Slashdot Mirror

Half the time the power isn't avaialble -- Nauru is partially running on diesel power generation. You're not going to get from Aussie to Nauaru with this, but there are a handful of airfields within 650 statue miles from INU).

Does the 650 mile range include the 45 minute 'loiter' time requirements? (Under IFR rules used by all commerical aviation, they are supposed to be able to fly to the destination, then fly on to the diversion airport, and then still have 45 minutes of fuel left. I wonder if this takes that into account?)

Half the time the power isn't avaialble -- Nauru is partially running on diesel power generation. You're not going to get from Aussie to Nauaru with this, but there are a handful of airfields within 650 statue miles from INU).

Does the 650 mile range include the 45 minute 'loiter' time requirements? (Under IFR rules used by all commerical aviation, they are supposed to be able to fly to the destination, then fly on to the diversion airport, and then still have 45 minutes of fuel left. I wonder if this takes that into account?)

Slashdot ate my link.

there

If there is, it would pass right there.

http://www.gcmap.com/featured/...

It would have been nice to see a map in the news article to give some idea to those reading it unfamiliar with the area just how big of a "blunder" this was. From the Great Circle Mapper website I linked to above we see that KUL is about 4000 miles from SYD, and SYD is less than 500 miles from MEL. Given the typical cruising speed of a jetliner they were in the air for perhaps not much more than an hour on a flight that would have lasted 8 or 9 hours. Since they knew right away something was wrong I doubt they were flying much longer than that, maybe 3 hours. If they were flying much longer than that I suspect they would have landed much further from either SYD or MEL, or we'd be reading about a plane lost at sea.

The article makes a big deal about "landing in the wrong country" which I suppose is a big deal if you take off in the USA, headed for Canada, but end up in India. Much less of a deal if you take off from USA while headed for Canada but a technical problem means you have to land back in USA.

> The US installing a "missile shield" in Romania has
> nothing to do with North Korea, though.

No, but they're pretty close to the trajectory that Iran would use if their nuclear program were to succeed:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=o...

And they're completely useless against Russia:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=u...

So, it's pretty clear to anyone who knows about things like the Earth being a spheroid exactly who the missiles in Romania are meant to defend against. And since the Russian's can by no means be said not to understand ballistics, rocketry, or great circle paths; it's equally clear that their objections to the ABMs in Romania are simple posturing for 100% political reasons that have nothing to do in any way with MAD or their own national security.

> The US installing a "missile shield" in Romania has
> nothing to do with North Korea, though.

No, but they're pretty close to the trajectory that Iran would use if their nuclear program were to succeed:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=o...

And they're completely useless against Russia:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=u...

So, it's pretty clear to anyone who knows about things like the Earth being a spheroid exactly who the missiles in Romania are meant to defend against. And since the Russian's can by no means be said not to understand ballistics, rocketry, or great circle paths; it's equally clear that their objections to the ABMs in Romania are simple posturing for 100% political reasons that have nothing to do in any way with MAD or their own national security.

Actually, it doesn't... It actually seems like Perth to Santiago will cross - the other flights just skim the edge of the continent.

That is pretty nice, bookmarking it. I remember reading the claim that Giza was the centre of the landmasses of the world, in some crackpot book I read when bored. Turns out that bit might have been true.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=HEEM.OLD&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=HEEM.OLD&DU=mi

Interestingly, as a child, I always thought that maps were the same everywhere (North America central) and so was surprised when I first saw maps from other countries. I paused a moment and realized why and that I was naive for assuming otherwise.

It makes sense to put Europe in the middle, as the split then happens across the pacific, where there's great distances between landmasses, and the split occurs on or around the dateline.

I expect America to put themselves in the middle

I'm surprised we don't see more maps like these though, which show what's near and what's far for a given country

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=RSL&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=RSL&DU=mi
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FRA&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=FRA&DU=mi
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SIN&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=SIN&DU=mi

Interestingly, as a child, I always thought that maps were the same everywhere (North America central) and so was surprised when I first saw maps from other countries. I paused a moment and realized why and that I was naive for assuming otherwise.

It makes sense to put Europe in the middle, as the split then happens across the pacific, where there's great distances between landmasses, and the split occurs on or around the dateline.

I expect America to put themselves in the middle

I'm surprised we don't see more maps like these though, which show what's near and what's far for a given country

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=RSL&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=RSL&DU=mi
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FRA&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=FRA&DU=mi
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SIN&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=SIN&DU=mi

Interestingly, as a child, I always thought that maps were the same everywhere (North America central) and so was surprised when I first saw maps from other countries. I paused a moment and realized why and that I was naive for assuming otherwise.

It makes sense to put Europe in the middle, as the split then happens across the pacific, where there's great distances between landmasses, and the split occurs on or around the dateline.

I expect America to put themselves in the middle

I'm surprised we don't see more maps like these though, which show what's near and what's far for a given country

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=RSL&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=RSL&DU=mi
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FRA&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=FRA&DU=mi
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SIN&MS=wls&MP=a&MC=SIN&DU=mi

3000 miles along the great circle path puts a warhead short of Anchorage, Alaska. Honolulu is 4600 miles. Here is an equidistant azimuthal projection centered on Pyongyang. The first yellow distance ring is 4000 km, the second is 8000 km. Assuming their missle range is 3000mi/4825 km, they can only reach the distant Aleutian Islands. I wouldn't be the least bit worried of you're not within the 4000km ring.

3000 miles along the great circle path puts a warhead short of Anchorage, Alaska. Honolulu is 4600 miles. Here is an equidistant azimuthal projection centered on Pyongyang. The first yellow distance ring is 4000 km, the second is 8000 km. Assuming their missle range is 3000mi/4825 km, they can only reach the distant Aleutian Islands. I wouldn't be the least bit worried of you're not within the 4000km ring.

North Korea is saying they are going to pre-emptively strike the USA with nuclear weapons. Why aren't we all building/hiding in bomb shelters right now?

Because their 'attack the US' map has the ICBMs not taking great-circle routes. Some NK PR flunky hacked that map together with a Mercator projection and a ruler. Here is the GC route from Pyongyang to Austin, TX, one of the cities supposedly on the list.

High speed rail will not work in the US outside of the Northeast Corridor because nowhere else has the kind of density needed to make it work. 1000 km in the US is a quick trip - the example he gives, Denver to SF, is more than double that. And rail requires a large and expensive infrastructure, one which is going to have to be duplicated (because our existing rail system is optimized for freight hauling, at which task it is one of the most efficient in the world). It's a cool idea, and in some places it makes sense. But not here.

High speed rail relies on long distances to make it worthwhile -- at 200mph you need a good 200 miles between stops to be of any use. Each stop tends to add 10 minutes. Paris to Strasbourg is 300 miles with no stops. It doesn't matter how dense the middle is, it's

Boston-NewYork-Washington, NewYork-Cleveland-Chicago, Vegas/Phoenix-LA-San Francisco-Portland-Seatle-Vancouver-Calgary
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=bos-nyc-was,nyc-cle-ord-den-las-lax-phx,lax-sfo-pdx-sea-yvr-YYC

A modern high speed train (200mph) will do New york to LA in 13 hours, (leave down town Manhattan at 9PM, arrive LA at 7AM, depart LA at 6PM, arrive Manhattan at 10AM, quick shower and in the office at 11AM), a bit too long. However Chicago-LA in 9 hours with a sleeping car (11pm-5am) is certainly viable from a timetable perspective, but wiht only a couple of trains a day over 2000 miles of track it's not financially sound. The coasts (East and West) though can certainly support high speed trains.

Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system

This doesn't.

If the US has N interceptors gaurding New York City all Russia has to do is launch N+1 missiles at it

N=0

I do agree that tech heads greatly underestimate the limitations of systems, and the available communication channels when mid-Pacific at FL350 is one of them. However,

Not to mention that uplink above the South Pole IS tricky.

is largely irrelevant. There are no RPT routes that run much further south than 60 degrees: the furthest south I recall being this route Auckland to Santiago LAN Chile. There is the odd charter flight that flies above the Antarctic continent for site seeing purposes, and they would still be carrying the good old-fashioned FDR/CVR (and staying above the altitude and well clear of Mt Erebus).

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TNI-LAX&MS=wls&PC=%2523ff0000&RC=%2523000080&DU=mi

This one might work with a huge space plane. Just dropping the passengers off along the way, we'll I'm sure Martin Baker could design something for ejection and reentry.

Fast rail is for passengers. Not freight. That can go by sea. Passengers need a direct route. Arcing north through Siberia and Alaska (past Sarah's place) is too slow, because even fast trains are slow compared to aircraft.

Three words: great, circle, route...

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-SEA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

Not that this will actually happen anytime in the near future, but it isn't really too far off the direct route if you are only talking about being too far off the direct route being an issue. Of course trains are much slower than airplanes, but even planes arc past Sarah's place on such a journey.

In the recent past, it was easier to hug the coastline than to try to navigate the great circle route, but nowdays, airplanes have enough navigational safeguards to avoid tracing the coast. Of course in the past tracing the coast had other hazzards...

I think you don't give the GP's post enough credit.

That Great Circle doesn't look so good from DC

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-DCA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

Fast rail is for passengers. Not freight. That can go by sea. Passengers need a direct route. Arcing north through Siberia and Alaska (past Sarah's place) is too slow, because even fast trains are slow compared to aircraft.

Three words: great, circle, route...

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-SEA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

Not that this will actually happen anytime in the near future, but it isn't really too far off the direct route if you are only talking about being too far off the direct route being an issue. Of course trains are much slower than airplanes, but even planes arc past Sarah's place on such a journey.

In the recent past, it was easier to hug the coastline than to try to navigate the great circle route, but nowdays, airplanes have enough navigational safeguards to avoid tracing the coast. Of course in the past tracing the coast had other hazzards...

I think you don't give the GP's post enough credit.

That Great Circle doesn't look so good from DC

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-DCA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

Fast rail is for passengers. Not freight. That can go by sea. Passengers need a direct route. Arcing north through Siberia and Alaska (past Sarah's place) is too slow, because even fast trains are slow compared to aircraft.

Three words: great, circle, route...

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-SEA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

Not that this will actually happen anytime in the near future, but it isn't really too far off the direct route if you are only talking about being too far off the direct route being an issue. Of course trains are much slower than airplanes, but even planes arc past Sarah's place on such a journey.

In the recent past, it was easier to hug the coastline than to try to navigate the great circle route, but nowdays, airplanes have enough navigational safeguards to avoid tracing the coast. Of course in the past tracing the coast had other hazzards...