napoleon before him, made the mistake of starting a land war in Asia after Easter... and the Red Army would not have stopped at the Rhine without Patton (and Monty!) there to keep them from it.)

So you Tories will excuse us Yanks a little tongue in cheek arrogance, no? After all, the RAF's next fighter aircraft will be built in either Marietta, Georgia, or (hopefully) right here in Seattle....

I will give the Brits credit, though. They have some of the best news services in the world.... unlike the crap we generate here in the States.... (I think it's funny that perhaps America's best news network is run by an Aussie... )

--
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
-- Mr. William Shakespeare, Henry V
(yes, of course we love you, John Bull, now quit being tetchy about it.)

A 747 full of DAT's has truly awsome bandwidth, but the latency is deadly.

A 747 freighter has a cargo capacity of 777.9 cubic metres, or 109,800kg (ie: whichever you hit first). By volume, it could carry 8 million DDS3 tapes, equivalent to approximately 96 Terabytes per load. However, it can only carry approximately 481,000 DDS3 tapes by weight (box of 5 weighs 228g), which is only equivalent to 5.7 Terabytes per load.

Assuming you can load the data on and read the data off those tapes instantaneously, and assuming you had a perfect 14 hour flight from Sydney (Australia) to Los Angeles (United States), your maximum bandwidth is close to 916 bits per second.

Not that awesome at all, really.

The 747 cargo version can a heavy load. I'm sorry, you are mistaken. The B-47 once had flew w/ a whole fission reactor, but it was not tied in (they used gas-driven props). I don't think we want flying reactors, though. Bad enuf they (gov/mil) use them in extended-mission spy satellites and such.

...but it would prevent the use of aircraft as cheap bombs.

I wrote about this the day after the attack:

Something I just thought of a little while ago, to help me gain some perspective on what happened:

A Boeing 767-400ER [boeing.com] has a maximum takeoff mass of a shade more than 200,000 kg. It has a typical cruise speed of 840 km/h.

Using our favorite formula for kinetic energy, that comes to about 5.6 billion Joules, or between one and two tons of TNT.

Or, in other words, just the force of that much mass at that speed is about the same as a WWII blockbuster bomb. Add in some twenty thousand gallons of jet fuel...and I still can't wrap my mind around that much destructive force.

And I thought cars on the freeway were deadly!

May such magnificient machines never again be used for such awful, awful purpose.

b&

Encryption is *not* the problem. It didn't cause any damage. The only technology that caused the damage was the jet airplane! Come on, please blame the correct technology here and don't blame people for inventing encryption.

Heck, let's take this silly theme even further and blame the inventor of language for bringing about the means to coordinate the terrorists nefarious deeds.

I wonder why the reporter didn't think to ask the CEO of Boeing if he is tormented by feelings of guilt? After all, the attacks showed us that he makes his living selling giant flying bombs that Very Bad People can use to kill thousands of our people in one fell swoop. Surely he must agree that he and his company have blood on their hands, right?

Of course not. Boeing isn't responsible for this tragedy, and neither is Phil Zimmerman (and kudos to Phil for standing up and saying so). Boeing's aircraft have contributed immensely to our national economy by helping make easy commercial air travel possible. Strong crypto has contributed immensely to the economy by helping make the online world a safe, secure place to do business. Both have been misused by evil men to do a great wrong; but they are just tools, with no moral implications beyond those transferred to them through the hands of those who wield them. To place the blame anywhere else is to absolve the monsters behind the attack of the full weight of their crimes.

-- Jason Lefkowitz

I was also under the impression that the 757 & 767 were both smaller than the 747.

I found this neat wrap up of American Military Weaponry. They mention several military gagets that I read about on slashdot a while back. Super-cavitating torpedo's, the ABL which is being jointly developed by TRW and Boeing, The Land warrior System which gives our soldiers on the battlefield a counterstrike like HUD with green for friends and red for enemies. It's warm fuzzies knowing that none of this is possible without computer science.

Something I just thought of a little while ago, to help me gain some perspective on what happened:

A Boeing 767-400ER has a maximum takeoff mass of a shade more than 200,000 kg. It has a typical cruise speed of 840 km/h.

Using our favorite formula for kinetic energy, that comes to about 5.6 billion Joules, or between one and two tons of TNT.

Or, in other words, just the force of that much mass at that speed is about the same as a WWII blockbuster bomb. Add in some twenty thousand gallons of jet fuel...and I still can't wrap my mind around that much destructive force.

And I thought cars on the freeway were deadly!

May such magnificient machines never again be used for such awful, awful purpose.

b&

on Boeing's site. The Boeing Sonic Cruiser was unveiled a few months ago.

From what I gather the Boeing offering is not longer than Concorde. It DOES have a longer range. It flies at Mach .98, at roughly 40,000 feet in altitude, and can be configured to fly non-stop from London to Sydney.

The images at this point in time are still concept but I like the look. The dual inswept tail fins, and the dual canards at the front along with the delta wing make this beastie look really sleek. :)

The address in their Shareholder Information page is in Seattle.

Nope, they don't have that one either. They have to compete with Boeing and Starbucks for Washington, so no monopoly. Sorry boys.

"If you get a 100-kV power supply built in 1950, chances are you'll be happy. There is continual improvement, but no quantum leaps. Computers are the most useless--they are right up there with disposable diapers in landfill."

Oh, how true that is. And it applies on a personal level. I have a basement full of computer crap to prove it. I thought "Oh, I'll put them together and make some usable systems for a local charity." BZZZTT! The local charities won't even take anything less than a P5 or pm601 system. They say 486's and 040's cost more to test than they can sell them for. Frankly, it's hard to find a place to dispose of them.

But peripherals, cable and infrastructure stuff? That's a different matter. I picked up three fiber transceivers from Value Village a month ago for $5ea. Ditto ($7) for a HP Deskjet 1600 (the big 9ppm postcript color inkjet w/jetdirect). IMHO, local thrift stores are great for this sort of stuff IF you don't get sucked into buying more stuff to fix the great deal you got.

Looking for little stuff like power adapters, modems, printers, etc? Head for the local thrift store. Looking for wiring or shielding? Check out industrial supply places (like Pacific Iron & Metal in Seattle, where you can get castoff spools from the local telcos). Looking for bigger infrastructure bits? You can get rackmount cases, cable, sensors, and all manner of interesting bits directly from telco salvage units, places like re-pc, or if you're nearby, places like Boeing Surplus

A little time spent doing some smart looking can save a lot of cash. Otoh, A lot of time looking can be a huge waste. You just gotta know when to stop and pay retail.

Jon

No, no, instead, how about an actual rotating centrifuge for gravity experiments? One Spinning Chamber, Please

See their April press release about it here.

See Boeing's FAQ about it here. The only technical info I saw was that Boeing has "a proprietary solid-state phased array receive and transmit antenna" that they will use, which solves the antenna gain problem.

Based on ViaSat's other [publicly announced] activities, I would expect that the link from the hub (ground) to the remote (aircraft) will be a standard fat DVB carrier, and the return transmitted from the aircraft will be a CDMA / spread spectrum modulation of some sort. ViaSat has some patents on technology that allow them to acheive dramatic savings in bandwidth, which is outrageously expensive on satellites. This returnlink is the real sexy part of the system, the kind of thing that makes engineers want to toil long hours to make it work ...

Further, it's interesting to note that Boeing's FAQ says that the space segment will be "leased satellite transponders". This is the same old "bent pipe" design that has worked well for the past 30 years -- for example, Ku-band is 14 GHz up, 12 GHz down, and all the satellite does is mirror the signals it receives on the up frequency back down to the ground at the down frequency. This is interesting because there has long been talk of "smart" satellites that do more than just this analog bent-pipe work -- say, demodulating the data and switching in the sky. Some LEOs do this (Teledesic), but none of the GEOs do it yet.

Finally, I saw no mention of band. Is this Ku-band (12-14 GHz) or Ka-band (20-30 GHz)? ViaSat is charging forward in the Ka-band market, but there is very very little satellite coverage in that band, so perhaps this is designed to roll out at Ku-band at first with future upgrades to Ka-band possible.

Of course, this does raise the interesting question of what the local-to-the-plan LAN is like. I imagine you could get a Doom/Quake/etc. game going on the plane between you and your buds without too much hassle.

Though the .museum concept actually does sound like a fair idea, IMO. Put most of the museum sites in one TLD so you can organize them easily. Of course, you'll have to have some strict ground rules for the domains, like having to have actual online exhibits, but it can work out pretty fairly.

Regarding the 777 AWACS...

Are you positive about that? I haven't heard a thing about a 777 AWACS, but the 767 on the other hand has been in the works for a while...

What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?

X-33 + ABL = Crossbow

AKA the space laser plane from the movie Real Genius

The first OPERATIONAL C-5 was delivered in the summer of 1970.
First flight was in 1968.
The original study contract came out in 1964, the contract to produce came out in 1965, according to Lockheed-Martin

X-33 References

The Delta Clipper (DC-X) program which MD had proposed for NASA's X-33 effort competed with several other projects, including Lockheed's Venture Star. But the Clipper had a distinct advantage: a working prototype.

A collection of DC-X images

It's a shame Clinton, Gore, and NASA decided to go with the flash and dazzle promised by Lockheed instead of investing the time and energy in a simpler project that was much further along.

2. The cargo capacity of a 747 is 6025 cubic feet.

The cargo capacity of a 747-400 is 24,952 cubic feet. You were using the cargo capacity of a passenger model, not a freight model. And you were told to never underestimate.

I also think that you miscalculated your 747 TB-m/sec. Did you forget to multiply km by 1,000 before dividing by 3,600 sec/hr to get m/sec? I got 1,622,745,002 TB-m/sec for the 747-400F. That makes the 747 equivalent to 24,965,307 T1s.

0.0026041667 CD cu ft
24952 747 cu ft
9581568 CD/747
670 MB/CD
6419650560 MB/747
910 km/hr
3600 sec/hr
252 m/sec
1622745002 TB-m/sec
65 T1 TB-m/sec
24965307 T1/747

Interesting note: This boat seems to have the same series engine as the Boeing 777, the Rolls-Royce Trent. I don't know how these compare in actual fuel economy, but the ship carries 10,000 tons with five engines, while (I think) the plane carries only 20 tons with four.

Two...the 777 has only two engines. The 707 and 747 are the only jet airliners from Boeing that used/use four engines. (The 727 used three engines, and the 737, 757, and 767 use two.)

Interesting note: This boat seems to have the same series engine as the Boeing 777, the Rolls-Royce Trent. I don't know how these compare in actual fuel economy, but the ship carries 10,000 tons with five engines, while (I think) the plane carries only 20 tons with four.

But that doesn't make sense - the 777 carries up to 550 passengers. At .1 ton each, that makes 55 tons. I think the figures I have are for passenger planes. Maybe the total cargo capacity is close to 100 tons; that's still only one percent of the ship's capacity. If you factor in a 10x speed advantage for the plane, you still only get 10 percent of the ship's capacity for roughly the same fuel usage.

First off, the C-5 has been out of production for some time, and half of the fleet is essentially being parted out to support the other half. Cost: $184 million per unit, plus additional cost for reopening the production lines.

Secondly, the C-141 is too small for the job. The 747 freighter can carry about 2.5 times what the StarLifter can carry- it just can't carry the laser and all the equipment needed to aim it. In addition, the fleet is aging rapidly.

Just for kicks, I'll throw in the C-17, too. The C-17 is is twice as expensive, can travel half as far, and carries half the payload of a 747. Cost: $348 million per unit, average.

Plus, all of these are designed for cargo operations with easy unloading capabilities (like the ramp in the back). You don't really need that type of capability for this job. And, the list price on the 747-400F is $145 million per plane. That's a new aircraft, ready to be modified.

As for the danger in putting a 'civilian' aircraft to use, we already employ DC-10s as tankers, 767s as AWACS units, 707s for all types of things, and the occasional 737 for airlift. It's nothing new- it's simply another airframe. And if they do in fact shoot down a civilian aircraft, whoever the agressor is has just lost the propaganda war- a really really really bad move (think:pearl harbor style, you're shooting our civilians down, the enemy is pure evil backlash across the world). They'll be careful not to pull something like that.

P.S. I am not a troll, and did not post the first reply. Have a nice day.

What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?

First off, the C-5 has been out of production for some time, and half of the fleet is essentially being parted out to support the other half. Cost: $184 million per unit, plus additional cost for reopening the production lines.

Secondly, the C-141 is too small for the job. The 747 freighter can carry about 2.5 times what the StarLifter can carry- it just can't carry the laser and all the equipment needed to aim it. In addition, the fleet is aging rapidly.

Just for kicks, I'll throw in the C-17, too. The C-17 is is twice as expensive, can travel half as far, and carries half the payload of a 747. Cost: $348 million per unit, average.

Plus, all of these are designed for cargo operations with easy unloading capabilities (like the ramp in the back). You don't really need that type of capability for this job. And, the list price on the 747-400F is $145 million per plane. That's a new aircraft, ready to be modified.

As for the danger in putting a 'civilian' aircraft to use, we already employ DC-10s as tankers, 767s as AWACS units, 707s for all types of things, and the occasional 737 for airlift. It's nothing new- it's simply another airframe. And if they do in fact shoot down a civilian aircraft, whoever the agressor is has just lost the propaganda war- a really really really bad move (think:pearl harbor style, you're shooting our civilians down, the enemy is pure evil backlash across the world). They'll be careful not to pull something like that.

P.S. I am not a troll, and did not post the first reply. Have a nice day.

What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?

First off, the C-5 has been out of production for some time, and half of the fleet is essentially being parted out to support the other half. Cost: $184 million per unit, plus additional cost for reopening the production lines.

Secondly, the C-141 is too small for the job. The 747 freighter can carry about 2.5 times what the StarLifter can carry- it just can't carry the laser and all the equipment needed to aim it. In addition, the fleet is aging rapidly.

Just for kicks, I'll throw in the C-17, too. The C-17 is is twice as expensive, can travel half as far, and carries half the payload of a 747. Cost: $348 million per unit, average.

Plus, all of these are designed for cargo operations with easy unloading capabilities (like the ramp in the back). You don't really need that type of capability for this job. And, the list price on the 747-400F is $145 million per plane. That's a new aircraft, ready to be modified.

As for the danger in putting a 'civilian' aircraft to use, we already employ DC-10s as tankers, 767s as AWACS units, 707s for all types of things, and the occasional 737 for airlift. It's nothing new- it's simply another airframe. And if they do in fact shoot down a civilian aircraft, whoever the agressor is has just lost the propaganda war- a really really really bad move (think:pearl harbor style, you're shooting our civilians down, the enemy is pure evil backlash across the world). They'll be careful not to pull something like that.

P.S. I am not a troll, and did not post the first reply. Have a nice day.

What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?

Yes, it is old news, though I do not think it has been posted to /. before. As a former Boeing employee, I knew about this almost 2 years ago.
--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
25: ten.knilrevlis@wkcuhc

Now an enemy knows that the US has 747's used to shoot down missiles. Doesn't that suddenly make every 747 in the sky a suspect? Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems likely in stressful times to make civilian airliners a legitimate target.

The US already uses aircraft based on civilan models, such as the E-3 AWACS, the JSTARS, and the KC-135 all of which are based off the popular 707 aircraft. Having 747s wouldn't add to the problem, they have to have prominent military marking on them, and civilan airliners route away from war zones anyway, so they are unlikely to be mistaken for a ABL and shot down.

Now an enemy knows that the US has 747's used to shoot down missiles. Doesn't that suddenly make every 747 in the sky a suspect? Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems likely in stressful times to make civilian airliners a legitimate target.

The US already uses aircraft based on civilan models, such as the E-3 AWACS, the JSTARS, and the KC-135 all of which are based off the popular 707 aircraft. Having 747s wouldn't add to the problem, they have to have prominent military marking on them, and civilan airliners route away from war zones anyway, so they are unlikely to be mistaken for a ABL and shot down.

Step 1: New, Improved E-Monkey(tm) patent pending
Step 2: Monkey Linux
Step 3: Fle et of unmanned aircraft
Step 4:Pick Target

Did anyone else think of Dale Brown's book "Hammerheads"? An anti-drug unit starts using the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey with great success. They add on smaller remote-controlled versions for patrolling. Some operators drop candy on parachutes to recreational boaters (good public relations) which were being examined, while supervisors would prefer the public not realize that those oversized toys carry lethal weapons.

Skylab launched in 1973 on a single Saturn V rocket with the S IV B Stage converted to the Skylab. (Note payload weight with an entire rocket stage converted to cargo)

• Skylab Mass 100 tons
• Skylab Interior Volumne 7,600 cu ft

ISS to be built with 43 launches over a 5 year period

• ISS Mass when complete 460 tons
• ISS Interior Volumne 46,000 cu ft

Does anyone doubt that using Saturn V rockets the entire ISS could have been completed in a single year with four launches?

See International Space Station Facts and Figures

NASA sucks.

--

He has not only archived the whole internet, but he has classified it. His software knows which sites are naughty and which are nice--everywhere on the fucking World Wide Web. His services can prevent your company's computer resources from being used to promote violence, foster anarchy, or (especially apropos) commit fraud.

Unfortunately for you, his client list is currently closed, due to oversubscription, so he won't be able to sign you up this month. Damn the luck. Maybe he'll be able to squeeze you in when he checks Boeing's web site and finds out they only have 188,000 employees, so a lot of those '300,000 PC's' don't get turned on very often.

Titanium is as strong as steel, but 45% lighter. It is 60% heavier than aluminum, but twice as strong. Not surprisingly, it is often used in aircraft and missle hulls, as well as lacrosse sticks and mountian bike frames. It's used in that rainbow-hued metallic jewlery available at the mall. Because it's not corroded by salt water, it's used in desalination plants, propellers and other marine applications (including lures). Titanium is used to make "Shape memory alloys", notably nitinol (nickel-titanium). You can use nitinol wire to make walking robots, with the nitinol used as the musculature. It it used in pigments and is what makes white toothpaste white (TiO2). In fact, this is its major use. Plus, it's shiny. :)

________________________________________

• Officia l NASA press release
• Boeing's ISS page
• ISS teleconference
• NASA Spacelink
• CNN special feature
• Congress' ISS Authorization Act
• Zvezda statistics
• Discovery Channel coverage
• Unofficial ISS Users' Guide
• NASA press kit
• Yaho o! ISS directory

- vl

eellis speculates wildly:
On reading the press release, it seems that the Russians still haven't got a clue about generating the power required for a space station. [...] One of the designers of the solar array [told] me that the then planned array size of 60 feet was too small by a factor of 2. It seems that they've added some extra capacity, but nowhere near enough. So, this mission is doomed to fail. They'll run out of power.

What the bleep do you mean "doomed" and "fail"? Is it going to flicker on and off until something catches fire and the entire space station veers off course and crashes and burns spectacularly in Central Park? Or is it (worst case scenario) going to simply be chronically short of the expected power requirements, meaning the crews have to reroute the systems it supports, and perhaps give up some luxuries? I guess the second scenario isn't as ominous sounding.

Perhaps there is some truth to this -- there are always engineering disagreements on projects this big -- but the Russians aren't doing this alone, and there has been ample consideration given to the ISS power requirements.

The Service Module is only responsible for a small percentage of station power. When complete, the entire ISS power system will consist of four US-built arrays connected to the US Node 1 via the Z1 Truss, each with four 112x39' wings, as well as the solar arrays on the Zarya and Zvezda modules, and possibly (if the Russians meet their commitments) a separate array to power the Russian science modules (which are themselves not guaranteed). The aggregate power systems will produce 110 kW, of which 98 kW will come from the US-built main arrays. (By comparison, all of Mir's solar panels, including the US-built-and-delivered MCSA, produce a mere 30 kW.)

The first of the main arrays will be installed by ISS Crew 1 around November, so they won't be dependent on the Zvezda arrays for very long at all. Each PANEL on the array has more power capacity than BOTH the Zvezda wings, and there will be four panels.

In short, for the completed ISS, Zvezda will be providing about 1.5% of the power requirements.

In any case, the Mir power problems weren't related directly to the power-generation abilities of the solar arrays; they were related to the lousy Russian batteries that couldn't keep the station running when Mir lost the ability to stay pointed at the sun. Fortunately, ISS has better batteries and more of them. We'll see how this goes.

For the "mission" (whatever you meant by that) to be "doomed", the American-built main arrays would have to be so badly designed that they generate less than half the expected power. Anywhere in between that, and they will simply have to modify the science expectations until they can supplement the power systems.
----

Actually, this would only hurt those who live in the Redmond area. The Seattle/Greater Puget Sound area (where I live) is getting pretty diverse with a lot of startups and other big companies. Trust me, it wouldn't be that bad...

Boeing almost went out of business in the 70's and those who took advantage of the situation are rich now. Since most people were laid off, their houses went up on the auction block and folks who had jobs were picking up houses/cars and other assets for pennies on the dollar. Now these folks have like 10 houses that they own outright and live on a healthy rental income.

The same will happen with Redmond. All of those skyrocketing real-estate values will tumble very quickly and I'll be there to pick up some cheap houses. Given a few years, the hole that Microsoft left will fill in nicely and the only thing left will be the guy who bought the Gates mansion for $50.00 scratching his head saying, "What the hell just happened?".

One or two large companies puts your economy at too much risk. Especially a company like Microsoft who's intellectual property consists mainly of CD's and hard drives that can be loaded into a truck (or a few pieces of fiber). Now if Boeing or Weyerhauser were to leave the region, then we'd be in a world of hurt. Those guys collectively employ well over half of the Puget Sound workforce, making Microsoft's paultry 20,000 employees look like a whiny startup (and believe me, stock options aside, Boeing and Weyerhauser pay much better than Microsoft).

-Chuck
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support

You're referring to an ongoing USAF project called the Airborne Laser (ABL). Contractors include Boeing, TRW, and Lockheed Martin.

It might be interesting to see how Microsoft reacts to this. I understand they offered a great deal of money for linux.com when it was for sale. I was recently at the Boeing/Microsoft technical lookahead and they see Sun as their primary competitor. Perhaps Unix.com is in their strategic plan. Sounds like Sun should be the primary customer for this...
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support

They always have something cool. I bought a big roll of yellow and black "Caution Do Not Enter" tape for just one dollar!

Here are two photo's on the Boeing web site.

727-100 's in factory.

747-400' s in factory.

Most people should be able to look at the size of the equipment in the factory and compare it with the size of each aircraft. It is obvious the 747 is larger. To argue otherwise makes no sense.

Biggles

Here are two photo's on the Boeing web site.

727-100 's in factory.

747-400' s in factory.

Most people should be able to look at the size of the equipment in the factory and compare it with the size of each aircraft. It is obvious the 747 is larger. To argue otherwise makes no sense.

Biggles

The 747 is the largest passenger plane in the world. The Lockheed L-1011 was built to be it's direct competitor, and is the only civilian transport plane that even comes CLOSE to the 747's girth. The 727 was created in the early 1960's, the 747 (aka "Jumbo Jet") wasn't even created until 1969! Crissakes - they don't even MAKE the 727 anymore!

"I have seen both in pictures, and the 747 is like 3 inches bigger"

Sorry - that makes me snicker... I've seen pictures of my dad... He's only 2" tall!

For everyone else - the 747 features 4 engines, 2 mounted under each wing. The 727 features three engines - hence "trijet" at the aft of the aircraft. Two on the sides, one mounted in the tail. Good links to visit:

Boeing 727

Boeing 747 Evolution

The 747 is the largest passenger plane in the world. The Lockheed L-1011 was built to be it's direct competitor, and is the only civilian transport plane that even comes CLOSE to the 747's girth. The 727 was created in the early 1960's, the 747 (aka "Jumbo Jet") wasn't even created until 1969! Crissakes - they don't even MAKE the 727 anymore!

"I have seen both in pictures, and the 747 is like 3 inches bigger"

Sorry - that makes me snicker... I've seen pictures of my dad... He's only 2" tall!

For everyone else - the 747 features 4 engines, 2 mounted under each wing. The 727 features three engines - hence "trijet" at the aft of the aircraft. Two on the sides, one mounted in the tail. Good links to visit:

Boeing 727

Boeing 747 Evolution

A 727 has a taller body (about 12" taller), and has wings that are 72' longer. It has 4 more engines, all with more power (around 120,000 lbs of thrust). The 727 also has much more room for seating and cargo than the 747 (or any other model for the matter). Get your facts straight.

A 727 has 4 more engines? For a total of 8? You are seriously deluded, a 727 has 3 engines at the tail.

From the Boeing 727 web page.

The versatility and reliability of the Boeing 727 - first trijet introduced into commercial service - made it the best-selling airliner in the world during the first 30 years of jet transport service.

Tri-jet means three engines.

From the stats section.

Advanced 727-200 Specifications

Wingspan 108 feet (32.91 m)
Length 153 feet 2 inches (46.69 m)
Tail Height 34 feet (10.36 m)
Gross Maximum Taxi Weight Standard: 191,000 pounds (86,600 kg)
Optional: 210,000 pounds (95,300 kg)
Power Three Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofans:
-15 rated at 15,500 pounds thrust
-17 rated at 16,000 pounds thrust
-17R rated at 17,400 pounds thrust
Cruising Speed 570 to 605 mph (890 to 965 km/h)
Cruising Altitude 30,000 to 40,000 feet (9,144 to 12,192 m)
Range 1,500 to 2,500 miles (2,750 to 4,020 km)
Passenger Capacity 148 to 189
Fuel 8,186 U.S. gallons (31,000 L) standard at lower gross weights
9,806 U.S. gallons (37,020 L) standard for 208,000 pounds



I have no idea what commercial jetliner you are thinking of, but it sure isn't a 30 year old 727.

George