Seems to me there was some wind rather than instability. The plane appears to be crabbing significantly in the shot from above/behind.
Also, IIRC, as part of the process of experimentally designing an entirely new plane, your first baby step into the air is a straight line flight with a low max altitude meant to give the pilot a chance at life if some fatal flaw is found. You're far more likely to live falling 10-20 feet than 100 or even 50. In this case, a (painful and destructive) bailout of simply shoving the stick all the way forward is even possible.
My guess would be because the GPU is significantly better in the Nexus 4, along with twice the RAM, and I heard that Google went to some trouble to source the fastest flash memory for it.
Odd, a Dodge Charger crossed the line and hit a tow truck head on near my work (this is the new Charger, not the old school one).
Not only were both occupants killed, but they were toasted nicely in a fire long and hot enough to melt the asphalt. I drove past it burning like a torch on the way in a couple months ago.
Not only that, but gasoline cars catch on fire just driving if not properly maintained. In my (heavily populated) area the traffic reporters probably average about one car fire per week causing traffic issues.
Let me paint a super easy scenario for you: A small crack in a fuel line where it say... enters the fuel filter or manifold seeps gasoline, which evaporates quick enough it doesn't cause any problem. Until it gets slightly worse, runs back down the [pressurized] fuel line and likewise drips onto a source of heat. Ignition, and the fuel line forms a source of evaporating vapors as the tank is heated by the burning car, further feeding the fire, and under the right circumstances, leading to a nasty explosion.
In a wreck? There are tons of ways for this to happen, and tons of safety devices to prevent it. Inertial switches on the fuel pump to cut it off and keep it from spraying fuel all over (the tesla has an inertial contactor to break the pack in the middle). Baffles in the fuel tank to help prevent fire spread (the Tesla has its pack partitioned 16 ways). Fuel tank located in the safest place: inside the passenger safety cage (yep, Tesla's done this too). Membrane gas tanks to prevent fuel leakage if the tank is deformed (I don't know what the inside of the Tesla modules looks like, but they've supposedly got 1/4" steel armor plating to prevent intrusion).
All in all, the strategy is to try and keep the fuel in the tank at all costs, because once it's out, yes it is extremely dangerous and likely to burn violently. Tesla is meeting the same set of issues gasoline cars with the added bonus that the batteries won't evaporate into an explosive vapor mix if cracked open.
Didn't the Firestone thing turn out to be an SUV thing? Manufacturers recommending too-low pressures for their vehicles to do better on rollover tests with top-heavy vehicles. Low pressures -> lots of sidewall flexing as the tire rolls -> heat -> delamination and bursting.
Ironically, you have a much lower chance of a blowout if your tires are at the max rated sidewall pressure (least flex, least chance of a bottoming-out incident) than running at or below the car manufacturer's recommended pressure. It also reduces hydroplaning but increases wet braking distance, so YMMV.
They are not under the passengers. They are behind the back seat under the cargo floor and they're not lithium, they're NiMH. There's no sulfuric acid like in a standard 12v battery and nor is Nickel metal particularly reactive.
Why would NASA be embarrassed? New technology comes out and makes old way look overpriced/expensive. It's the saga of all tech.
Seems to me like the Bigelow unit that's going up will be used for storage (non-critical) so that a failure of some kind wouldn't be catastrophic. It's a baby step towards proving the tech as viable... I mean, no one's ever lived in one in space for any length of time, and you want to put a huge one up there, what if some unforseen problem arises? My guess is, if it's been problem free (or at least no more problematic) for the 2-year test period, then we'll see whether NASA takes an option on a big one.
The regular hamburger is a actually a double and is $5.79 here. The "Little Hamburger" is the single patty and costs $3.99 here. Certainly neither of those is exactly $5, but they seem to scale their prices based on the expense of the location (like everything else). There's always been a burger option for $5 right there on the menu.
If you go down to Tennessee, you can get the double (regular) as cheap as $4.39 and the single (little) for $3.29.
That said, I would personally rather have the chain maintain constant quality and let the price fluctuate based on the cost of making it (location, labor expense, price of beef) than to adjust the quality of the product to meet a price point. (McDonald's, I'm looking at you).
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me there was some wind rather than instability. The plane appears to be crabbing significantly in the shot from above/behind.
Also, IIRC, as part of the process of experimentally designing an entirely new plane, your first baby step into the air is a straight line flight with a low max altitude meant to give the pilot a chance at life if some fatal flaw is found. You're far more likely to live falling 10-20 feet than 100 or even 50. In this case, a (painful and destructive) bailout of simply shoving the stick all the way forward is even possible.
Good idea, I'll do the same.
Something you don't need... until you do.
Shockingly, most everyone doesn't expect to be laid up in the hospital. Hence: you being horrified at buying insurance "because you don't need it."
The human brain just isn't very good at judging risk.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/03/SECURITY_MATTERS0322
Lube.
Eff you too, buddy.
--A "nonessential" virological researcher
My guess would be because the GPU is significantly better in the Nexus 4, along with twice the RAM, and I heard that Google went to some trouble to source the fastest flash memory for it.
Ask and you shall receive:
https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=htc_one
How is that list in any way useful? % of GDP is totally meaningless in the face of the wildly varying GDPs represented.
Odd, a Dodge Charger crossed the line and hit a tow truck head on near my work (this is the new Charger, not the old school one).
Not only were both occupants killed, but they were toasted nicely in a fire long and hot enough to melt the asphalt. I drove past it burning like a torch on the way in a couple months ago.
Not only that, but gasoline cars catch on fire just driving if not properly maintained. In my (heavily populated) area the traffic reporters probably average about one car fire per week causing traffic issues.
Let me paint a super easy scenario for you:
A small crack in a fuel line where it say... enters the fuel filter or manifold seeps gasoline, which evaporates quick enough it doesn't cause any problem. Until it gets slightly worse, runs back down the [pressurized] fuel line and likewise drips onto a source of heat. Ignition, and the fuel line forms a source of evaporating vapors as the tank is heated by the burning car, further feeding the fire, and under the right circumstances, leading to a nasty explosion.
In a wreck? There are tons of ways for this to happen, and tons of safety devices to prevent it. Inertial switches on the fuel pump to cut it off and keep it from spraying fuel all over (the tesla has an inertial contactor to break the pack in the middle). Baffles in the fuel tank to help prevent fire spread (the Tesla has its pack partitioned 16 ways). Fuel tank located in the safest place: inside the passenger safety cage (yep, Tesla's done this too). Membrane gas tanks to prevent fuel leakage if the tank is deformed (I don't know what the inside of the Tesla modules looks like, but they've supposedly got 1/4" steel armor plating to prevent intrusion).
All in all, the strategy is to try and keep the fuel in the tank at all costs, because once it's out, yes it is extremely dangerous and likely to burn violently. Tesla is meeting the same set of issues gasoline cars with the added bonus that the batteries won't evaporate into an explosive vapor mix if cracked open.
You never spray water on a petroleum fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_classes#Flammable_liquid_and_gas
Didn't the Firestone thing turn out to be an SUV thing? Manufacturers recommending too-low pressures for their vehicles to do better on rollover tests with top-heavy vehicles. Low pressures -> lots of sidewall flexing as the tire rolls -> heat -> delamination and bursting.
Ironically, you have a much lower chance of a blowout if your tires are at the max rated sidewall pressure (least flex, least chance of a bottoming-out incident) than running at or below the car manufacturer's recommended pressure. It also reduces hydroplaning but increases wet braking distance, so YMMV.
Sam
They are not under the passengers. They are behind the back seat under the cargo floor and they're not lithium, they're NiMH. There's no sulfuric acid like in a standard 12v battery and nor is Nickel metal particularly reactive.
What, do you just brush once a day?
Yay uninformed internet conservative!
I usually use "under rated" for this.
I think Dumbledore says that.
Why would NASA be embarrassed? New technology comes out and makes old way look overpriced/expensive. It's the saga of all tech.
Seems to me like the Bigelow unit that's going up will be used for storage (non-critical) so that a failure of some kind wouldn't be catastrophic. It's a baby step towards proving the tech as viable... I mean, no one's ever lived in one in space for any length of time, and you want to put a huge one up there, what if some unforseen problem arises? My guess is, if it's been problem free (or at least no more problematic) for the 2-year test period, then we'll see whether NASA takes an option on a big one.
Sam
For two years.
No, it's a box you put bread in.
He was making a joke... at a temperature of 1.5C, it is 34.7F.
The US has been destroying its chemical weapons for the past 30 years and is up to 90% disposal as per the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Full compliance is expected by 2023.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Progress_of_destruction
Ignorance illuminated.
Sam
Hm, Slashdot ate my "less than" symbol... should read: "There's always been a burger option for less than $5 right there on the menu."
The regular hamburger is a actually a double and is $5.79 here. The "Little Hamburger" is the single patty and costs $3.99 here. Certainly neither of those is exactly $5, but they seem to scale their prices based on the expense of the location (like everything else). There's always been a burger option for $5 right there on the menu.
If you go down to Tennessee, you can get the double (regular) as cheap as $4.39 and the single (little) for $3.29.
That said, I would personally rather have the chain maintain constant quality and let the price fluctuate based on the cost of making it (location, labor expense, price of beef) than to adjust the quality of the product to meet a price point. (McDonald's, I'm looking at you).
You missed out on a damn good burger.
Sam
I've heard the Spark EV is the best of the bunch (smaller, affordable electrics). Car and Driver really seems to love it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-spark-ev-first-drive-review
???
Ford is doing the best of the big 3, are they not? The new Fiesta, Focus, and especially the Fusion are getting great reviews.
So what's the problem?