Slashdot Mirror

An excellent point, and I was not aware that there WAS a USS Jimmy Carter until you pointed it out. However, they're very different ships; the USS Ronald Reagan is limited to traveling above the surface, while the USS Jimmy Carter has the option of travelling below it.

An excellent point, and I was not aware that there WAS a USS Jimmy Carter until you pointed it out. However, they're very different ships; the USS Ronald Reagan is limited to traveling above the surface, while the USS Jimmy Carter has the option of travelling below it.

Sheesh...There is so much political rancor going on around here who would have thought this article started off about the commisioning of a ship

Anywho...for those who may be interested I pulled these cool links from Northrop Grumman

Commisioning info

Nimitz class facts

Recent Sea Trial info

USS Reagan specific facts

BTW...I spent 4.5 years on IKE....IB!

Oh...and to keep with political theme here:

Peace through strength - Ronald Reagan

Sheesh...There is so much political rancor going on around here who would have thought this article started off about the commisioning of a ship

Anywho...for those who may be interested I pulled these cool links from Northrop Grumman

Commisioning info

Nimitz class facts

Recent Sea Trial info

USS Reagan specific facts

BTW...I spent 4.5 years on IKE....IB!

Oh...and to keep with political theme here:

Peace through strength - Ronald Reagan

Sheesh...There is so much political rancor going on around here who would have thought this article started off about the commisioning of a ship

Anywho...for those who may be interested I pulled these cool links from Northrop Grumman

Commisioning info

Nimitz class facts

Recent Sea Trial info

USS Reagan specific facts

BTW...I spent 4.5 years on IKE....IB!

Oh...and to keep with political theme here:

Peace through strength - Ronald Reagan

"Next: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)"

Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.

For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.

"Next: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)"

Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.

For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.

"Next: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)"

Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.

For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.

"Next: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)"

Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.

For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.

"Next: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)"

Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.

For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.

"Next: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)"

Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.

For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.

I beg to differ (and not just because I liked Ronald Reagan) because the US Navy has named other ships after living persons. Not many, to be sure, but the tradition, if there ever was one, has long been changed.

This is an excerpt from the Ronald Reagan entry in wikipedia:

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) was christened March 4, 2001, making it one of the very few US Navy ships to be named for a living person. (The first was USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70); others include USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN 709), USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), and USNS Bob Hope (T-AKR-300).)

Also, in 1980, Carl Vinson became the first person to witness an aircraft carrier being launched in his own honor (history of the USS Carl Vinson).

Now, for USPS stamps, there's a clearer tradition of waiting until a person is no longer living, so if you want to start your campaign to make sure that Reagan is left off of stamps until he's deceased, go for it...

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT Wrong answer.

Russia has one. At least six other nations maintain at least one true aircraft carrier. Including those dastardly evil french, whose Nuclear powered Charles De Gaulle holds 40+ aircraft. China has been supposedly working on a supercarrier for years, but nothing has been confirmed, though 'chinese interests' bought the Varyag the second of the ex. USSR's carriers. Supposedly to become an "entertainment complex." A list of other nations who have kept carriers or plan to can be found here

Now, as for having 13 aircraft carriers. Technically there's 15 (a list can be found here), with two (Ranger and Independance) in mothballs at Bremerton, Wash. 16 if you want to count the America, but she's due to be scrapped. Of those 15, Three; The Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and Enterprise, were all commision in 1961. Any one of those ships could stand to be retired. Granted the Kitty Hawk went through a major upgrade recently, a 40 year old ship is still a 40 year old ship. It's also one of two non-nuke carriers (the other being the Kennedy, next oldest in line) still in service.

Those six carriers will likely all be out of service by the time the George H.W. Bush hits the water. Independance and Ranger will probably be property of the Gillette and bic razor blade companys, Kitty Hawk and Constellation won't be far behind.

Given our Military policy (!= foreign policy) of being able to project force quickly, anywhere in the world, A fair number of carriers makes sense. Not to sound like a classic republican hawk, but We don't have to wait and see who will allow us use of airbases, we don't have to worry about what country will bitch and moan about airspace. What once took months now takes weeks.

Given that we've decided to play world cop and send in American forces to try and solve to world's problems, these fit in well with our military strategy. 15 is definatly overkill, but that number will decline. The new carriers will be cheaper than the old, making those carreiers prime tagets for scrapping.

I think our current leadership is hovering around 50% full of shit, but they have nothing to due with this carrier or the next.

No, I am not kidding.

Sorry try again, an exocet would get shredded by the Phalanx.

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13

Not in open waters. We always have sonar and Radar

Once you detect the periscope, the sub is history via quick-launch helicopters.

besides, nimitz-class naming conventions dictate that you name the ships after former presidents.

besides, nimitz-class naming conventions dictate that you name the ships after former presidents.

At any rate, these are some awe-inspiring machines (Nimitz-class ships were #3 (IIRC) on TLC's Top 10 Military Machines of all time earlier this week). This makes 10, right?

10 aircraft carriers? There will be 12 in active service once the Reagan is out there and the Constellation is retired (there are 12 now). There are also several in reserve for quick activation if need be. See here.

Anyone else familiar with the geography of Kauai? The area where the plane was described to be flying is the PMRF - Pacific Missile Test Range. Not really the safest place to be flying around in. There is a good chance that the plane was accidentally shot down during a missile test firing at the facility when it was mistaken for a target drone.

What exactly makes that apparent, other than the propaganda that passes for Microsoft training materials these days?

Uh, the Wired article you yourself linked to?

Furthermore, are you telling me that it is not a major problem for the United States Navy

It'd be a "major problem" if it hadn't happened during beta testing. If it'd happened in the "finished" system, then yes, it'd be a problem.

it appears to me, if you can look through the propaganda, that the navy has frozen the program

Did you even read the next sentence? "Having judged the Smart Ship a success, the Navy plans to freeze development of the Yorktown's technology infrastructure and begin deploying the technology and 'lessons learned,' on other vessels of a similar class."

In other words - they're done with the development, now it's time to put it into real use.

What other ships are currently deployed which use the "smart ship" management system?

Smart Ship has not faded awayâ"like all innovative technology it's become the standard for today's cruisers. Installation of the second production Smart Ship system aboard USS Monterey (CG 61) was recently completed with a successful sea trial. Installation aboard the first West Coast Smart Ship, USS Mobile Bay (CG 53) began November 1. That's as of November, 2000 - I suspect more have been converted since then.

the only thing more childish is arguing with someone you've marked as a foe.

I believe you've already illustrated why I've got you marked as a foe. Doesn't mean I can't argue with you.

Please see this.

Basically, a buffer overrun in a non-MS program took down the beta system. It's hardly unusual for a beta test to have a couple issues, and it's apparently not even Microsoft's fault in this case.

As for the eventual outcome of the USS Yorktown... "Smart Ship" initiatives successful . Apparently, the Navy disagrees with your assessment of it being a "major problem".

The Army will be rolling out these computers just like N. M. C. I.. The OS of choice will undoubtedly be Windows 2000 SP1 just as it is in N.M.C.I. Also, Office Pro 2000 SR-1a is standard on all machines amongst a host of other apps. Visio is a part of the standard suite of apps. The contract is being fulfilled by EDS. The $950.00 price tag is not across the board. That is just the baseline. Premiums will be paid for faster machines, laptops, and Science & Technology seats.

The transition has been rough so far as users have found that they cannot abandon their legacy seats in every case. Thus, you see a lot of dual-desktop situations. I hope the Army takes into account the lessons learned from the Navy and Marine Corps' efforts.

The Army will be rolling out these computers just like N. M. C. I.. The OS of choice will undoubtedly be Windows 2000 SP1 just as it is in N.M.C.I. Also, Office Pro 2000 SR-1a is standard on all machines amongst a host of other apps. Visio is a part of the standard suite of apps. The contract is being fulfilled by EDS. The $950.00 price tag is not across the board. That is just the baseline. Premiums will be paid for faster machines, laptops, and Science & Technology seats.

The transition has been rough so far as users have found that they cannot abandon their legacy seats in every case. Thus, you see a lot of dual-desktop situations. I hope the Army takes into account the lessons learned from the Navy and Marine Corps' efforts.

It doesn't strike me as surprising that some random guy on Slashdot would post that smoking "wouldn't be allowed on a submarine," despite the fact that this study in 1996 was intended to estimate the effects of secondhand smoke on submarine crews, and this Navy News update from 1993 notes that sub captains were tasked with designating smoking areas for their crews while on board.

Depressing, but not surprising.

Back in the late 80's, I was at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. The computer graphics lab was doing a lot of work in low cost 3D simulators. They had terrain data, stereoscopic imaging from aircraft overflights, etc. to make the terrain realistic. The problem was getting good 3D models of the ships, planes, missles, jeeps, trucks, etc.

Turned out, a local company called Cyberware had developed a number of 3D scanners. Our idea was to scan a toy or model from the hobby shop and use the data set as the basis for the models.

The scanners produced cylindrical data sets of 100K and up, which was too much for the SGI workstations of the time to render in real time. So I wrote software to reduce the polygon count. For example, the side of a ship or truck is relatively flat, so it can be represented by a few large polygons instead of the many small polygons from the scanner. I had a scan of Spock (from 2nd or 3rd movie) that I could reduce from ~120K polygons down to ~12K or so (IIRC).

Of course, there is much better hardware and software available now.

The Cyberware web site has more information, including sample data sets (human heads, bodies, statues, etc.). Check it out.

I don't work for Cyberware, just used their hardware for my thesis work.

The US Navy has used a CD-ROM tech library called ATIS for years. It is based on a Kubik 240 CD-ROM changer with an external controller called a Mediator. The mediator runs QNX. I worked on some ATIS systems and found the CD-ROM changer to be an extremely fragile and unreliable electromechanical beast, but NEVER saw a failure, glitch, or error on the QNX based mediator. This was a tribute to the hardware it ran on as much as well as the OS. Interestingly enough, I am intimately familiar with the inside of the Kubik changer, but have no idea what CPU, memory, or disk the Mediator ran on. This was simply because the changer was always broke and the Mediator never had to be touched from the day it was installed.

People in white lab coats are the primary cause of cancer in rats.

The modern interferometers, besides having very long observing baselines, also make such a large number of baseline observations that they can actually do an inverse transform and get an image.

If you are interested, some nice info is found here, and the best collection of stellar interferometry links is found here.

You are a damn nazi! Genocide solves nothing! Without Jews, jackasses such as yourself would just go after another minority of this world.

To quote the HAMA TGP, "HAMAS activists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks-including large-scale suicide bombings-against Israeli civilian and military targets. In the early 1990s, they also targeted suspected Palestinian collaborators and Fatah rivals. HAMAS increased its operational activity during 2001-2002 claiming numerous attacks against Israeli interests."

Four murderers were killed, and you try to turn them into heroes by calling for more death.

Well, with Kapton Wiring on commercial planes (Military planes BANNED This shit). It has a habbit of short circuting on its own.

Its bad enough sitting on planes that have that shity wiring nevermind pushing it more with wireless devices. This shit is BANNED on military planes as it causes faults way too easily. That is the problem, shity wiring.

Here is the scary links on this wiring on planes..

Kapton Wiring and The Silent Menace Scary that they hide this from the public.

• The Nimitz class (10 ships): approx 97,000 tons displacement, 85 aircraft.
• Enterprise class (1 ship): 89,600 tons, 85 aircraft.
• John F. Kennedy (1 ship): 82,000 tons, 85 aircraft.
• Kitty Hawk class (1 ship): 82,000 tons, 85 aircraft.

Look, my only point is you need about 80 aircraft to both protect your fleet and project ait power. Only the US aircraft carriers can do this. It's that simple.

Official NCMI information site

The and another

Bitching from a deckhand

.. UNIX/Linux machines would connect as
legacy servers...

Official NCMI information site

The and another

Bitching from a deckhand

.. UNIX/Linux machines would connect as
legacy servers...

I believe that there are two factors that differentiate both a space elevator and space resource extraction from your typical IPO. First of all there is the romantic factor. Every SF convention the world over would pass the jar on this one if they could contribute extremely small amounts without losing most of it to processing costs. There are a lot of individuals that confronted with a nice story would drop a few bucks in the jars even though they view themselves as practical men who would anser Heinlein who? if you asked. The 2nd reason is that we've got a serious problem on this planet with security. A nice fellow out at the naval war college has an interesting theory to serve as underlying strategy for the tactical Bush 'go after the terrorists' plan.

There's really only one problem with his core/gap analysis, integrating so many countries into the global system will unleash an incredible bidding war for resources and there simply isn't enough energy available to satisfy everybody. But if they're not satisfied enough with the system they produce the next wave of security crises.

So how do you get 20 terawatts of electricity every year and other resources to match? It's either space or you end up living the Club of Rome's dark fantasies of resource shortages or you give up on ever having a secure US of A and don't shrink/eliminate the Gap.

Do I require a rate of return to avoid global chaos and a horrible world for my children? It would be nice to have a dollars and cents figure eventually but I'll take the soft benefits of no rioting in my town and electricity 24/7 for my descendents if that's all that's on offer.

That's not true at all. The MTA is not dead. Cray shipped two MTA-2 systems including a 40-processor system with 160GB of shared memory to the NRL last year.

I've actually been on the flight deck of another carrier from that same era. Boggles the mind that anybody would even try to land a plane on such a tiny place.

No, it wasn't. Nuclear attack was an example of a disaster which might happen to a communications network.

Yes it was. The desire for a communications network that could survive a first strike was the only reason why the DoD started research into distributed communication. Later researchers realized that such networks had all sorts of other desirable features, but when they started out, and when they commisioned ARPANET, nuclear attack was what they were interested in.

According to The Naval War College Library notes:

The Internet may seem new, but it actually began in the 1960s. In 1964 Paul Baran at RAND designed a packet-switching network which could survive a nuclear attack. In 1969 the Department of Defense commissioned ARPANET, a decentralized network, built so that messages could be rerouted in the event that part of the country's communications system was destroyed by a nuclear attack.