Slashdot Mirror

That's sort of funny. Every airplane I've ridden on opens outwards, not inwards. The emergency exits do in fact open inward. But cabin doors open outwards. The hinges are on the front of the door panel, however, which causes the wind to keep the door shut in flight.

Some reference.

> ...and I'm still waiting for my flying car.

Here you go! A bit pricey, but they have been here for a while.

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/energy/powerto wer.html

Boeing makes a nice one too!

I just can't wait until they get into mass production, because the metric they seem to be using throws out traditional physical efficiency and relies on power per unit cost rather than conversion efficiencies.

It's also been implemented on a much larger scale in molten salt power towers which iirc use high temp (200-500C) salt to make steam to turn turbines. Yes, it's a solar plant that can work at night if it has to.

-Holmes.

American robotics research is focused more on military applications, while the Japanese seem to be more focused on creating robots for consumer and industrial use. We don't hear as much about them as we do about Qrio et al, but projects like Boeing's X-45 UCAV http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/ flash.html/ are being agressively pursued, you can bet. These robots can't walk and talk, but they can fly and drop bombs, and eventually will be able to do so semi- or fully autonomously.

You won't find many 20,000 tonne aircraft outside 1930s Super Science-Fiction.

The Boeing CEV concept page.

The Wikipedia CEV page

Its completely delusional to think CEV will be usable at all for going to Mars.

Incorrect. I don't know about LockMart's proposed designs, but Boeing's Constellation project (briefly described near the bottom of this page) will do just that:
Consisting of a crew exploration vehicle (CEV) and associated systems, CONSTELLATION will create capability for missions beyond Earth orbit.

There are even pretty pictures.

I'm skeptical that they are going to land the whole CEV on the moon and blast if off from there. The Apollo strategy was the right one for a lot of reasons. To do the Moon right chances are a several vehicles will be required.

You said it. Again, I don't know a thing about LockMart's proposal, but Boeing & co. are developing a set of spacecraft. No one's sure yet whether or not they plan to use EOR or LOR (or MOR, I suppose it would be) to do the shuffling around of craft, but you're right.

If you've not read it, check Wikipedia's page on the CEV. In its current state, the page is quite informative and has a lot of good links.

Its completely delusional to think CEV will be usable at all for going to Mars.

Incorrect. I don't know about LockMart's proposed designs, but Boeing's Constellation project (briefly described near the bottom of this page) will do just that:
Consisting of a crew exploration vehicle (CEV) and associated systems, CONSTELLATION will create capability for missions beyond Earth orbit.

There are even pretty pictures.

I'm skeptical that they are going to land the whole CEV on the moon and blast if off from there. The Apollo strategy was the right one for a lot of reasons. To do the Moon right chances are a several vehicles will be required.

You said it. Again, I don't know a thing about LockMart's proposal, but Boeing & co. are developing a set of spacecraft. No one's sure yet whether or not they plan to use EOR or LOR (or MOR, I suppose it would be) to do the shuffling around of craft, but you're right.

If you've not read it, check Wikipedia's page on the CEV. In its current state, the page is quite informative and has a lot of good links.

The reason falcons will be cheap is not because they use cheap components, but because they have a different approach than old defense contractors like boeing and lockheed.

In fact they use very high quality materials such as a titanium thrust frame in the first stage. But they can afford that because the first stage is reusable.

They also try to avoid any hazardous materials like explosive bolts and dangerous chemicals since that makes working with the rocket before launch much safer and thus cheaper. The falcon I is the first rocket that is allowed to fly without an explosive flight termination system because of redundant thrust termination systems. So there is no bomb on board.

Take a look at the falcon launch complex. It is basically just a simple concrete building and a flatbed truck. The satellite is integrated while the rocket is horizontal, so they do not need a huge building for satellite integration.

The launch control center is a truck trailer, so they only need one for all launch pads and do not have all that expensive computer hardware sitting around idle.

Now compare that with the launch complex for the boeing delta IV. There is a vertical integration building for fitting the payload, a huge umbilical tower and all kinds of facilities to handle the huge quantities of liquid hydrogen that the delta IV needs.

The only large rocket that has a comparably clean launch pad like the falcon is the russian/ukrainian Zenit (also used by Sea Launch), which is also the cheapest of its class.

The falcon I will also have a very benign launch environment for the payload. The amount of vibration is much lower than with other rockets since the falcon does not use solids. See the payload users guide for details.

I've seen the usual round of slashdot trolling in this thread, that happens every time some piece of new technology is invented or some scientific landmark is achieved outside the US. Likewise, there's a good number of anti-American trolls here who like to have a good laugh when something fucks up in the US.

Then there's the rest of us.

I see that quite a few Americans, when feeling nationally challenged because the biggest civil aircraft in the world is no longer American, like to point out how the Boeing 7E7 is more comfortable, takes less time to board and exit, and is more practical, in that it can fly between smaller airports, than the A380.

At the same time, the European pundits point out that the A380 can fly huge amounts of passengers over a longer distance, etc.

And a good number of pundits try to paint this as a clash of philosophies, in that the efficient small craft versus the huge megajumbo craft is what will happen in the future.

I think they miss out the point: These two craft are aimed at significantly different markets. No one will buy an A380 to fly from Paris to London (a few hundred kilometers) or buy a 7E7 to fly from Singapore to London. Sure, long haul routes with low passenger frequencies, such as from Buenos Aires to London will probably not see an A380 and some high frequency long haul non hub routes will not see an 7E7, but that is the general aim of the market. These aircraft do not really compete.

The real competition to the 7E7 is still to come, and has been announced, in the form of the A350, which is a modernised A330, with newer non bleed engines like those of the 7E7, new wings and more composites.

And this is where the real compeition between Airbus and Boeing is being fought: The family of planes.

One of the major reasons that Airbus has been so successful is that it has built almost all of its planes in modularised form in order to optimise components, which means that Pilots trained on an A318 can fly the whole small Airbus family - A318, A319, A320 and A321. It also means that technicians can service all of these planes if trained on one, and that spares etc are shared amongst all of them, lowering the cost to both airlines and manufacturers.

There is a similar thing in the A330 and A340, and even the A380 uses a similar cockpit layout to the A340. And the A350 will be usable by those who have used A330s in the past.

I think a large amount of Boeing's marketing criticism against Airbus is simply because Boeing missed the boat on the new large market. They were actually doing design and market studies togethr with Airbus in the mid 90's until they pulled out because British Airways, their supposed launch customer, wasn't interested. Boeing then went on with a number of utter rubbish campaigns, from the idea of stretched 747X which was then shelved when it failed to garner enough attention, to a ridiculous Sonic Cruiser concept, which was more of a marketing exercise to take attention away from the A380, until they finally realised that they had to come up with a new product and started the far more realistic and achievable 7E7.

Airbus's planes have been less spectacular than Boeing's, but they offered real advantages in cost (Training, maintenance, spares). Boeing's leadership is where the blame lies for spending so much time on hairbrained campaigns and FUD instead of doing some real product development.

You mean the 416 passenger Boeing 747-400ER? That's been in service over 2 years.

So the smaller jets aren't going away - it is the 747 that's leaving commerical passenger service.

Actually worse? Not.

Boeing's decision had nothing to do with jingoism. Try hard business sense:

Designing -- and selling -- a new airliner is an expensive gamble. Boeing already has a very successful jumbo. From what I've read elsewhere, they figured why take the risk of sinking a lot of money into what might turn out to be a jumbo white elephant?

Boeing's Sonic Cruiser and Airbus's A380 are both destined for the ever expanding Pacific market with its long distance routes. Instead of a been-there-done-that follow on to the 747, Boeing decided to go for speed:

Not only will passengers be willing to shave one or two hours off a 6-12 hour flight, but shorter flight times mean the Sonic Cruiser can make more flights in a given amount of time. Whether that offsets the A380 greater payload is matter for the number crunchers. Jingoism doesn't enter the equation.

Airbus will be able to claim the Corvette for the next quarter-century. Boeing is right when they say the market is not there for ferrying 600 passengers at a time -- that passengers prefer point-to-point flights rather than hub-to-hub. But the market exists, and Boeing is neglecting to mention the growing market for overnight cargo. FedEx is the A380's biggest champion.

But the market is not big enough for two players. Since the A380's announcement, Boeing has been flirting with 747 mods, such as this one that turns the currently unused rear attic into private but windowless sleeping cabins. But Boeing couldn't generate sufficient interest (i.e. firm pre-orders).

Boeing will be left to pursue the unglamorous but profitable mid-size and long-distance markets. E.g., the 777-200ER will combine 300-440 capacity with one of the longest reaches available, possibly enabling Europe<->Australia routes for the first time.

The next big glamour will be the Concorde replacement. Currently, the thought is that supersonic travel can never be made economical enough; that customers would rather bask in luxury aboard an air-yacht like the A380 than pay the price for an unsubsidized supersonic airplane. And given the technical hurdles of the sonic boom (which I think can be solved, but not for the next 30 years), supersonic travel would be limited to only over oceans, which is counter to the current point-to-point market demand.

Given that Boeing recently backed out of supersonic research, it'll be a good long while before it can reclaim the glory crown from Airbus. For 35 years, Boeing held the crown with the 747, inspiration of countless Hollywood movies. Now it's Airbus' turn for the next few decades.

Boeing will continue to be profitable, but without the glory.

Ham!

Oh wait...I think you were referring to *another* monkey who happens to hold office. Never mind. ;)

Boeing 747 Specs ... it's Flash.
According to this, the typical cruise speed is 567mph @ 35,000ft. This seems to be pretty typical across the 7x7 series of jetliners by boeing. Someone else can look up Airbus specs.

But since you seem to be curious about who really profits from Israeli defense spending, I'll give you a hint: They are not Israelis at all. Want to profit from Israeli defense spending yourself? Those companies are hiring like crazy right now. A buddy of mine just got a kick-ass job at Raytheon.

Or did you think Israel was building fighter jets in a garage behind the Kenesset building?

30% has been demonstrated in prototypes.

Gallium is rare and expensive. Huge areas of gallium arsenide cells aren't going to happen.

the point is that a single jumbo actually WOULD transfer more people over the atlantic in a weeks time perioid than a cruiseliner ever would be able to.

But it will use disproportionately more fuel to do so.

I think you're wrong.

The Queen Mary 2, which is a modern and fuel-efficient cruise ship, moves 50 feet per gallon, which is about 0.01 miles per gallon. At 2,712 persons (which includes 921 crew, by the way), that's 25.8 person-miles per gallon. Source data.

A Boeing 747-400, which is a modern and fuel-efficient jumbo jet, moves 666 feet per gallon, which is about 0.13 miles per gallon. At 524 persons (not including crew), that's 66.3 person-miles per gallon. Source data.

That makes the jumbo-jet nearly three times more fuel-efficient than the cruise ship. I realize that they don't use the same types of fuel so a real efficiency comparison might require some additional correction factors, but I bet the jumbo jet still comes out way ahead. Especially if you didn't give the cruise ship the unfair advantage of counting the crew in the calculations.

The wings and fuselage are being manufactured out of carbon fiber composite materials made in the USA. Boeing itself buys this material and makes the wings and fuselage in their WA state plants. The carbon fiber material is manufactured by a US company owned by a Japanese multinational. This company has a long history of supplying Boeing with carbon fiber material.

Straight from the horse's mouth...
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q2/nr_040 526h.html

It would appear that the first Delta IV launch was in 2002.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021 120s.html
Still late, but today was the first launch of a Delta IV heavy.

Seems like they're a bit behind schedule.

"First launch of the Boeing Delta IV is scheduled for 2001 and support projects are well under way."
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_rele ase_981016a.html

...capable of lifting 23 tonnes...

The added engines allow the rocket to launch 50,800 pounds (23.040 kilograms) of payload into low Earth orbit and 28,950 pounds (13,130 kilograms) to geosynchronous orbits...

who'd love these rockets :)

The RS-68's on the Delta IV Heavy are the first new big rocket motor to be designed and built in the US in a long time (The space shuttle uses motors designed in the late sixties or very early seventies).

And for the record, I think a new rocket motor qualifies as sexy . . .

The Delta IV family blends new and mature technology to launch virtually any size medium or heavy payload into space

The Delta Four launch scheduled for Saturday had to be postponed. The good news is the next window isn't 2 months away, it's Tues. afternoon (the 21st) if they decide to go for it. The D4 Heavy version is the first version of the D4 to use three main booster rockets, forming a booster theoretically capable of servicing the ISS at much less cost to orbit than the shuttle. While the "multi-barrel" design is just becoming operational, regular Delta IVs with the same engine have entered successful service in 2003.
The Delta IV Heavy is staged from Nasa's pad 37B, which last saw service as the launchpad for the Saturn 1B Apollo missions.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d310/041201del ta4heavy.html/

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/de lta4/delta4.htm/

The Delta 4 Heavy supports payloads of up to about 50,000 pounds to low-Earth orbit (i.e. the International Space Station). It can put about 29,000 pounds into Geosyncronous orbit 22,300 miles above the planet, or 22,000 pounds to the moon, or about 17,500 pounds to Mars.

The IV Heavy's possible successors, clustering more first stage rockets, include a 7 tube design with MORE lift than the Saturn 5.

The first wall will contain lithium, which can transmute to T when bombarded by the fast neutrons generated by the fusion reactions. For more info, see Boeing's blurb on the shield/breeding blanket designs.

Of course, with improving technology, higher beta (a measure of fusion plasma confinement capability), and hotter plasmas, D-T can be forsaken for other reactions. :)

The first wall will contain lithium, which can transmute to T when bombarded by the fast neutrons generated by the fusion reactions. For more info, see Boeing's blurb on the shield/breeding blanket designs.

Of course, with improving technology, higher beta (a measure of fusion plasma confinement capability), and hotter plasmas, D-T can be forsaken for other reactions. :)

Yes, like http://www.boeing.com/, I'm sure their website is set up just to impress 18-25 year olds.

The US Space Shuttle has significant capabilities - like returning heavy payloads back from orbit - that even *we* don't use. The primary return-mission for the Shuttle is to return the Leonardo module from the ISS. Leonardo, if you don't know, is a glorified trash can. Hell, if you compare the Saturn V launch capability to the Shuttle, the US space program took a giant step backwards because of the Shuttle (and associated politics.)

The Shuttle is the equivalent of a pickup truck that's been tasked with replacing tractor-trailers, Greyhound busses, garbage trucks, and NASCAR race cars. Sure, it's capable of performing all those funcitons, just don't expect it to perform any of them well.

Consider what space exploration would be like today if the Saturn V (or VI or VII) were in service today, in concert with a crew-only vehicle to transport the sentient meat. Use the Saturn booster to take the large, heavy ISS sections into (a useful) orbit, and haul the people up and down on a vehicle designed just for that. And while we're at it, just how do any future missions plan to escape earth orbit (to go places like, say, the Moon?) The Shuttle is incapable of getting out of LEO, so you ain't gonna use that. The Saturn series were the only ones that could get useful[*] payloads into a lunar insertion orbit. The Delta IV Heavy might be able to do it, but it'll be a smaller payload than a Saturn, and it'll be sans meat.

[*] I use the term "useful" here because it's obvious we can get 1000kg to Mars or to the Moon or to interesting comets. But in terms of establishing a manned presence on another planet/moon, we need to send lots more than that ... and not in 1000kg chunks.

Boing has developed the PAS-5, the world's first commercial satellite with an ion thruster.

Your ignorance is showing (on slashdot, what a shock):
a) ABL is _not_ designed to shoot down ICBMs, it's designed to shoot down SRBM's and IRBM's. Think SCUD, not SS-18; think Mach 6, not Mach 24; think hundreds of miles, not thousands.
b) The fine tuning he's referring to is with the laser, and he's right, getting the modules to work together was the big remaining laser milestone. These are the flight modules, so it's not like any re-design needs to happen to get them in the plane.
c) The ABL tracker is probably more mature than the laser (see http://www.boeing.com/special/abl/news/1998/042998 .html/).
d) A smaller-scale land-based system (THEL) has been shooting down shorter range stuff for quite some time. It not only can be done, it is being done.

People see "laser to shoot down missiles" and they immediately jump to the star wars conclusion. There are a lot of interesting things to shoot besides ICBM's.

The program has plenty of problems to overcome, and will be over budget and schedule, but it will work.

Intelligent debate on how much to spend on defense and how to use the money is great, but uninformed whining just causes more problems that it solves.

Protected against bird and lightning strike

Doesn't it strike you that such a design would be rendered useless if a bird smashed dead center on the window? Isn't that the way it is with America's goal of technology superior defense? It tends to be designed to defend against very high tech attacks, but is totally useless against lower tech attacks like a flock of birds, a huge amount of flying rocks, or a fog machine?

The official site about this laser is here

The problem with SSMEs is that they're a pain to maintain. If we could have a simpler, reusable engine, *that* would save money.

• Nasa Launches 1988 - 2002
  • Launches - 56
  • Success - 55
  • Rate - 98.21%
• DOD Launches 1988 - 2002
  • Launches - 111
  • Success - 100
  • Rate - 90.09%
• Commercial Launches 1988 - 2002
  • Launches - 112
  • Success - 103
  • Rate - 91.96%

Check this out:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/R S68.html

The Rocketdyne RS-68. From conception to production in $500 Million and 4 or 5 years. The first large liquid-fueled rocket engine to be designed in the United States in 25 years. And the performance aint shabby considering that the deciding factor for every trade study was cost. I think if we applied this same model of design to a new reusable spacecraft with a short life span, it could work extremely well. The problem is, everyone wants the next vehicle to last 50 years or be the most efficient thing in the world and handle all of NASA's needs.

You can draw a comparison from this to the personal computer market. Back when I was younger, I always wanted the latest and greatest boards and devices to build my computers with. I would plop down $2000 for a ton of top-of-the-line equipment. But as I grew older, I realized that I could get less leading-edge stuff and it would still allow me to get my work done and play most of the latest games (although not all). So instead of spending $2000 on new equipment, I would spend $800. But, the time between upgrades changed. I would spend $800 every 1.5 years instead of $2000 every 2 to 2.5 years. But to make the $2000 investment match the cheaper one, I would have had to stretch it out to 3.75 years between upgrades. So my choice was financially more efficient. Not to mention that at the end of the $2000 life span, the equipment would not be that great anyhow even if it was the best at the start of the life span. However, the $800 equipment would almost always have decent performance throughout its entire life span.

So, I think NASA needs to redefine their goals for human spaceflight and to restructure their plan for reaching those goals. Instead of spending $X for a craft that can do everything and last Y years, they should just spend $X/3 for a craft that can do most things and last Y/2 years. This way they can also customize different crafts and different revisions of the crafts to take care of different tasks (1 version to do science, 1 version to build and resupply the ISS, etc).

It's all about diversification and simplification of systems, not trying to cram everything into 1 solution.

NC-17?????

Damn, when did Boeing go and release an NC-17 version of their transport aircraft? :)

there all all kind of impediments to Space flights, as a mean to go from A to B, cost being one.
See HERE for a first try at speeding passengers across the pond.
Space vertigo is another. See an interesting paper here.

re: Boeing and "privatized space"
What's this about Boeing contracted to build and launch 3 more private satellites for a return private customer? Or this about creating a private space port aka Sea Launch?
Disclaimer: I work for Boeing, but not on satellites.

They're actually seriously suggesting they use a ship/platform as the base.

Launching objects into space from sea? They must be crazy!

If you want an island, I here the Pitcairn Islands may be going spare soon.

Presidential Timeline:

Year 1: Relax and recover from campaign. Bring the family to the new mansion. Party with contributors.
Year 2: Contemplate doing work, or simply visit Camp David, play with his *nix GBA (ha, thought this was off-topic!)
Year 3: Do a few things (blow something up), start working on campaign
Year 4: Brag about the previous three years, shake babies, kiss constituents hands.
Year 4.5: Talk bad about the opponent, read uncensored news and wonder why people hate him, get drunk frequently at "fund raisers", travel the country on the taxpayers money, fly around in his own private 747-200B
Year 4.9: Celebrate winning, or start packing up his personal effects from the Whitehouse and Camp David.

The 3D nature of air travel makes automation easier, since there is more spacing between vehicles. We have autonomous aircraft right now that can perform complex flight plans in American airspace, and commercial jetliners that can land automatically. What technical hurdles are left?

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.

My reference was a web site that says Surveyor 1 "Made first fully controlled lunar soft-landing". I guess they think the Luna probe wasn't "fully controlled", despite soft-landing earlier.

Also, even after fall, Red Hat trades at 133 P/E, which is way overvalued even for this sector (MSFT, for example, is at 40.59).

RedHat is an open-source oriented technology company. Microsoft is a cash heavy mutual fund with broad investment across the technology industry. Redhat's multiple reflects investors optimism in RedHat's volatility and future business potential. Microsoft's lower multiple reflects its more stable and mature business model.

Put in other terms, Microsoft is as much like Redhat as Boeing is like Scaled Composites.

How about 35 years after the Wrights flew? Men landed on the Moon in 1969. In 1938, the DC-3 has been in commercial service for 2 years. How about a DC-3 for space? If access to space becomes reasonably affordable and reliable, then there will be all sorts of exploration, economic development, and tourism.

Titan: NASA

While the Titan 2 has been retired and the Titan 4 is being phased out, those vehicles are not operated by NASA, nor are they commercially avaiable. They are built by Lockheed Martin for the US Air Force.

Delta: NASA

The Delta is built and operated by Boeing.

Ariane: unreliable, and run by a baby NASA that speaks French

Ariane is operated by Arianespace, although they do receive some funding from ESA to support development of the Ariane 5.

Pegasus: NASA

Pegasus is built and operated by Orbital Sciences Corporation.

Russian launchers: you're kidding right?

Russian launch vehicles, built by a number of Russian firms, are often an economically-attractive alternative to US and European boosters. Nothing funny about it.