Modern commercial aircraft use the engines to control height while landing, which is why you tend to hear the engines spool up and down as the pilot adjusts for changing conditions on approach. Aircrews use the pitch of the plane to control their approach speed, basically using the entire body of the aircraft as a large airbrake. The flaps are lowered to increase the lift forces on the wings, not slow the aircraft down. That said, the flaps cannot be deployed above certain airspeeds as the resulting drag forces will separate them from the aircraft.
Upon landing, some aircraft have "spoilers" that rise from the tops of the wings to help slow the aircraft down. The engines do not reverse, the aircrew deploys a thrust reverser, which diverts the air from the back of the engine around the outside towards the front, and then the aircrew spools up the engine to obtain the maximum stopping power. Finally, the aircrew will use brakes to slow the aircraft to taxi speeds. Note: deploying thrust reversers BEFORE landing is a no-no and results in bad things, like loss of the aircraft and everyone on board.
As reported in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (Vol CXX, Nov 2005, Issue #4; A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS by TIM GROSECLOSE AND JEFFREY MILYO), CBS' news coverage is further left than the DNC and just right of Senator Kennedy. NBC and ABC are just right of the DNC, but still far left. MSNBC is just left of center, while Fox is just right of center. The Wall Street Journal Op Ed is conservative, while their reporting is liberal (still trying to figure that one out). The NYT is just plain in the pocket of the DNC, much as Saturday Night LIve (see Chevy Chase's remarks on his portrayal of President Ford), and Gary Trudeau (Doonesbury).
Note to World: Show me anyone else who steps up and takes the reins when trouble strikes...anyone?....anyone? Nope, still no one but the U.S. Let's see now, Bosnia...nope, the U.S. had to carry the water there, despite it being smack dab in the middle of Europe. Tsunamis, check, the U.S. provided the logistics support, fresh water, food, etc until other relief agencies could get through to the affected areas. Ummm, Kuwait, check, the U.S. led the international coalition and as I remember, the vast majority of the troops, planes, ships, etc. O.K. pirates, that should be easy, no, sorry, the U.S. is the major partner there too, doing more to protect the sea lanes than the rest of the world's navies combined. I know, let's talk space stuff. Let's compare U.S., Russian, Chinese, and European man-rated launchers. Oh, sorry Europe, you don't qualify. O.K. let's talk launch systems, then. U.S. has the Atlas and Delta families, the Shuttle system, is developing the Ares system as well as a number of smaller launchers and commercial low-cost startups like Falcon 1 and 9, oh, and the Sea-Launch system that's a combination Russian-American system. Russia has a number as well, with the Cosmos, Dnepr, Soyuz, Proton, etc. China and Europe have one system each...the Long March and Ariane, though the Ariane is primarily a French project. So, the U.S. is a world leader with Russia in space access and technology. What's left? Science? I'd like to compare CERN's LHC to something, but since it's not working and won't for months to come, that's a waste of breath. Call me when it is running and doing something besides sucking up taxpayer dollars. So, then, medical care? O.K. let's compare hospitals, and quality of care. I've been in Europe and the U.S. system is far better than the NHS hospitals I visited where there was mold on the walls, 6 to a room, no privacy, overworked nurses (well, that's the same here too), and long waits for routine care unless you're willing to travel 300 miles to an underserved clinic. O.K. then, I'm out of airspeed, altitude, and ideas on this one. Just do me a favor and let me know when another country, any country, finally steps up to the plate and puts their treasure and blood on the line for the rest of the world. For the last 60-odd years, it's been the U.S. Now, you can not like it, you can hate the U.S. for it, but you can't deny it. Otherwise, give it a rest on the "Don't believe your own propaganda" argument.
...what the HELL do you think were are in RIGHT NOW??
Not anywhere's close to another VietNam. Check your history books. Those who think either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan are even remotely close to the conditions of VietNam have not studied any of the three wars. 1) In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has gained a superiority in the field that VietNam did not demonstrate. 2) In Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. is supported by regimes that have much more influence and control over their nation. 3) In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there are no logistics and training bases immune to U.S. attack, allowing the U.S. to deny those comforts to the enemy. 4) VietNam was fought mostly by GIs drafted and serving a one-year tour. Some went back for additional tours (my father did two tours). In Iraq and Afghanistan, the wars are being fought by professionals who are returning for sometimes 4 and 5 tours of duty. While this is extremely hard on their families, it means highly trained personnel rotate in, unlike the newbies who showed up in VietNam. 5) A long war is not necessarily a "VietNam". It is simply a long war. This was explained at the start, but quickly forgotten by most. 6) Unlike VietNam, significant progress has been achieved in Iraq at pacifying the cities and outlying areas. 7) Unlike VietNam, Iraqi troops are taking control of large areas of their own territory with U.S. troops serving as advisors, supporting fire, and if necessary, back-up. More territory is being turned over every month. 8) Unlike VietNam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. defeated the Taliban, kicking THEM out of the country, or did you miss that part? However, one battle (or even a series of battles) does not a war make, and with the resurgence of the Taliban from bases in Pakistan, the U.S. and NATO troops are holding their own, but it is a holding action until more U.S. troops can be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. The recent change in U.S. policy to allow strikes in Pakistan are helping stem the flow and deny the Taliban immunity. Unfortunately, many of our NATO allies have fallen prey to the same short-sightedness of many Democrats in the U.S., cannot lift the blinders of VietNam, and are failing to live up to their treaty obligations, with the sole exception of the United Kingdom, who have been and continue to be outstanding partners. The Canadians are working hard, but suffer from poor/no equipment (C-47 helicopters? First they sell them, then they lease them back). Other European nations continually beg off of providing even basic logistics support, let alone enough firepower to make a difference. Even then, they beg to stay in the pacified areas (although the French are more willing than the others to contribute ground troops), leaving the U.S. to carry the water, again and again. Several nations have completely failed to provide what they promised. No wonder Russia looks at Europe and laughs as they dither and bicker while Russia continues to regain previously held territories.
There will be serious repercussions from talking with terrorist states without preconditions. The President of the United States of America is the single person recognized as the "leader" of the world. To give credence and authority to leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc by engaging in one-on-one talks is foolhardy. It sets apart the rest of the team of nations working to contain these rogue states as not worthy of inclusion. One-on-one talks set up the possibility of "end-runs" where these terrorist states can get around international agreements designed to force cooperation or at least claim the U.S. offered concessions when none were proffered. And lastly, these tete-a-tete talks trap the President in multiple meetings that would serve no purpose but that of Iran, Syria, and North Korea when the President should be leading a team of nations at any talks to ensure everyone's interest is protected.
This is precisely why President Bush was absolutely right in insisting that any talks with North Korea occur in a regional framework, where the interests of Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea were all represented, and the North Koreans could not turn the meeting into a monologue of grievances against the U.S. Despite years of stalling and wriggling, the North Koreans finally had to come to the table, deal with their neighbors, and work out an agreement that everyone could live with.
Mark my words, Obama is another JFK, whose inexperience at dealing with other nations will get the U.S. into another crisis comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis and will probably get us involved in another VietNam. And as Nixon had to clean up JFK/LBJ's mess in VietNam, and Bush '43 had to clean up Clinton's debacle in Iraq, it will take a Republican president to end the mess a President Obama will create.
...that's why military weapon systems drop or boost rocket powered munitions away from the delivery vehicle before they ignite.
Some munitions with solid fuel rocket motors are dropped from the aircraft, others aren't and it's mostly due to airstream issues rather than safety with the solid rocket motors. AIM-9s are launched from rails under wing and wingtip, and the rocket motor is ignited on the rail. AIM-120s are also rail carried and ignite the rocket motor on the rail. AIM-7s were carried next to the airframe and were "pushed" away so air pressure would not slam the missile back into the aircraft before the rocket motor ignited. (Same thing with bombs--if not shoved away, the airstream can bring it back up into the wing)
As for safety, solid propellants are generally safer than liquid--they store well, transport well, and withstand rugged handling. That's the primary reason the USAF eliminated liquid fueled ICBMs from the inventory. That's also why Rutan used solid fuel for SpaceShipOne and will for SpaceShipTwo. One of the plusses for solid fuel is "instant on" power, but a drawback for solid fuel is the inability to throttle the exhaust, unlike liquid propellant engines, which is why there is a mix of the two on various launchers. The Challenger disaster was a failed o-ring/design/safety culture problem, not the solid propellant.
As for dropping satellite launchers (and now sub-orbital vehicles) before ignition, the boosters on those are much more powerful and can easily damage a wing or the fuselage (depending on where its carried) if ignited too close, so they are dropped and the lifting vehicle pulls away before ignition. Plus, it's just smart to stay back from something that's going to be departing at multiple G's and avoid any messy entanglements.
...I've had nothing but issues with the new ticket kiosks at our local movie theater.
Same here. Our ticket kiosk has been "out of order" for over 2 years. They fix it, it breaks, they fix it again, it breaks again. Even when it's working, it is slower than the girls in the booth. Informally timing the transactions, it takes a little over twice as long to get a ticket from the automated kiosk as it does from a human operator. Sometimes digital/automated is not the best answer.
...MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real nice, and the tomato is fresh...
MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real LEAN, and the tomato is fresh... There, fixed that for you, AND sentence you to watch "Princess Bride" 2 more times...
As someone who watched TOS on a black and white 9" TV with a towel under the door to hide the light from my parents (it was on after bed time)...I welcome a "refreshing" of the Star Trek ensemble. The key to success will be the script, not the special effects, a lesson not learned in a few previous Star Trek and most Sci-Fi movies...
Parent is still correct. Fly by wire has nothing to do with the stability design of the aircraft. Modern fighters could still work via cables and pulleys, it would just weigh a lot more...not a problem with the A-10, big problem with the F-22 and F-35.
I now have precedence for bringing my banjo to my next colonoscopy...
Re:Very convenient
on
The Quietest Sun
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From what we can discern about sunspots so far it seems that a fair amount of solar wind is generated from the edges of sunspots. So, more sunspots = more solar wind. Now, the trick is to tie that increase in solar wind to an increase in energy imparted to Earth's atmosphere and somehow come up with a mechanism to transfer that energy to the troposphere... So far, only one or two serious climatologists think this might be happening, the other 99% are "sure" that it's not possible and CO2 is the primary culprit in global warming. However, 50 years ago, the theory of plate tectonics was "crackpot" by 99% of all geologists, too.
There is a coincidence between rising numbers of sunspots and the global warming phenomenon. I don't know if the two are correlated, but they match near perfectly. If you average the 3-year peaks of sunspot activity in each cycle, there is a 67% increase in the mean number of sunspots post 1956 (Cycle 19). In other words, there aren't any longer or more cycles, but there are more sunspots per cycle than any time in recorded history. Another coincidence was the Maunder Minimum where the Earth had the Little Ice Age during a time of no or few sunspots. Correllating the two will take a lot of study (and abuse from climatologists and CO2 supporters), but good science requires we investigate the outlying data points as well as the primary suspects.
2008 is unusual because of the few sunspots (215 sunspot-free days so far). But, that doesn't mean instant global cooling, nor does it indicate a trend with the Sun. For all we know, there are hundred and thousand-year cycles going on in the Sun that we've not had time to see or study and this lull is just a blip before another onslaught. Or, it could be a start of another Minimum (I'd like it named after me, please), in which case get out the arctic gear. In other words, if that gigantic lightbulb 1.3M times the size of the Earth we call the Sun, and parked only 94M miles away is the primary culprit for global warming, we have no control so you might as well crack open a beer, sit back, and enjoy the ride...
At 1,760 for the AF, and 480 each for the USN and Marines, there should be more than enough F-35s for close air support missions. However, the point the AF has been making for many years now is that EVERY fighter and bomber is now capable of close air support with LANTIRN, SNIPER, LGBs, JDAMS, etc. And, the anti-aircraft environment is too hazardous for a super tucano to survive very long, except in limited anti-insurgency operations. There is word that Blackwater has purchased one from Brazil through the USG, but it's unknown for where or what specific operations.
Actually, the gunships are modified slick C-130s, so if the AF needed more, we could simply convert more, much as we are currently converting 12 H's to MC-130Ws under the CLR program. AFSOC doesn't want more C-130 gunships (though there are talks about replacing current models with J versions), hence the C-27J mod to see how it can handle the vibrations/corrosive effects. The C-27J will also be able to get into areas that the C-130 cannot currently work in, expanding the ability of AFSOC to operate in a variety of terrains.
BTW I also have 27 years of aircraft maintenance, including F-15A/B/C/D, F-111D/E/F, and depot on the C-141A/B, C-5A/B/C, and all 13 variants of the C-130, where I'm currently working on combining the ISO and PDM systems into one High Velocity Maintenance (HVM) system on AFSOC C-130 aircraft as well as overhauling the WUC manual/system (which is another story altogether).
It's AFI 36-2903, now. Instructions instead of regulations (kindler, gentler, yadda, yadda). But, yes you can wear sister service decorations (I wore the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation for the raid on Libya in 1986-great beer ribbon: "What's that: Buy me a beer and I'll tell you).
1) Forward Air Controllers have not gone away. The job migrated to F-16s and A-10s starting in Gulf War I, as well as the airmen stationed with Army units to guide in close air support. The A-10s are undergoing the Precision Engagement modification and re-winging them to last another 15 or so years. True the AF fighter mafia in the 70's and 80's didn't like the A-10, but it's a mainstay now until the F-35 comes on board.
2) The Raptors are manned...it's the Predators that are UAVs.
3) The AF is putting new center wings in all the AC-130H and AC-130U gunships so they will be around for many years to come.
4) The AF is also spending $32M this fiscal year to buy and modify a C-27J Spartan into a test version of "gunship lite" (probably with 20mm mini-guns and 40mm Bofors), so the AF does recognize the need for close air support and is, in fact, spending a lot of money to support that mission.
...shitty ones like combat duty or flight line work
EXCUSE YOU?? The 17 years I spent working aircraft maintenance were the single best years of my AF career. Besides flying the jets, there is no other career field as important nor more central to the role of the Air Force. Launching fighter aircraft in the early morning hours, smelling burnt JP-8 while working redballs and signing exceptional releases in a high-octane ballet that makes NASCAR look like amateur hour, watching my aircraft take off with loads of missiles and bombs and coming back empty with the "thumbs-up" from the aircrew for a code 1 flight, is about as intense an experience as anyone can get.
I have a PolySci degree and thought I would be perfect for Intel work, only the AF needed acft mx types. I could barely change the oil on my car, let alone be responsible for the work of 150-180 people working on 24-30 aircraft worth more than the GDP of most third world nations, but the AF taught me the basics and the good folks on the flightline (especially some great senior NCOs) made it happen. Once bitten by the mx 'bug' there is no going back. Watching your aircraft take off has to be one of the single best job satisfactions ever. It's tough, dirty work that requires your utmost attention to detail, even in 140degree heat or -70degree windchill. But you will never, ever find more job satisfaction anywhere else.
So, unless you've been there, keep your opinions on which jobs are "shitty" to yourself. You want a "shitty" job? Sit at a desk, looking at a computer monitor 8 hours a day, because that's what I do now, and it sucks.
Barksdale, LA is correct. One of my previous workers is applying for one of the cyber command jobs there through a contractor. I had to tell a Federal Investigative Service worker that he is trustworthy, a good guy, etc.
Thank Carter first of all, and then the technocrats who keep thinking that satellites and planes can replace boots/sandals on the ground. It was decided that the U.S. would only deal with honest, law-abiding citizens in our efforts to catch criminals, terrorists, dictators, etc. What a crock of nonsense. If you want to get the bad guy, you're going to have to get close to him and sometimes that means making deals with "bad" people. Unfortunately, it takes decades to recruit, train, and emplace a spy network, and invariably there will be some blowback from the mainstream/liberal media because we made a deal with some slimeball so we could get the bigger slimeball. The spy game is dirty and nasty, but the payoffs can be tremendous when we can catch people like Bin Laden or stop events like 9/11 from happening.
Thinking traction control provides traction is as dangerous as thinking that ABS decreases your stopping distance. Both are fatal flaws in driving philosophy. Both do the opposite, and that is exactly what they are intended for.
Huh? On most surfaces, ABS will shorten your stopping distance. Only in loose gravel, snow, etc, could ABS lengthen the distance to stop. The system maximizes friction and controlability during hard braking maneuvers by sensing when wheel slippage occurs during braking.
If you mean that some people think ABS automatically brakes for them, or provides the correct amount of braking, well, some people you just can't help. You can only go on your way, offering a prayer for them as you pass the scene of the accident...
If I write an app for Apple's iPhone, I run the chance of being denied, but I could make lots of $$$. If I write an app for MS, I could get some lovely departing gifts. Tough choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Modern commercial aircraft use the engines to control height while landing, which is why you tend to hear the engines spool up and down as the pilot adjusts for changing conditions on approach. Aircrews use the pitch of the plane to control their approach speed, basically using the entire body of the aircraft as a large airbrake. The flaps are lowered to increase the lift forces on the wings, not slow the aircraft down. That said, the flaps cannot be deployed above certain airspeeds as the resulting drag forces will separate them from the aircraft.
Upon landing, some aircraft have "spoilers" that rise from the tops of the wings to help slow the aircraft down. The engines do not reverse, the aircrew deploys a thrust reverser, which diverts the air from the back of the engine around the outside towards the front, and then the aircrew spools up the engine to obtain the maximum stopping power. Finally, the aircrew will use brakes to slow the aircraft to taxi speeds. Note: deploying thrust reversers BEFORE landing is a no-no and results in bad things, like loss of the aircraft and everyone on board.
Ya know, it's images like that that remind me why I'm happy to be on the top of the food chain ;)
10 Dollars if you walk up to a Grizzly and whisper that in it's ear...
SkyNet anyone?
Are you suggesting a swallow could carry a grizzly?
Seems a pretty expensive way to housebreak the pooch, let alone get the water out of my soccer boots...
As reported in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (Vol CXX, Nov 2005, Issue #4; A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS by TIM GROSECLOSE AND JEFFREY MILYO), CBS' news coverage is further left than the DNC and just right of Senator Kennedy. NBC and ABC are just right of the DNC, but still far left. MSNBC is just left of center, while Fox is just right of center. The Wall Street Journal Op Ed is conservative, while their reporting is liberal (still trying to figure that one out). The NYT is just plain in the pocket of the DNC, much as Saturday Night LIve (see Chevy Chase's remarks on his portrayal of President Ford), and Gary Trudeau (Doonesbury).
Note to World: Show me anyone else who steps up and takes the reins when trouble strikes...anyone?....anyone? Nope, still no one but the U.S. Let's see now, Bosnia...nope, the U.S. had to carry the water there, despite it being smack dab in the middle of Europe. Tsunamis, check, the U.S. provided the logistics support, fresh water, food, etc until other relief agencies could get through to the affected areas. Ummm, Kuwait, check, the U.S. led the international coalition and as I remember, the vast majority of the troops, planes, ships, etc. O.K. pirates, that should be easy, no, sorry, the U.S. is the major partner there too, doing more to protect the sea lanes than the rest of the world's navies combined.
I know, let's talk space stuff. Let's compare U.S., Russian, Chinese, and European man-rated launchers. Oh, sorry Europe, you don't qualify. O.K. let's talk launch systems, then. U.S. has the Atlas and Delta families, the Shuttle system, is developing the Ares system as well as a number of smaller launchers and commercial low-cost startups like Falcon 1 and 9, oh, and the Sea-Launch system that's a combination Russian-American system. Russia has a number as well, with the Cosmos, Dnepr, Soyuz, Proton, etc. China and Europe have one system each...the Long March and Ariane, though the Ariane is primarily a French project. So, the U.S. is a world leader with Russia in space access and technology.
What's left? Science? I'd like to compare CERN's LHC to something, but since it's not working and won't for months to come, that's a waste of breath. Call me when it is running and doing something besides sucking up taxpayer dollars.
So, then, medical care? O.K. let's compare hospitals, and quality of care. I've been in Europe and the U.S. system is far better than the NHS hospitals I visited where there was mold on the walls, 6 to a room, no privacy, overworked nurses (well, that's the same here too), and long waits for routine care unless you're willing to travel 300 miles to an underserved clinic.
O.K. then, I'm out of airspeed, altitude, and ideas on this one. Just do me a favor and let me know when another country, any country, finally steps up to the plate and puts their treasure and blood on the line for the rest of the world. For the last 60-odd years, it's been the U.S. Now, you can not like it, you can hate the U.S. for it, but you can't deny it. Otherwise, give it a rest on the "Don't believe your own propaganda" argument.
...what the HELL do you think were are in RIGHT NOW??
Not anywhere's close to another VietNam. Check your history books. Those who think either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan are even remotely close to the conditions of VietNam have not studied any of the three wars.
1) In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has gained a superiority in the field that VietNam did not demonstrate.
2) In Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. is supported by regimes that have much more influence and control over their nation.
3) In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there are no logistics and training bases immune to U.S. attack, allowing the U.S. to deny those comforts to the enemy.
4) VietNam was fought mostly by GIs drafted and serving a one-year tour. Some went back for additional tours (my father did two tours). In Iraq and Afghanistan, the wars are being fought by professionals who are returning for sometimes 4 and 5 tours of duty. While this is extremely hard on their families, it means highly trained personnel rotate in, unlike the newbies who showed up in VietNam.
5) A long war is not necessarily a "VietNam". It is simply a long war. This was explained at the start, but quickly forgotten by most.
6) Unlike VietNam, significant progress has been achieved in Iraq at pacifying the cities and outlying areas.
7) Unlike VietNam, Iraqi troops are taking control of large areas of their own territory with U.S. troops serving as advisors, supporting fire, and if necessary, back-up. More territory is being turned over every month.
8) Unlike VietNam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. defeated the Taliban, kicking THEM out of the country, or did you miss that part? However, one battle (or even a series of battles) does not a war make, and with the resurgence of the Taliban from bases in Pakistan, the U.S. and NATO troops are holding their own, but it is a holding action until more U.S. troops can be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. The recent change in U.S. policy to allow strikes in Pakistan are helping stem the flow and deny the Taliban immunity. Unfortunately, many of our NATO allies have fallen prey to the same short-sightedness of many Democrats in the U.S., cannot lift the blinders of VietNam, and are failing to live up to their treaty obligations, with the sole exception of the United Kingdom, who have been and continue to be outstanding partners. The Canadians are working hard, but suffer from poor/no equipment (C-47 helicopters? First they sell them, then they lease them back). Other European nations continually beg off of providing even basic logistics support, let alone enough firepower to make a difference. Even then, they beg to stay in the pacified areas (although the French are more willing than the others to contribute ground troops), leaving the U.S. to carry the water, again and again. Several nations have completely failed to provide what they promised. No wonder Russia looks at Europe and laughs as they dither and bicker while Russia continues to regain previously held territories.
There is no harm talking to them...
There will be serious repercussions from talking with terrorist states without preconditions. The President of the United States of America is the single person recognized as the "leader" of the world. To give credence and authority to leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc by engaging in one-on-one talks is foolhardy. It sets apart the rest of the team of nations working to contain these rogue states as not worthy of inclusion. One-on-one talks set up the possibility of "end-runs" where these terrorist states can get around international agreements designed to force cooperation or at least claim the U.S. offered concessions when none were proffered. And lastly, these tete-a-tete talks trap the President in multiple meetings that would serve no purpose but that of Iran, Syria, and North Korea when the President should be leading a team of nations at any talks to ensure everyone's interest is protected.
This is precisely why President Bush was absolutely right in insisting that any talks with North Korea occur in a regional framework, where the interests of Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea were all represented, and the North Koreans could not turn the meeting into a monologue of grievances against the U.S. Despite years of stalling and wriggling, the North Koreans finally had to come to the table, deal with their neighbors, and work out an agreement that everyone could live with.
Mark my words, Obama is another JFK, whose inexperience at dealing with other nations will get the U.S. into another crisis comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis and will probably get us involved in another VietNam. And as Nixon had to clean up JFK/LBJ's mess in VietNam, and Bush '43 had to clean up Clinton's debacle in Iraq, it will take a Republican president to end the mess a President Obama will create.
...that's why military weapon systems drop or boost rocket powered munitions away from the delivery vehicle before they ignite.
Some munitions with solid fuel rocket motors are dropped from the aircraft, others aren't and it's mostly due to airstream issues rather than safety with the solid rocket motors. AIM-9s are launched from rails under wing and wingtip, and the rocket motor is ignited on the rail. AIM-120s are also rail carried and ignite the rocket motor on the rail. AIM-7s were carried next to the airframe and were "pushed" away so air pressure would not slam the missile back into the aircraft before the rocket motor ignited. (Same thing with bombs--if not shoved away, the airstream can bring it back up into the wing)
As for safety, solid propellants are generally safer than liquid--they store well, transport well, and withstand rugged handling. That's the primary reason the USAF eliminated liquid fueled ICBMs from the inventory. That's also why Rutan used solid fuel for SpaceShipOne and will for SpaceShipTwo. One of the plusses for solid fuel is "instant on" power, but a drawback for solid fuel is the inability to throttle the exhaust, unlike liquid propellant engines, which is why there is a mix of the two on various launchers. The Challenger disaster was a failed o-ring/design/safety culture problem, not the solid propellant.
As for dropping satellite launchers (and now sub-orbital vehicles) before ignition, the boosters on those are much more powerful and can easily damage a wing or the fuselage (depending on where its carried) if ignited too close, so they are dropped and the lifting vehicle pulls away before ignition. Plus, it's just smart to stay back from something that's going to be departing at multiple G's and avoid any messy entanglements.
...I've had nothing but issues with the new ticket kiosks at our local movie theater.
Same here. Our ticket kiosk has been "out of order" for over 2 years. They fix it, it breaks, they fix it again, it breaks again. Even when it's working, it is slower than the girls in the booth. Informally timing the transactions, it takes a little over twice as long to get a ticket from the automated kiosk as it does from a human operator. Sometimes digital/automated is not the best answer.
...MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real nice, and the tomato is fresh...
MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real LEAN, and the tomato is fresh...
There, fixed that for you, AND sentence you to watch "Princess Bride" 2 more times...
Fourthed...fourth'd...fourded....ah hell with it, me too.
As someone who watched TOS on a black and white 9" TV with a towel under the door to hide the light from my parents (it was on after bed time)...I welcome a "refreshing" of the Star Trek ensemble. The key to success will be the script, not the special effects, a lesson not learned in a few previous Star Trek and most Sci-Fi movies...
Parent is still correct. Fly by wire has nothing to do with the stability design of the aircraft. Modern fighters could still work via cables and pulleys, it would just weigh a lot more...not a problem with the A-10, big problem with the F-22 and F-35.
I now have precedence for bringing my banjo to my next colonoscopy...
From what we can discern about sunspots so far it seems that a fair amount of solar wind is generated from the edges of sunspots. So, more sunspots = more solar wind. Now, the trick is to tie that increase in solar wind to an increase in energy imparted to Earth's atmosphere and somehow come up with a mechanism to transfer that energy to the troposphere... So far, only one or two serious climatologists think this might be happening, the other 99% are "sure" that it's not possible and CO2 is the primary culprit in global warming. However, 50 years ago, the theory of plate tectonics was "crackpot" by 99% of all geologists, too. There is a coincidence between rising numbers of sunspots and the global warming phenomenon. I don't know if the two are correlated, but they match near perfectly. If you average the 3-year peaks of sunspot activity in each cycle, there is a 67% increase in the mean number of sunspots post 1956 (Cycle 19). In other words, there aren't any longer or more cycles, but there are more sunspots per cycle than any time in recorded history. Another coincidence was the Maunder Minimum where the Earth had the Little Ice Age during a time of no or few sunspots. Correllating the two will take a lot of study (and abuse from climatologists and CO2 supporters), but good science requires we investigate the outlying data points as well as the primary suspects. 2008 is unusual because of the few sunspots (215 sunspot-free days so far). But, that doesn't mean instant global cooling, nor does it indicate a trend with the Sun. For all we know, there are hundred and thousand-year cycles going on in the Sun that we've not had time to see or study and this lull is just a blip before another onslaught. Or, it could be a start of another Minimum (I'd like it named after me, please), in which case get out the arctic gear. In other words, if that gigantic lightbulb 1.3M times the size of the Earth we call the Sun, and parked only 94M miles away is the primary culprit for global warming, we have no control so you might as well crack open a beer, sit back, and enjoy the ride...
At 1,760 for the AF, and 480 each for the USN and Marines, there should be more than enough F-35s for close air support missions. However, the point the AF has been making for many years now is that EVERY fighter and bomber is now capable of close air support with LANTIRN, SNIPER, LGBs, JDAMS, etc. And, the anti-aircraft environment is too hazardous for a super tucano to survive very long, except in limited anti-insurgency operations. There is word that Blackwater has purchased one from Brazil through the USG, but it's unknown for where or what specific operations.
Actually, the gunships are modified slick C-130s, so if the AF needed more, we could simply convert more, much as we are currently converting 12 H's to MC-130Ws under the CLR program. AFSOC doesn't want more C-130 gunships (though there are talks about replacing current models with J versions), hence the C-27J mod to see how it can handle the vibrations/corrosive effects. The C-27J will also be able to get into areas that the C-130 cannot currently work in, expanding the ability of AFSOC to operate in a variety of terrains.
BTW I also have 27 years of aircraft maintenance, including F-15A/B/C/D, F-111D/E/F, and depot on the C-141A/B, C-5A/B/C, and all 13 variants of the C-130, where I'm currently working on combining the ISO and PDM systems into one High Velocity Maintenance (HVM) system on AFSOC C-130 aircraft as well as overhauling the WUC manual/system (which is another story altogether).
Unless they've changed AFR 35-10...
It's AFI 36-2903, now. Instructions instead of regulations (kindler, gentler, yadda, yadda). But, yes you can wear sister service decorations (I wore the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation for the raid on Libya in 1986-great beer ribbon: "What's that: Buy me a beer and I'll tell you).
1) Forward Air Controllers have not gone away. The job migrated to F-16s and A-10s starting in Gulf War I, as well as the airmen stationed with Army units to guide in close air support. The A-10s are undergoing the Precision Engagement modification and re-winging them to last another 15 or so years. True the AF fighter mafia in the 70's and 80's didn't like the A-10, but it's a mainstay now until the F-35 comes on board.
2) The Raptors are manned...it's the Predators that are UAVs.
3) The AF is putting new center wings in all the AC-130H and AC-130U gunships so they will be around for many years to come.
4) The AF is also spending $32M this fiscal year to buy and modify a C-27J Spartan into a test version of "gunship lite" (probably with 20mm mini-guns and 40mm Bofors), so the AF does recognize the need for close air support and is, in fact, spending a lot of money to support that mission.
...shitty ones like combat duty or flight line work
EXCUSE YOU?? The 17 years I spent working aircraft maintenance were the single best years of my AF career. Besides flying the jets, there is no other career field as important nor more central to the role of the Air Force. Launching fighter aircraft in the early morning hours, smelling burnt JP-8 while working redballs and signing exceptional releases in a high-octane ballet that makes NASCAR look like amateur hour, watching my aircraft take off with loads of missiles and bombs and coming back empty with the "thumbs-up" from the aircrew for a code 1 flight, is about as intense an experience as anyone can get.
I have a PolySci degree and thought I would be perfect for Intel work, only the AF needed acft mx types. I could barely change the oil on my car, let alone be responsible for the work of 150-180 people working on 24-30 aircraft worth more than the GDP of most third world nations, but the AF taught me the basics and the good folks on the flightline (especially some great senior NCOs) made it happen. Once bitten by the mx 'bug' there is no going back. Watching your aircraft take off has to be one of the single best job satisfactions ever. It's tough, dirty work that requires your utmost attention to detail, even in 140degree heat or -70degree windchill. But you will never, ever find more job satisfaction anywhere else.
So, unless you've been there, keep your opinions on which jobs are "shitty" to yourself. You want a "shitty" job? Sit at a desk, looking at a computer monitor 8 hours a day, because that's what I do now, and it sucks.
Barksdale, LA is correct. One of my previous workers is applying for one of the cyber command jobs there through a contractor. I had to tell a Federal Investigative Service worker that he is trustworthy, a good guy, etc.
Thank Carter first of all, and then the technocrats who keep thinking that satellites and planes can replace boots/sandals on the ground. It was decided that the U.S. would only deal with honest, law-abiding citizens in our efforts to catch criminals, terrorists, dictators, etc. What a crock of nonsense. If you want to get the bad guy, you're going to have to get close to him and sometimes that means making deals with "bad" people. Unfortunately, it takes decades to recruit, train, and emplace a spy network, and invariably there will be some blowback from the mainstream/liberal media because we made a deal with some slimeball so we could get the bigger slimeball. The spy game is dirty and nasty, but the payoffs can be tremendous when we can catch people like Bin Laden or stop events like 9/11 from happening.
Thinking traction control provides traction is as dangerous as thinking that ABS decreases your stopping distance. Both are fatal flaws in driving philosophy. Both do the opposite, and that is exactly what they are intended for.
Huh? On most surfaces, ABS will shorten your stopping distance. Only in loose gravel, snow, etc, could ABS lengthen the distance to stop. The system maximizes friction and controlability during hard braking maneuvers by sensing when wheel slippage occurs during braking.
If you mean that some people think ABS automatically brakes for them, or provides the correct amount of braking, well, some people you just can't help. You can only go on your way, offering a prayer for them as you pass the scene of the accident...
If I write an app for Apple's iPhone, I run the chance of being denied, but I could make lots of $$$. If I write an app for MS, I could get some lovely departing gifts. Tough choice.