Slashdot Mirror

I'll admit that I didn't read the PDF link completely but it sounds like the product is doing a portion of what AeroText has been doing for a while. The only thing that I see that appears different is that it does a form of document clustering. I guess depending on the user requirements that I would rather see more on the relationship extraction over sorting documents into clusters. I can see where there would be a value for it but I could just as easily pick out the documents where relationships were extracted and create clusters there too. I've used AeroText with another product called Centrifuge and I'd be pretty comfortable saying that this is nothing new. You may also want to check out a product from for their software handling text analysis.

What do you want them to do; mention every contractor who worked on Hubble in every press release, announcement, or mention of hubble?

They certainly aren't trying to hide the fact that Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer, and many other companies worked on Hubble:

A Brief History of the Hubble Space Telescope
The following year, design of the telescope began in earnest, with the award of contracts to the Perkin-Elmer Corporation to construct the mirror and optical assembly and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to construct the spacecraft and its support systems.

NASA history: Hubble Space Telescope:
Page 1, Paragraph 4:
Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Danbury, Connecticut, was chosen to develop the optical system and guidance sensors. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, was selected to produce the protective outer shroud and the spacecraft systems for the telescope, as well as to assemble and test the finished product.

NASA Hubble Team Receives International Academy of Astronautics Award (2004)

LOCKHEED MARTIN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TEAMS RECEIVE NASA HONORS (2005)

A DECADE OF DISCOVERY: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE -- THE DISCOVERIES AND THE PEOPLE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEDIA INVITED TO JOIN IN PUBLIC CELEBRATION OF TEN YEARS OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

Google search for "site:nasa.gov lockheed hubble":
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 from nasa.gov

If you google now for "TRW Hubble" you'll find a whole bunch of articles mentioning that TRW was selected to build JWST, "Hubble replacement", but not too many mentioning that we did actually built the original Hubble.

I like their use of the word "uninhabited" instead of unmanned or remote-controlled. It implies these things are designed to hang around out of view and surveillance a very long time, just waiting to be called in [or maybe make the decisions themselves?]. There is the nighttime silence, except for electronics signals, the sinister background music, and the final precision-targeted explosions.

And it certainly seems they conceptually borrowed from those Shadow-named "living" space-travel warships featured on a TV sci-fi series that aired a few years back. This little animation comes across as downright creepy. And even worse, they may well be overhead right now -- just waiting.

Sorry but your argument simply doesn't hold up. The market will go wherever it is most profitable to go... this has always been true and always will be true. Just look at some very succesful companies and tell me there's no profit in killing people.

The market is least trustworthy option when it comes to policing.

Land based is a POS, but the Navy's been doing it for a while. I'd assume the zig-zag missles would take a general path to the target that could be tracked, then you'd just need final intercept manuvering or jamming capabilities.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=17299&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

FM-6 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/1377.wmv
FM-8 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/11391.wm v

Land based is a POS, but the Navy's been doing it for a while. I'd assume the zig-zag missles would take a general path to the target that could be tracked, then you'd just need final intercept manuvering or jamming capabilities.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=17299&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

FM-6 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/1377.wmv
FM-8 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/11391.wm v

Land based is a POS, but the Navy's been doing it for a while. I'd assume the zig-zag missles would take a general path to the target that could be tracked, then you'd just need final intercept manuvering or jamming capabilities.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=17299&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

FM-6 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/1377.wmv
FM-8 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/11391.wm v

I should start by saying that there's a wealth of information out online about Lockheed Martin's Atlas V.

The article gave a link to www.space.com but if you want the source of this information, you should go to Spaceflight Now for their informative diagrams. You can get an idea of how the vehicle actually breaks apart to deliver its payload. You can read about how they plan to retrieve the boosters from the ocean, the simulated views of onboard cameras, or previous Atlas launches. This site contains for more information than the one listed in the article.

If you're interested in payload sizes, check out Wikipedia's entries on this topic or the International Launch Service's documentation of preparation for Atlas V launches.

"Are you interested in the basic methodology? I have some open source cites, you will probably have to go to an engineering university library to find the journals though. It's tough reading but interesting."

YES. The few googled tidbits on Helliwell and Siple Station are very interesting. So do you work here :) :)..? I work here and so I have access to Nature, Science, PRL and am somewhat familliar with the techniques it appears you are using (electron cyclotron resonance heating....?)...

What is that stuff on top? (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/9160.jp g)

c'mon now... they gotta admit that it's done for the scifi effect.

Looks like a device for something out of a Dr. Seuss book. Anywho :), here are some specs.

You know, I was about to ask the rocket scientists hanging around here (hi guys!) about how small new generation comsats were going to be. After all, there has been a tremendous increase in miniturization and technology since the original GPS sats were launched. (e.g. better microprocessors, denser batteries, more efficient solar panels, better propulsion, etc.) If we could get these sats small enough, it might be possible to deploy a GPS system for Mars in one or two launches.

Then I saw the borg cube that assimilated the Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory (Mirror) Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.

On another note, the picture makes it look like the design hasn't changed much from the original NAVSTAR configuration. I assume that these satellites are merely sharing the same chassis, and have very different internals?

We just wonder when private industry will put Nasa out of the game.

Lockheed Martin Katrina Response

As a weekend help desk guy, I personally have had 3 calls from people out there: 2 of them were living out of hotels. Any time one of them calls up, my coworkers and I give them priority: we couldn't imagine being in their shoes right now. They're still trying to figure out where everyone's gone. Employees from other states are going there to help out their relatives & bring them back with them. They know the "ET" is important. But right now, many don't even have homes.

American Red Cross

You may even want to find out if anyone in your area is matching donations. I heard Albertsons was.

Lockheed is a quality defense contractor, and they Already do good work in NYC with the NY/NJ Port Authority (bridges and tunnels). So alot of the work probably overlaps in the homeland security realm. Nothing wrong with a keeping things under one umbrella. One less layer of problems to deal with...

Oh, well this must be a different Lockheed Martin, with the same logo and address then...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12992&sc=400

A few links right to locmart:

Main CEV Page Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.

Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV

Interesting.... This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.

A few links right to locmart:

Main CEV Page Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.

Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV

Interesting.... This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.

A few links right to locmart:

Main CEV Page Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.

Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV

Interesting.... This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.

All NASA centers lease from LMIT (was OAO)... and get charged quite a bit more than retail in the leases.

My PC is $151/mo for three years ($5436 over the lease), but was ~$3000 from the manufacturer (the government price would have been even less). This is on top of monthly charges for support ($135/mo), email ($19/mo), network access ($34/mo), calendaring ($7.50/mo), manditory external file storage ($40/mo). All of these charges are out in the open and anyone who can multiply can see how bad the government is getting ripped off.... but no one in power at NASA seems to care.

We recently tried to order a Mac mini from LMIT for outright purchase (the lease contract requires us to buy all systems from LMIT) and they tried to charge us $1600!!

And the support is so abysmal that most of us find coworkers to fix our systems rather than call the help desk (and risk having the problem made worse).

All of this was once in-house, but congress pushed for privatization.... and this mess is what happened.

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?

does USA actually make anything anymore ?

We still make things that kill people dead and destroy their homes.

where all the capable ones (IBM, EDS, what have you)

Uhm, Lockheed Martin Information Technology and Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems frequently find themselves bidding against IBM and EDS for government contracts...

Methinks this'll be a DIY project, if only for prestige value.

PS. And of course, like any defense contractor, Lockheed is allergic to offshoring. Look what happened the last time!

Good call - a quick search of Google News doesn't show anything either - and I'd assume that this would be a big enough switch to turn some heads and fire off a few more articles.

Then again, it could be true and a very early report. I would of at least expect to see it on Lockheed's Press releases.

I think you are over simplifying the system a bit. I can't speak of that particular systems design, but I have dealt with others government (federal, state, and local) systems and they are rarely setup for bulk exports without impacting operations (internal and external agency usage).

well if the system is so on the edge of breaking why doesnt someone just break it then use a 40$ disc recovery program to recall all the data in its previous form or even from days prior.

Have you dealt with systems in a professional environment? Have you ever dealt with the procurement process for a government entity? You can't just break the system and expect that it will be replaced in a few days. Likely the data is highly normalized and spread across multiple repositories on multiple systems. Migrating to a new system requires extensive research into existing requirements plus understanding future plans for the system.

obviously this db worked at some point so just get the data from there and re-add the stuff that you lost

Likely the data is entered from automated systems rather than a manual entry process. These external systems must be accounted for before taking the system offline for maintenance/upgrade/replacement.

cause it makes bush look like an sell out to forgein biz and leaders

Show me a president who hasn't had questionable relationships with foreign connections. Officials (both foreign and national) can be quite corrupt and dealing with them sometimes requires playing by their rules. The US government has policies on dealing with these situations (see the Locheed Martin and Titan Corporation merger cancellation for an example. Can't find a good document on proper procedures when approached by a foreign official for a bribe to continue business, but it does exist and you need to follow the proper process or you get in trouble, like Titan).

Am I the only one who read that as Tactical Missle Robot? I guess I'm just thinking of the LOCAAS system I saw at Lockheed Martin. They had a realtime simulation setup where a swarm of these devices took out targets. The targets are preloaded into the system so that the device looks for say, a scud missle truck or a tank, and it could have several targets. Several LOCAAS are launched from aircraft and fly about autonomously until it IDs a target. Then it homes in and destroys it w/ a shaped warhead. It has a really neat mode called swarm, where if one LOCAAS IDs a target, it calls the other ones to come attack the target - they'll keep swarming until the target is so destroyed it can't be recognized as a target. In the simulation, they took out almost all 10 targets without any user input other than the original targeting from a simulated aircraft flyover. The simulation is nondeterministic, so every time they run it, the outcome is different - just like real life. After seeing this simulation, I'd hate to be on the recieving end of these things!

Assuming you meant Lockheed Martin, you can window shop here.

Check out where they plan on building these things. It's the old Goodyear-Zepplin Airdock in Akron, OH (now owned by Lockheed Martin - see their article on the HAA.)

A book I have (Published by Goodyear in 1923) lists this place as 1175ft x 200ft x 325ft. It even has a picture of it super-imposed over the American side of Niagara Falls (it's 75 longer). It's also mentions that it is so big that it often form clouds on the inside.

More links are here and here

/tongue-in-cheek

After hearing of many AMD processors popping louder than a lobster in a vat of boiling water, I considered a little liquid cooling to keep my rig from becoming an expensive piece of sand...

There has been a lot done to upgrade the Terminal software in the last 8 years and continues to be updated. Since the FDADs at the New York TRACON were failing they were updated with a new color displayed called an ARTS Color Display:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services6.html

The old ARTS computer in some of the TRACONs now have been updated with the new off the shelf hardware and software that was converted from the old software that ran on the IOPs. This system which is called Common ARTS is installed in about over 131 (the web site says 131 but I know it is more since Ive worked on the system):

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services5.html

To give credit to all the controller and the ARTS systems out there were responsible for getting every plane over the United States on the ground safely after 9/11. I think that is testament to the reliability of the software that was created so long ago.

Here are a few more press releases Lockheed has done about the updating of the terminal system:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=11908&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12645&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

And one more on the competition going on between Common ARTS and STARS:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12903&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

There has been a lot done to upgrade the Terminal software in the last 8 years and continues to be updated. Since the FDADs at the New York TRACON were failing they were updated with a new color displayed called an ARTS Color Display:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services6.html

The old ARTS computer in some of the TRACONs now have been updated with the new off the shelf hardware and software that was converted from the old software that ran on the IOPs. This system which is called Common ARTS is installed in about over 131 (the web site says 131 but I know it is more since Ive worked on the system):

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services5.html

To give credit to all the controller and the ARTS systems out there were responsible for getting every plane over the United States on the ground safely after 9/11. I think that is testament to the reliability of the software that was created so long ago.

Here are a few more press releases Lockheed has done about the updating of the terminal system:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=11908&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12645&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

And one more on the competition going on between Common ARTS and STARS:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12903&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

There has been a lot done to upgrade the Terminal software in the last 8 years and continues to be updated. Since the FDADs at the New York TRACON were failing they were updated with a new color displayed called an ARTS Color Display:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services6.html

The old ARTS computer in some of the TRACONs now have been updated with the new off the shelf hardware and software that was converted from the old software that ran on the IOPs. This system which is called Common ARTS is installed in about over 131 (the web site says 131 but I know it is more since Ive worked on the system):

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services5.html

To give credit to all the controller and the ARTS systems out there were responsible for getting every plane over the United States on the ground safely after 9/11. I think that is testament to the reliability of the software that was created so long ago.

Here are a few more press releases Lockheed has done about the updating of the terminal system:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=11908&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12645&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

And one more on the competition going on between Common ARTS and STARS:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12903&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

There has been a lot done to upgrade the Terminal software in the last 8 years and continues to be updated. Since the FDADs at the New York TRACON were failing they were updated with a new color displayed called an ARTS Color Display:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services6.html

The old ARTS computer in some of the TRACONs now have been updated with the new off the shelf hardware and software that was converted from the old software that ran on the IOPs. This system which is called Common ARTS is installed in about over 131 (the web site says 131 but I know it is more since Ive worked on the system):

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services5.html

To give credit to all the controller and the ARTS systems out there were responsible for getting every plane over the United States on the ground safely after 9/11. I think that is testament to the reliability of the software that was created so long ago.

Here are a few more press releases Lockheed has done about the updating of the terminal system:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=11908&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12645&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

And one more on the competition going on between Common ARTS and STARS:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12903&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

There has been a lot done to upgrade the Terminal software in the last 8 years and continues to be updated. Since the FDADs at the New York TRACON were failing they were updated with a new color displayed called an ARTS Color Display:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services6.html

The old ARTS computer in some of the TRACONs now have been updated with the new off the shelf hardware and software that was converted from the old software that ran on the IOPs. This system which is called Common ARTS is installed in about over 131 (the web site says 131 but I know it is more since Ive worked on the system):

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/tss/products_service s/services/services5.html

To give credit to all the controller and the ARTS systems out there were responsible for getting every plane over the United States on the ground safely after 9/11. I think that is testament to the reliability of the software that was created so long ago.

Here are a few more press releases Lockheed has done about the updating of the terminal system:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=11908&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12645&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

And one more on the competition going on between Common ARTS and STARS:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=12903&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

Mars Time????

Is that Metric or is that Imperial?

I mean.. like.. shouldnt they wait to see if it actually lands this time?

"Martin" is obviously a veiled reference to Lockheed-Martin, maker of the Littoral Combat Ship which is slated to be introduced into the Navy arsenel in 2010. I would go on more about this ship but you can get a better overview at http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/articles/071703 _4.html.

There is a push to have this ship's operations be controlled via *nix-based operating systems and I would not be surprised to find that the CCIA has its nose in that whole fiasco as well. Finally, while I've heard vague rumors of CCIA/Freemason connections, these are mostly unsubstantiated.

As far as "radio" controlled goes, Lockheed Martin has been there, and done that. Oh, and you forgot to add in the costs to make it stealthy.

As far as "radio" controlled goes, Lockheed Martin has been there, and done that. Oh, and you forgot to add in the costs to make it stealthy.

As you can imagine, there are a lot of details about this program that are not publicly releaseable, even if they aren't classified. You can find about more about ARCI via Google, but start with this PDF; it's mostly marketing pitch, but it does describe what we're doing.

Background: Twenty-first century technological innovation demands that today's warfare systems become increasingly adaptable and upgradeable. Exploiting research and development to ensure U.S. forces maintain a decisive lead in technologies critical to military transformation, the use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) equipment in the Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (ARCI) Program has demonstrated the ability to restore a remarkable acoustic advantage to U.S. submarines. ARCI demonstrated, through the use of COTS equipment, the ability to rapidly install a marked technological refresh in equipment at a lower cost.
In real-world exercises and operations, the ARCI submarine sonar system has unequivocally demonstrated that U.S. submarines retain a clear acoustic advantage. Use of COTS equipment in ARCI has substantially reduced costs with significantly improved processing capability.

Description: The ARCI program is a phased effort to provide the submarine force with a common sonar that is far more capable and flexible than earlier designs. An open-systems architecture (OSA) exploiting commercial processing development permits the use of complex algorithms that could not previously be accommodated. COTS based processors and OSA technology and systems allow onboard computing power to grow at nearly the same rate as commercial industry's. This facilitates regular updates to both software and hardware with minimal impact on submarine scheduling.
Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems (NE&SS)-Undersea Systems is the lead contractor for the U.S. Navy's ARCI Program. This multi-phase development initiative provides for sonar systems upgrades on existing legacy submarine sonar systems including the SSN-688, SSN-688I, SSN-21, and SSBN-726 class submarines. The ARCI Program features the installation of a common, cost-effective, more capable and flexible COTS-based open systems architecture.

Next Step: Lockheed Martin is leading an effort to raise the reliability to guarantee operational effectiveness for predictable operating periods. Known as Maintenance Free Operating Periods (MFOP), this concept will transform maintenance practices, supply support systems, training concepts, and further enhance operational performance while reducing life-cycle costs.

Features:

• Enables U.S. undersea superiority as a result of the insertion of leading-edge technology into the Fleet
• Dramatically improves towed array performance and enhances tactical control
• Advances spherical, hull, and high frequency array processing and performance
• Use of COTS with open systems architecture allows for continuous updates and reduces total ownership costs

I can offer some insights into the factors driving this particular decision:

• Power / Size / Price - The Xserve computers are dual-processor 1.33GHz G4s, in a 1u form-factor. Compared to the equipment that these units are replacing, we're improving the MFLOP density for the equivalent space, while reducing the cost by a factor of 5 or more.
• Compatability - The Xserves are a fraction of the COTS hardware that we're installing. Much of what we're doing is replacing HP servers with generic Linux servers (running Red Hat Linux). We chose Yellow Dog Linux for its compatibility with Red Hat Linux. Using OS/X wouldn't make sense since these servers are being using as compute engines in a cluster, not displays.

You have to keep in mind the physical environment of a submarine: there isn't a lot of space on a boat for active equipment, much less spares. Redundancy is a must, as is reliability.

The biggest problem with high-altitude tethered aerostats is that the tether is invisible to aircraft. Typically, they aren't even lit. And, of course, the balloons move with the wind somewhat, so you can't even be sure what location to avoid. Therefore, you'd have to have a pretty wide area to avoid.

That said, the US has several tethered aerostats along its southern border, used to monitor weather, to check for low-flying smugglers and to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. The internation border is, of course, an area with strict flying restrictions already, so it isn't too much of a burden.

Unfortunately, these balloons in England are planned (perhaps that's too strong a word. Shilled?) to be in the middle of fairly populated and high-traffic areas. Cordoning off all of these areas would be a problem, and unlikely to be 100% successful. Right now, people violate airspace accidentally all the time -- but it's usually not that big a deal -- it's just air. Running into one of these tethers would likely be a big deal -- you'd probably lose both the plane and the balloon.

Perhaps the balloons could be flown far higher somewhat offshore? The US flies its aerostats at 50,000 ft (about 16 km). From that altitude, the amount of ground area seen by the balloon would be almost 100x as great. Private planes typically don't fly very far offshore, so the risk of hitting the tether would be lower -- and in the case that there is a collision the wreakage would fall into the sea instead of a city.

Perhaps GPS will solve this problem. If all private planes had perfect GPS systems with all airspaces clearly marked and rigged to alarms, then this might work smoothly with the current plan. You'd probably have to legislate that all planes have certificated (or whatever the term is in England) GPS's -- but they would be broadly useful devices in any case.

Anyway, in the end, the idea of flying relays has been promoted innumerable times -- and it never happens. Cable is, in the end, cheaper, faster, more reliable, and safer. It's not as sexy as this system (although sexiness is in the eye of the beholder -- or should I say stockholder) but it gets the job done.

thad

I am the real Micheal Van Laferie - the above poster is an imposter! I am the one who works for Apple and Nokia and the real reason why the data rate had to be reduced was that the higher rate might have presented a security risk as it would have allowed terrorists to wirelessly transmit the nuclear launch codes within the 0.042 millisecond window allowed by the Lockheed firmware. (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/factsheets/product1 74.html)

I believe the existence of the above poster may be traced to an unfortunate accident during one of the initial 802.11g throughput tests when the trans-partenthic output demodulator encountered unexpectedly high interference from the mobile device's trilithium battery. I myself haven't felt quite the same since then - and I can't get this James Brown song out of my head.

Just to set the record straight,
Micheal Van Laferie
Den Hague

P.S. You can tell that I am the real M.V.L. since I know HTML and I can spell.
further information

might as well have a Senator Lockheed-Martin.

Disclaimer: I work for Lockheed.

I don't understand your point... surely Lockheed has proposals and products that compete with the shuttle, but they also have thier fingers in the shuttle as well. they handle the external tanks, where I work we do the data processing computers, they do the thermal protection, they support shuttle missions, provide other shuttle support services, and do other shuttle related work.

So yeah, they'll probably gain when NASA moves to the next-gen space exploration system. But they're by no means missing out on the shuttle action as it stands now. The thing about Lockheed is that they are very diverse... they handle IT for government sites (pentagon, bases, etc), they do package distribution for the US & UK post office, we do traditional rockets, they do air traffic control, airplanes, avionics, missiles, support services of all sorts - the list goes on an on. Go to the main Lockheed homepage and look at the list of products & capabilities. So you can't pull one proposal or project that Lockheed has, and say that they want the shuttle to die because of that.

The politics here are a hell of a lot more complicated than $14,000 in campaign contributions. I don't understand them all, to be sure... but neither do you.

might as well have a Senator Lockheed-Martin.

Disclaimer: I work for Lockheed.

I don't understand your point... surely Lockheed has proposals and products that compete with the shuttle, but they also have thier fingers in the shuttle as well. they handle the external tanks, where I work we do the data processing computers, they do the thermal protection, they support shuttle missions, provide other shuttle support services, and do other shuttle related work.

So yeah, they'll probably gain when NASA moves to the next-gen space exploration system. But they're by no means missing out on the shuttle action as it stands now. The thing about Lockheed is that they are very diverse... they handle IT for government sites (pentagon, bases, etc), they do package distribution for the US & UK post office, we do traditional rockets, they do air traffic control, airplanes, avionics, missiles, support services of all sorts - the list goes on an on. Go to the main Lockheed homepage and look at the list of products & capabilities. So you can't pull one proposal or project that Lockheed has, and say that they want the shuttle to die because of that.

The politics here are a hell of a lot more complicated than $14,000 in campaign contributions. I don't understand them all, to be sure... but neither do you.

might as well have a Senator Lockheed-Martin.

Disclaimer: I work for Lockheed.

I don't understand your point... surely Lockheed has proposals and products that compete with the shuttle, but they also have thier fingers in the shuttle as well. they handle the external tanks, where I work we do the data processing computers, they do the thermal protection, they support shuttle missions, provide other shuttle support services, and do other shuttle related work.

So yeah, they'll probably gain when NASA moves to the next-gen space exploration system. But they're by no means missing out on the shuttle action as it stands now. The thing about Lockheed is that they are very diverse... they handle IT for government sites (pentagon, bases, etc), they do package distribution for the US & UK post office, we do traditional rockets, they do air traffic control, airplanes, avionics, missiles, support services of all sorts - the list goes on an on. Go to the main Lockheed homepage and look at the list of products & capabilities. So you can't pull one proposal or project that Lockheed has, and say that they want the shuttle to die because of that.

The politics here are a hell of a lot more complicated than $14,000 in campaign contributions. I don't understand them all, to be sure... but neither do you.

Are you sure? Can you prove it? Because, actually, I believe we do know how to build at least the heatshields.

Since I began work at Lockheed Martin (back then it was Martin Marietta), we have made a number of heatshields. If you go to the article linked to above, you will see a picture of the aeroshell. The white cone is one of the backshells we completed for the Mars Exploration Rover missions about this time last year. (The ablator is actually gray, they painted it in Denver.)

A cursory examination of informal records and pictures shows that we've been building them for many of NASA's planetary probes, going back to the Viking probes. I have no doubt that we could make at least Apollo Command Module-class heatshields.

dm

My company, Sycamore Associates, does a good deal of government work, and we use OSS products whenever possible (including Linux, Apache, perl, and JBoss, among others). It seems, though, that it's easier to convince government clients to use these products when they're outsourcing and we agree to support the products - that way, it's transparent to them, and we take care of any problems.

What's harder is when we have subcontractors on site and we try to convince them to use these things internally. They're concerned that the subcontractors will move on and they'll be stuck with something they don't understand or know how to support. I suppose this is a valid concern, but a little education would go a long way to alleviate this.

Right now, I'm working as a subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on a NIMA contract. They still use Sun and SGI servers, but they run Apache, Tomcat, and Samba, as well as many GNU tools.

Actually, all of our (American) unmanned rockets are launched on Lockheed and Boeing vehicles. The government owns the launch sites but I seem to recall recently that even that has changed with one of the pads at KSC being purchased by someone. The space shuttle is maintained by a Boeing/Lockheed conglomerate under contract with NASA. And many of our space probes are built at least jointly in cooperation with industry. NASA is the beurocracy (don't mean that negatively) who pays for and manages these programs.

Actually, all of our (American) unmanned rockets are launched on Lockheed and Boeing vehicles. The government owns the launch sites but I seem to recall recently that even that has changed with one of the pads at KSC being purchased by someone. The space shuttle is maintained by a Boeing/Lockheed conglomerate under contract with NASA. And many of our space probes are built at least jointly in cooperation with industry. NASA is the beurocracy (don't mean that negatively) who pays for and manages these programs.

• "The company is named "Blacklight Power""
  • All the really cool names like "Lockheed-Martin" are already taken.
  • If you weren't spending money on start-ups with silly names several decades ago, you would have missed the opportunity to invest in General Atomics.
• The guy looks funny in that lab jacket.
  • It's the guys that don't look funny in a lab jacket that worry me.
• "Most of the scientific community finds these theories "crackpot ideas"."
  • So? We should all be more concerned with what the scientific method has to say about his ideas, not the "community."
  • If we don't, we'd be no better than the Catholics who locked up Galileo.

"He's raised 30 million dollars."

• 99.99% of which did not come from Slashdot users.
  • If we're not monetarily involved, what's wrong with a little cheerleading?