Slashdot Mirror
Solar Powered Helios Plane Destroyed in Test Flight
deglr6328 writes "NASA's solar powered Helios airplane has crashed into the Pacific off the coast of Kauai today during its first test using a regenerative fuel cell power supply. Helios held the record for highest prop propelled plane altitude at 96,863 (set 2 years ago) and was making preparations for a 96 hour continuous flight using its 62,000 solar cells during the day while electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen for use in its fuel cells at night. With the capability to carry 200 lb. to near 100,000 ft. for months on end, Helios was eyed with great anticipation by scientists and RF telecommunications buisnesses alike."
Thus continuing a great tradition of first flights.
If it does not crash and burn it was not a good test.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
One question that has plagued me since the destruction of Columbia: If there wouldn't have been extreme heat going into the wing, would the crew still be alive? I'm no aerodynamics expert, but isn't it possible, at the point of entry into the atmosphere, when temperatures start to rise, that the shuttle release some liquid nitrogen or some other super-coolant in some manner as to keep homeostasis of the vehicle?
I am a meat popsicle.
...Icarus.
I'm actually rather curious about how it is (er, was) constructed. It looks quite flimsy...
the obligatory obnoxious ebay post....
I always wonder what the engineers feel like after a shitload of work and money that went into these things....are no more.
I mean...the right answer would be...Built a new one! But, you have to get depressed.
-Rob
Appropriate name too.
Anyhoo, it's sad to see such a technological marvel crash into the pacific ocean like it did. Maybe NASA will scoop up the wreckage, figure out what went wrong, and then build another one. It would be great to see what we can learn from Helios in general, and not just on an aviation or RF use either. I mean in the field of solar electric generation, and how even in the Aerospace industry it has it's benefits and drawbacks. I personally would love to be using solar electricity instead of having to pay the electric company, but alas, we can't always get what we want...
KevX45
"Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
You gotta admit that the timing is awfully disturbing...
What is going on over at NASA? It seems like all of their test flights have not been working for them.
They must have gotten Feet mixed up with Meters and dog food mixed up with fuel cells for their Helios test flight. They need to lay off the wacky weed.
Yet another example of the dangers of solar power.
If God intended for us to use solar airplanes He would never have given us Jet A.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
KevX45
"Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
All in the name of science after all. Good thing whatever went wrong happened in the prototype phase, before anything but monetary anticipations were relying on it.
I'm very interested to know exactly what went wrong. From what I briefly read, I'd imagine it was the actual construction which had a problem, not the technology. Unless this was a pre-flight damaged part, this could be valuable information as I'm sure this plane used the latest designs, as other planes will be using.
I suspect a piece of foam.
Man, do I feel bad for that NASA investigation team. Having to spend a large amount of time on the beautiful, garden island of Kaua'i, with its sunny south shore, and lush, tropic north short (with some incredible surfing), not to mention Mt Wai'ale'ale, where it rains 360 days a year and has vegetation that grows no-where else, and the breath-taking Napali cliffs...
I don't envy them.
Wait, yes I do!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
No, apparently it broke up in mid-air. Structural Failure.
In case you didn't RFTA, the craft was an unmanned, remotely controlled plane. The article blurb didn't make this clear. So don't worry, everybody, nobody got hurt. (Except for maybe a few egos =)
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
Not trial and success. There's a reason for that.
The odd 747 full of paying commercial passengers has been known to fall out of the sky as well.
You pick up the pieces, figure out what went wrong, start over and hope to do better next time.
Those who refuse to fail will never achieve any measure of success.
KFG
..this guy.
It was the first flight for the fuel cell system. Apparently in your hurry to post you missed this modicum of detail.
Pencils write fine upside-down. And no need for sticky white goo floating around the cabin when you make a mistake either :)
Lawyers probably would force them to change the name to Firebird.
Helios? Sounds more like Daedalus to me.
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
Wow, thats really depressing; i was there a few years ago (barking sands, kaui) for one of the first test flights, maybe the first? i dont know, but it was early on... really cool, it folds up into a huge U at takeoff... anyway, im sad to see it go, i have a poster on my wall; maybe i should stamp Time Of death on it?
i was also there for the Pathfinder (earlier prototype) tests, at barking sands, as i have a friend who works there, and can get me in...
I believe it's Phoenix, but I've seen it spelled oe and eo without complaint.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Yes, it is clearly a first flight for a new component the first time it goes up. Because the new part hasn't flown, it's first time in flight is a first flight for that part. Not necesarily important, but definitely worthy of concise qualified mention.
Also, the entire point of the flight on which it crashed was as a first test of the fuel cell in the actual environment in whichit was designed to operate, so it definitely deserves mention as a first for the system.
The pens were created by Fisher pens, at the cost of fisher pen inc. and given freely to NASA.
Helios held the record for highest prop propelled plane altitude at 96,863 (set 2 years ago) and was making preparations
I 96,863 what's????? I hope NASA knew what was feet, metres, etc. They seem to have a problem with that.
That's not always the result of a mistake...
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
In any case, the 'crash and burn' part was deep and profound. It is a glorious thing to send objects into the air and watch them explode.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The remotely piloted, one-of-a-kind Helios Prototype crashed off Kauai within the testing area of the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility
Maybe flying it in a missile test range wasn't such a good idea...
Life is short: void the warranty.
I think this is a great proof of concept. I know it was going to fly for 96 hours, but wouldn't it have been neat to just fly it around the world instead? Just start it up at the crack of dawn ... and crusie around the globe and pass over big cities so people can see it for themselves and watch as a "space craft" is above them.
I dunno I think this thing looks cool and I want one :-)
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
The answers do lie in space. There is no hope left for humanity on Earth. If we do not figure out how to leave the cradle, soon, we will fall into darkness and disappear. Permanent extra-terrestrial colonies are our only long-term hope.
It's a very flimsy looking aeroplane. A 247 foot wingspan (a longer wingspan than the 747) that bends into a shallow U when aloft, with an all up weight of 1323 pounds (about the same as a light aircraft with no fuel or people in it) it looks like it wouldn't take too much to exceed its structural limits - some heavy wind shear or possibly a control surface stuck out of true.
Website here if you want to learn more.
Oh yeah, and how about a new moderation category?
"-999 Oh my god not those tired old chestnuts AGAIN" for all the fuckwits who have nothing better to do than drag out the tired old jokes every time someone mentions NASA here, as well as all the other pathetic unfunny crap that you losers repeat over and over and over again!
"Information wants to be paid"
IAAA (I am an aerodynamicist), I really don't think the hole (unless it covers a huge portion of the wing) would be a problem that can't be overcome. To really screw the aero up you have to have flow going where it is not supposed to, my suspicion is that the wing would quickly reach an interior pressure equal to the pressure on the outside at the hole, resulting in a very small amount of flow entering or exiting the hole, kind of an automatic gas patch...
That point aside, if they had made it further into the atmosphere without loosing structural integrity of the crew compartment they could have survived. After the Challenger (I think) they came up with a crew escape technique that works by sliding the astronauts down a pole (to clear the wings and such) and parachuting to the surface, but it doesn't work until after entering the atmosphere...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Reading this first as "SCO Powered Hell Plan Destroyed in Test Fight"?
mm must be me..
I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much needs to be taken care of at home.
Ok, let me get this straight. You list some of NASA's failures and ignore all of its successes, and conclude from that analysis that NASA is a big waste of time and money? Hmm...
NASA's budget is 14 GigaUSD per year. Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year. If your true interest is taking care of problems at home like war and famine, you should be attacking the Bush administration, not NASA.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Apparently, in your hurry to post this profundity, you missed the article.
"We were flying at about the 8,000-foot altitude west of Kauai over the ocean and the aircraft simply broke up," said Alan Brown, a spokesman for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, Calif.
It is very flimsy.
http://use.perl.org
They can't have my "hydrogen powered" truck either. Muhahahaahahaa.
I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much needs to be taken care of at home.
... and maybe your mate!
That's the kind of thinking that got Apollo canceled. "Let's put all the money we spend uselessly going to the moon to feed the starving children." Well, you got Apollo canceled, and there are still starving children.
At least this program could've helped save a few of these kids a few bucks on their electrical bill (solar energy research) so they could buy more food!
If every human thought like you, I'd be chasing you across the savanna with a spear trying to steal your hunting grounds
cheers.
Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars
It was obviously shot down by the oil companies!
I sig for world peace
That's a narrow view. I suppose then in ancient times we should have disregarded astronomy, mathematics, and the exploration of science because we had crops to harvest. I suppose now that because we have famine in parts of the world that we should concentrate solely on using existing production methods to feed everyone, and to hell with any future advances that may come as the result of any failure, or chance concept exploration. A number of some of the most useful concepts and inventions have come as mistakes or are borne out of the failure of other experiments. Maybe the solution to world famine, energy problems, some medication or cure for a disease, or even something as everyday useful as post-it notes will come of these billions of dollars of spending you claim to be so useless.
I can't believe i even have to make this argument, as it's appeared more times in slashdot message boards than than i can possibly remember.
Disasters as you call them are probably the most beneficial tool we have to further our knowledge. It is only when you refuse to learn from these failures that you have really failed.
I wonder if they thought they were at 8k meters and tried dropping the altitude, and ran smack into the ocean.. NASA's good at confusing ft and meters
Do you realize that 0m = 0ft = sea leval?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Somewhere, the sound of a rocket scientist yelling, "OMG! LAG!!!"
I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much needs to be taken care of at home.
So should we also stop spending money on the arts and parks? They do not feed the hungery or prevent wars. Guess what if we stop spending money on space things on Earth will not get any better. It is not a trade off. No one says we can explore mars or feed the poor. There has to be room for pure science as well as art. Science, Art, and Parks do prevent famine. They prevent famine of the soul.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Apparently it's going to beat that ~96000 record the Helios set, but won't be officially eligable because it's not going to take off under it's own power.
The balloon that launches it is fairly impressive too:
"As tall as the Empire State Building, their manned envelope will be the biggest ever flown."
Although I disagree with the "disaster after disaster" sentiment -- most of NASA's missions are officially succesful, to my knowledge -- I agree that the money should be spend elsewhere.
Currently space travel/exploration/science costs a tremendous amount of money, but gives little back (although I do agree weather prediction has probably been incredibly important for 20th century progress). My general feeling is that it's a waste of money, there are better things in which to invest. And yes this includes homeless shelters, saving the environment and promoting healthy eating.
It could also mean spending more money on reducing the cost of space travel. Why don't they cancel all programs (or most of them, whatever) for the next few years and invest heavily in research for new, cheaper methods of getting up there. Surely this would be a better use for the money?
When it's cheaper to get into space we'll be able to gain serious benefits from space travel. Things like mining asteroids, teraforming mars and diverting on-coming asteroids. Most of the programs that I hear about are either very bad value for money (even if they are of useful scientific grounding) or stupid, like raising ant farms on a space station.
There is far more potential up there than we take advantage of currently and we're stuck until the the money is spent more wisely. What do people think?
We must declare war on adventurist protectionism.
Mars delenda est!
So indirectly, investment in space can have an adverse affect on war, depending on whay you believe causes war.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
here's my first entry: N(ot) A S(afe) A(irplane)
It's all fun and games until your software destroys some hardware. :)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
During the presentation, someone asked about what the commercial applications were for such technology. Apparently, blimp companies are VERY interested in fuel cell technology. Blimps, as they burn off fuel for the steering engines, get lighter. In order to get back down to the ground, they sometimes have to blow out helium which is VERY expensive. But with a fuel cell, the blimp actually gets heavier as flight goes one because they can hang onto the "exhaust" (water) and keep the blimp in equilibrium through the entire flight.
The military is of course interested too because fuel cell powered planes are VERY quiet (electric motor) and the technolgoy will allow for far greater range than batteries.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
And no, the answers to all the world's problems are not necessarily in space, unless Tang and pens that can write upside down can stop war and famine.
So I suppose that unless something can stop war and famine, it isn't worth doing? I mean...we only got tons of great medical technology from the space program...who needs MRIs and CAT scans? They don't stop war and famine! Not to mention the interesting effects on nerve regeneration that happen in space, I mean...allowing nerve-damaged people the opportunity to feel or see or hear again...that's worthless, because it doesn't stop war and famine. Of course, by that logic, nothing in the history of the planet has ever been worth anything because we yet have war and famine to this day. Perhaps being able to have a seperate planet for each elitist clique that wants one can help end war, and the abundance of resources could help end famine...of course, it will take time, cost money, and won't directly benefit joshua404 right away...so it's worthless.
http://xkcd.com/386/
KevX45
"Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
Sure why not. But why stop there ? I'd say the NEA was a much bigger failure for all the money it sucks down. Kill off the rural electric agencies(that were obsolete in the 1940s) and every other worthless overspending govt agency. Keep killing off programs that do nothing but spend and keep people too worthless to be normal exmployes in jobs.
Well, I agree about how the post-launch Columbia decision was handled, but I have to disagree on all the others.
Anything worth doing has some risk involved, and while engineers and scientists will strive to reduced those risks as much as possible, they cannot be eliminated entirely. NASA is made of of human beings, not perfect automatons whose godlike prowess and forsight eschew all possibility of failure. They're people, flesh and blood, they have families and hopes and dreams, just like the rest of us. And they make mistakes, sometimes boneheaded mistakes, just like the rest of us. Judge as harshly as *you* would like to be judged...
One of my physics professors told me once that if you do not fail everyone once in a while, you are not really pushing the limits of your capabilities. Do I want NASA to play it safe and do the easy things, or do I want NASA to push the envelope and be a driver for new technologies? For the money being spent, I want the latter.
Moving the smarmy comments of Tang and pens aside, I think many miss the point about what NASA is for. NASA is about expanding our body of knowledge: about our world, our universe and about ourselves. The lessons of the Challenger accident have served as a cautionary tale for risk-managers in all industries (I had a case study on it in a Financial and Managerial Accounting class last fall, or all places). I'm sure the Columbia accident will bring some new insights as well.
It is naive to think that diverting the budget of NASA somewhere else is going to eliminate war and famine. Those things are caused by greed and malice in the human soul, and cannot be healed by adding money.
"wholy crap"
You might want to see a doctor about that
Helios began its life as "centurion", which was a bit smaller and then expanded to the helios configuration. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Research/Erast/centurion2 .html
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
And the next one won't be as flimsy.
Surely, the more money the US spends on space, the less it can spend on waging war? Or am I missing something?
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of "running a deficit".
Inventions developed because of the space program, are (among others): sat dishes, barcoding, ear thermometers, vision screening, fire fighter equipment, invisible braces, advanced plastics, and more.
Amazing thing eh? The thing burned because of the lacquer that they used to keep the hydrogen in.
:-D
BTW, I was confused before you were.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
And no, the answers to all the world's problems are not necessarily in space, unless Tang and pens that can write upside down can stop war and famine.
Well, I don't know about stopping war, but the solution to (peace-time) famine easily lies in space. When you send people up there, you have to feed them somehow. Imagine the advances in hydroponic gardening that could happen in space, if the space station was allowed to grow to the point of needing its own food sources. Or what we could learn from colonizing and eventually terraforming Mars. We could use that knowledge to reclaim some of the wasteland produced by clearcutting rainforests on Earth, or to stop the growth of the Sahara Desert. On the stopping-war front, international cooperation with many countries (not just a couple of cash-strapped buddies like Russia) to produce a unified space program with the goal of leaving this planet might become a show of goodwill to all people.
Besides, do you think the $10-$20 billion NASA runs on would actually be spent on anything useful? I can see it now "HR5132: Disbands NASA and Gives Us All 25% Raises In Reward for Saving The Government Money". Why don't you attack the DoD spending instead. That might actually be effective in your goal of stopping war.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I simply can't understand this line of reasoning. Bush cut income, estate, and dividend taxes, targeting the cuts disproportionately at the wealthy investor class. He did not cut payroll taxes. Certainly people who pay payroll taxes are also "PAY[ing] TAXES", are they not? And isn't it true that payroll taxes generate a huge surplus in the social security trust fund, while income taxes don't pay anywhere near enough into the general account to pay for basic governmental services? Are we not running a deficit?
Now you may argue that payroll taxes are collected strictly to pay out social services and are not collected for general revenue or spent on general services, as such they shouldn't be cut. However, this isn't the case. In fact the HUGE SURPLUS of $200B/yr is siphoned off to reduce our general account deficit. In fact, the currently stated $450B (4.5%GDP) deficit would actually be $650B (6.5%GDP) were it not for the surplus generated from payroll taxes. Note that payroll tax collections are capped at $86K/yr, meaning that any income above $86K/yr is not taxed; this is called a regressive tax because collections don't continue linearly across all income streams. The rich pay much less proportionally for payroll taxes than do you or I.
Realize that general revenues pay for basic government services such as the military, infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, rail, etc), NASA, and government overhead - NOT social services. So, I wonder how anyone can defend a tax cut that reduces revenue from a general account which is already $650B/yr in deficit? And the gall of claiming that it is done on the grounds that income taxes are somehow 'real' while payroll taxes don't matter, when it is the payroll tax surplus which covers 1/3rd of our current account deficit.
Whatever you may think of the rationality of providing social services (I support them, you may not, either opinion is legitimate political debate), certainly you agree that general services slated for payment through income taxes should collect enough on their own to pay for those services. We should not be running a 6.5% GDP deficit (or even a 4.5% GDP deficit) while at the same time cutting the very taxes slated to pay for those services. That the current administration claims to cut these taxes for the people who "PAY TAXES", while at the same time cutting no taxes for those who pay a regressive tax, is simply disingenuous and offensive.
And I haven't even begun discussing our current foreign trade deficit, which is another +5% of GDP. Frankly, if this continues Bush's administration may well take America over the brink into bankruptcy. We're already printing money to prevent 'deflation', the Treasury Department has signaled it's willingness to let the dollar continue to depreciate in value against other foreign currencies, and our manufacturing base is running 1/4 idle.
IMO, these tax cuts are a policy mess. Bush and the fed are 'pushing on a string' with their policy blunders by flooding the investment streets with money while there's nothing left to invest in. We should be pushing the money down to the individual low income tax payers to stir consumption, not further investment and development with no buyers in sight.
Cheers,
--Maynard
The Helios unmanned high altitude vehicle was developed cooperatively by NASA's Dryden flight Research and SkyTower Communications A division of Aerovironment These can help you learn more about their research into 3G and broadband deployment over Japan. Also, you can view the press release on the crash here.
Call me naive, but isn't the fact that physical fuel disappears once it is used make it attractive for planes, because it decreases the weight as fuel is used? Why did anyone think that putting big fat heavy batteries (albiet hydrogen-based) would be a good idea for planes?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Anything that sets back the cause of science is a tragedy. Losing a craft like this isn't waste; building a multi-million dollar cruise missile or JDAM for the express purpose of destroying it is waste.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
It used to be that you really didn't want to bailout from a B-52 bomber either. Certain crew stations on B-52s will have you rolling down the fuselage ... through several blade antennas. Ron Popeil should make something that slices and dices so well.
Just resting.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
What standards do you hold NASA to? Perfection?? I'm not saying the organization as a whole doesn't need some work, but we certainly aren't spending 'billions on disaster after disaster.' Would you have said the same thing after the various astronaut plane crashes in the 60s and the Apollo 1 fire?
I wonder if NASA should sweat over EVERY problem that a journalist points out. "Yes I heard one of the astronauts farted, is that going to cause any problems with the mission?" The journalist did jack nothing. He surely heard it from an engineer or other source and repeated it.
'When so much needs to be taken care of at home.' Ok this is a little too much. Have you looked at our 'defense' spending lately? How many times greater is that than NASA's budget?
Bird of fire? If your referring to "Helios", I believe that refers to the sun god (I think it's either greek or roman). Sun god, solar panels...
Anyhoo, it's all good.
Solar Panels, feathers of fire...
"Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
IANARS,BIKSWA (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist, But I Know Some Who Are)
The amount of fuel required to slow the Orbiter to that degree is prohibitive both in terms of weight and storage. You'd need about the same amount of fuel to slow the craft as it took to accelerate it to the required velocity to achieve orbit.
And the human body has a terminal velocity of around 130 mph - not enough to generate significant heat from friction.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
1. Apollo1 - blew up on the launchpad
not quite. it simply caught on fire; and since it was filled with 100% oxygen, the fire had no problem totally engulfing the capsule. the capsule never exploded or anything; it just basically turned into an incinerator
2. Challenger - blew up in the air
ill give this one to you; but challenger didnt blow up; the right-side SRB (sold rocket booster) did. a faulty o-ring let the SRB go wild and blow up; the resulting shockwave disentigrating Challenger. again, challenger didnt blow up, the SRB did. but technically you are right..
3. Concorde: blew up during takeoff
completely false. TWA flight 800 though, DID explode, if you wanna use that as en example.
4. Columbia - blew up landing
er, no.. it disentigrated. the massive heat and extreme speeds at which it was travelling led to it literally disentigrating midair.
also, im surprised you left out hindenburg, a much better example than any of the above...
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
Amelia Airhardt: "Oh cool! I found a new toy! Finally, something to do. Oh boy oh boy."
Table-ized A.I.
no treading at all. There's certainly no lack of confused people in the world. :-D I was just amused by it is all. (Honestly I checked the UID's to see if I should be apologizing to you instead.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Perhaps a moderation category of "Obvious" would be more appropriate? It certainly seemed like a good idea at the time. (famous last words, I know)
The preceding comment has been reviewed and declared to be compliant with HIPPA Phase II regulations.
IAAA (I am an aerodynamicist)
The reason we always use mach numbers is because, in terms of how gases move it is far more important than the actual speed. Frankly we don't give a damn if we are going at 700 mph and Mach 1 or 400 mph and Mach 1.
The primary feature of the flow that we are concerned with at anything above Mach 1 (it is useful to note that in most wings there are local areas of M>1 if flight Mach nubmer is >.8) is the shock structure (rather than anything related to friction), what angles do they form at relative to bodies in the flow, are they attached (leading edge shock) or detached (bow shock), how many times do the shocks reflect in the inlet (read up on the SR-71 if you want a really cool lesson on supersonic inlets). All of these features result directly from the speed relative to the speed of sound (Mach number)...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
First of all, I note that you haven't responded to any of my factual points and have instead replied with a short screed targeting the words "tax cuts for the rich" as "class warfare". You don't actually read the news, do you? Because what you wrote looks like its been cribbed off last months GOP talking points. They're not even bothering with these lines any longer. If you want decent news with a conservative slant might I suggest The Economist? At least you'll receive a factual education.
In a demand deposit driven economy, income levels (as a hard number) are irrelevant. What matters is purchasing power and cost of living, which are regional and inflation dependent. So, for example, in current dollars $30K/yr in Cincinnati might actually be a good income. In Boston (where I live) it's a pittance. You can't even afford a decent apartment with that level of income, never mind a house and children. However, taxes are levied without regard to regional cost of living. In fact, as I pointed out previously, the payroll tax burden is incurred entirely by those making under $86K/yr; those earning above that level pay nothing above the first $86K/yr.
Why don't you ask yourself these three questions, and if you think I'm factually wrong please feel free to dispute:
Now, finally, ask yourself one last question:
Did you answer NO? So did I. And here's a step in that direction. Salon has another good article on the subject of bankrupting Social Security by defunding general revenues. This represents a transfer of vast sums of wealth from the Social Security Trust Fund to the General Account, and as such represents REAL "Class Warfare" given how the Social Security Trust Fund is financed. Do not claim liberal bias in these print publications, instead refute the FACTS as presented. Can you?
Never mind the demographic change leading to the claims of fewer and fewer working to pay for more and more seniors, since that's a red herring. Think about it, what do you think will be the result of the huge immigrant wave currently engulfing America? Will these immigrants not pay into the social security trust fund in years hence? Social Security is NOT in danger of going bankrupt, it is general revenues which have been in deficit for over forty years and that is what's bankrupting America. You're paying a tax that is only levied against $86K/yr, while those who earn more pay nothing above this, and all that wealth is being transferred to the General Account to pay for general services while our congressional representatives dream up ways to destroy the primary benefits those taxes were created to fund.
That would be "The Rich" who don't pay this tax.
Does that even come close
Gee, you're right. I bet it never occured to the NASA guys to coordinate with the missle guys. They just walked right into the missile range, launched the plane, and never gave it a second thought.
Buckle down; science ahead.
/. account)
The speed of sound is not constant. In the case of the atmosphere, it varies with temperature and altitude, or more generally, the energy of and mean free path between molecules. Mach numbers deal with this inconsistency by normalizing speeds. If we're talking about Mach 0.8, it always means 80% of the speed of sound in the medium--much more convenient, math-wise, than relating all your measurements to the arbitrary value of the speed of sound at sea level.
The Shuttle never actually leaves the atmosphere, but the gases are so rarified for the orbital part of its flight regime that ground speed makes more sense than Mach number. During reentry, however, the Orbiter descends quickly to altitudes where Mach number is meaningful. You're right insofar as Mach 20 at 100,000 feet is less than your intuition tells you it should be, but it's still blindlingly fast--'round about 13,500 mph. You can check a Standard Atmosphere table. (I would link to the one I used, but it's printed on the endpaper of my compressible flow textbook.)
-Carolyn (new and improved--now with
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
> It is very flimsy. no, more like: It was very flimsy.
this sig was brought to you by the letter
It is very flimsy. no, more like: It was very flimsy.
/. isn't like computer code, if there's a tiny little inconsistency, just move on.
I'm tired of the anal-retentativeness I always see here on Slashdot! You guys need to take a chill pill. Smoke a bowl. Throw a hand grenade. Become a weatherman. Close enough, you know?
Synergy is your friend
Let me tell you as a RF technician for a national wireless cellular company that there is NO WAY that 200lbs. comes EVEN CLOSE to what you need for equipment. A minimum of 1k lbs. will have to be up there. Also, not to mention that the picture that that company shows with the plane supposedly transmitting down to that entire city would have to carry an assload of frequencies. Need for more frequencies = Need for more equipment. There's no way that plane could carry enough cellular site radios to transmit/receive to/from all the users a city the size depicted in that picture! Not even close. Floating planes transmitting to customers is no where even close to becoming a reality.
Then there's one last problem. The problem of risk. The risk of having a cellular shelter go up in flames is extremely low. The risk of having a high tech plane fall out of the sky for whatever reason (wind shear, fuel out, human error) and damaging your $13,000 a piece cellular radios is extremely high... (compared to that of traditional methods of transmission). This cost is only that of the actual radios. There's much more cost and weight associated with a cell site.
If you were the CEO of a cellular company, you'd have to be a complete friggin' moron to think this has any chance of becoming real anytime relatively soon.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Helios will make a great artificial reef for SCUBA divers. I hope that its in shallow water.
It will never be correct to write "it's" as a possessive. "'s" on the end, when forming a possessive, is actually a contraction of "-his", "-hers" or -its. So "William's ball" is short for "William-his ball". "It's" would be short for "it-its", which implies the existence of "its" as the 3rd person {he/she/it/they} singular {only one - he/she/it} possessive pronoun in the neuter gender {things not people}.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If so, just what do you plan to cut in order to meet a balanced budget? Shall we cut:
* The Military.
No.
* NASA.
* HHS (Health and Human Services).
* HUD (Housing and Urban Development, which included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan backing).
* FDA (Federal Drug Administration).
* FBI and other law enforcement activities.
* Infrastructure support, etc etc etc.
Yes, mostly.
It's obvious we both care about this issue quite a bit, and I don't want to end up just frustrating both of us. Every response I have to what you're saying is predicated upon the notion that the government is doing way more than it should, that it should be *radically* scaled back, and I don't believe that you would find that assertion palatable. Similarly I find your responses to be coming from a viewpoint that is contrary to what I believe most deeply. I assure you, you will never convince me that big national government is good or that I have any *legal* responsibility to pay for someone else's laziness or stupidity or bad luck (although I personally think I have a *moral* obligation, I consider that none of the government's business) Also, I realize that it's equally unlikely that I'll convince you that states should be more powerful and that most of the national government should be dismantled, and that people should be responsible for their *own* well-being. It's not a new debate, and I don't see what can be gained from further back and forth except frustration. I am willing to agree to disagree.
http://xkcd.com/386/
I sincerely doubt that there's one (well, maybe one, speaking rhetorically here to make a point) person (management or investment) in the multi trillion dollar fossil fuel and nuclear industries who wants to see solar/hydrogen succeed. Oil based fuels to hydrogen, sure, nuclear heat to electric to hydrogen, sure. Solar PV panels to hydrogen, and in something that flies and sets records, showing the huge industry paradigm shattering potential?
Nope. Something tells me they wouldn't like that one tiny bit.
Too bad about the.... accident, sounded like a nifty experiment.
Last time I checked this was writing and not speaking. You should think before you write.
I guess my delivery was too deadpan - a mod didn't get it either. But, now that you mention it, big organizations like the navy and nasa are *infamous* for poor inter-agency communications...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
erm, i was the one attempting to be funny about it. those that take it seriously would be the anal-retentive ones.
this sig was brought to you by the letter
Gee, I guess that's why it ISN'T WRITTEN THAT WAY IN THE POST, huh? Idiot.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Don't know if you'll bother reading this since you posted AC, but I just wanted to make a short point. I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. The GOP's policy dovetails with their campaign contributors' interests exactly, and provides only cultural support for their citizen contingency. What I mean by that is that the campaign contributors get money through targeted tax repeals and closed bidding contracts, while Republican voters gain government enforcement of their moral codes/beliefs.
The Democrats play the same game by offering special deals for their campaign contributors, but have nothing to offer their voters since Democrats are primarily 'moderates' with a minority progressive wing. The Democratic base has been marginalized primarily because the DNC doesn't offer voters any reason beyond 'we're not the GOP' and 'we might give you a crumb, but only after our campaign contributors are satiated from feeding at the government trough'. Campaign contributors are never satiated.
So, the DNC has traded it's voting majority for large scale campaign contributions from business and in the process been marginalized by the GOP, since business trusts the GOP far more than the DNC after the New Deal. This trend with the DNC started back in the 1940 congressional race when Lyndon Johnson saved the Democrats from losing congressional leadership by soliciting Texas funds from the local oil exploration and large contracting (dam builders) business community and spreading those funds around the country in close congressional races. By soliciting huge donations (much of it in cash and illegal) Johnson was able to not only retain the DNC majority (when they were expecting to lose 30 seats or more) but even gain seats. Of course the Texas oil barons and major contracting houses expected a ROI and they got far more than they ever gave the DNC. From that point on the DNC lost their concern for their voting constituency and focused on soliciting donations from the business community.
Cheers,
--Maynard
That's political debate. I'm OK with your disagreement, I'm OK with your vote in opposition to my position, and I'm OK with a fair political loss.
Clearly we disagree on the matter of taxation and the kinds of services we expect from government. We both support basic free market capitalism. This means open markets of individual actors exchanging goods freely with little market intervention. Our divergence in opinion, from the perspective of this debate, is one of government regulation and taxation to support public services. Another point of debate appears to be whether government should hold regulatory power over the free market or the free market should hold power over government. Clearly, I believe we need a central authority responsible to the public which regulates the market in order to set clear and non-discriminatory rules. That is a matter of debate.
Give me a fair game and I'll play to win while accepting loss. The current political game is fixed though, and as such I find the situation offensive and corrupt. JMO.
Cheers,
--Maynard
You'll start with O2 and H2. So 2(H2) + O2 -> 2(H2O) You might not have notice I didn't mentioned any reaction formula, just the start and end products.