>>With property tax, it's like you don't really own your property, and you are just renting it from the government.
No, the tax buys you fire and police protection, utilities, roads, public waterways, emergency response, etc. They might take it away because 1- you owe them money, it's part of our social contract, because 2- they're not simply going to let your house burn down or not investigate a murder on your property because you don't want to pay taxes.
If you don't want to pay yearly taxes on your car, then don't- just be prepared to not drive it on public roads.
Actual property taxes, as in, a tax on your couch or stereo- yes, I agree, that is evil. The gov't received their cut from the sales tax, and they have no further responsibility to support your couch and stereo.
Google maps: Should they pay copyright fees for each little section of the map, e.g., as close in as you can zoom times the entirety of the map database? Or one fee for the entire world database?
If I had a band, would I pay the fee oer song or per album? Why not just release one-song albums?
If I was a researcher writing papers, would I pay the fee per subject, per volume, per page, per graph? Would I pay a fee for the main body of work plus the appendices? What about updates to textbooks? One fee for each version, or just one fee for the new version? What would stop someone from publishing my year-old version? There is not a great deal that can be 'value-added' to intro to chemistry books; the value comes from how it is taught in the book.
Let's say I am a photopgrapher specializing in stock images. I have a library of over 100,000 images of random stuff that I hope to sell rights to (a la Getty images). So, what, now I have to pay $100,000 a year/ every ten years to maintain the copyright to my work? Or do I pay $1 per photo when I can take hundreds of photographs a day? I would go broke.
The thing is, those personal property taxes (boat, car, etc.) pay for the public infrastructure that the devices use. You don't need to pay for new tabs on your car this year IF you don't plan on taking it out of your garage. The same goes for boats, etc. You wouldn't pay personal property tax on your couch, because the gov't doesn't maintain the floor that the couch sits on. Things are different for vehicles.
>>All critical systems have at least double redundancy, that's why nuke plants are so darn expensive to build.
Nuclear plants were especially expensive in the early days, before they decided that they didn't need to design 3X the breakrooms, stairwells, vending machines, and windows. Female employees were pleased by the plentiful bathrooms, while male employees were pleased that every computer came with three kinds of solitaire.
Of course, the sidewalks are still a mess, as any nuclear engineer can attest.
That's a screaming deal. Google "60 million dollars" to get an idea of what that will buy you today. Apparently, the Reno airport is getting a $60 million makeover.
Airport makeover vs entire, accurate map of the U.S. roads.
There are aircraft that cost more than that. One airplane vs "" "".
When I started reading your post I thought you were going to give some dire number, but I think your costs are reasonable.
>>The F-22 isn't "new", it was designed way back in the 80's, perhaps the late 70's, thats hardly "new" by any means.
The RFP for the program resulting in the F-22 didn't get released until 1986. The maiden flight was in 1990. In terms of designing a new airframe from scratch out of exotic materials, and exceeding stealthiness and maneuverability requirements, in addition to an advanced avionics package, yes, the F-22 was developed quickly. And it is new, by all means, as a fighter. I challenge you to find a 5th-generation fighter that was developed in the same period, in the same time frame, that comes even close to the capabilities of the F-22. Not that I think you'll respond.
I think you're missing the point about new aircraft; I guess I assumed I wouldn't have to say it. Half of an airplane is killing bad guys/gathering recon/etc., and the other half is keeping the pilot alive. If we flew P-51's, we'd lose pilots all the time. And many other countries have fighters that could handily take down an entire wing of P-51's with one wing tied behind their back.
And you're forgetting that our offensive capabilities haven't always been, nor will they always be, solely about bombing guys in caves. There is much more at stake here.
At the risk of sounding political (this isn't meant to be flamebait), Europe usually stands to benefit from U.S.-led advances in military hardware. This has been true for as long as we've even been in the weapons business. Europe is, as a group, one of our best customers, along with Korea, Australia, and India. The DoD spends upwards of $30 billion a year on R&D, and this cost is not passed on to our customers. It really is a screaming deal for you (not me as a taxpayer, though). The U.S. sells about 45% of the world's exported/imported arms.
Please, please, please- our current dingbat president will be out of office soon, and I would like us to be able to start a fresh, positive chapter in world history where we are not the stupid bully. Arms sales is just what we're good at. Sweden has IKEA, France has Airbus, Finland probably has something, and we have Lockheed/Martin/Boeing/Grumman/Northrop/McDonnel Douglass/General Dynamics/Fairchild/Raytheon/Bell/etc/etc.
Our B-2's are apparently either too secret or too expensive for other countries to import, but I can assure you that they are saving up for that day.
Also, maybe a little off-topic, but nearly every industrialized country has missiles capable of 'liberating' other countries. Missiles don't need to be stealthy and they are part of the reason that we need stealth aircraft in the first place. Whether it's a missile or a bomb dropped from a B-2, everyone's going to know about it minutes after it happens.
>>I would estimate the chance that they solely depend on satellites now to be small.
You're right. We still use the U-2 quite a bit, we use the MQ-1/9 Predator as a HUGE part of our medium-range surveillance over the AOR, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk is beginning to enter a useful operational role as a replacement for the U-2.
As for the satellite thing- If your enemy can track and identify your secret satellite, he can probably track your aircraft as well. The U-2 is not technically a stealth aircraft; it was designed to evade radar by flying above the russians' radar range. I don't know much about radar systems, so I can't explain that part, but I do know that at lower altitudes the U-2 would not be stealthy simply because of how it's built.
I personally think that it's great to be using unmanned recon aircraft (sorry, pilots...). The Global Hawk especially is pretty damned impressive; it's already made an autonomous flight across the pacific ocean, and it is FAA approved to fly in civilian air corridors without NOTAMs. Sweet.
Compared to 4,000 F-16's, 183 F-22's is indeed a handful. Over 1,000 B-52's were built, if memory serves. The pentagon originally wanted 381 F-22's, which is still not a huge number. However, in all fairness, the F-22 would be better compared to the F-15, app. 600 of which are in service with us.
We can do much more with a modern aircraft than with our aging F-15C/D / F-16C fleet. The F-16 was intended to be basically a 'throw-away' aircraft; when it was introduced, not many people liked it, and it seemed doomed to failure. Its resiliency and proven combat record have shown us just what a capable airframe it is. The F-22 is much, much more capable. Have you seen them fly, in person, up close? They are amazing. Their capabilities are amazing. They truly are a next-generation fighter. Yes, F-16s can still complete the missions assigned to them. That is irrelevant, though, because F-22's wouldn't just carry out F-16 missions. They would carry out F-22 missions. I know for a fact that their are mission that the F-16 fleet is struggling to meet, because I work for an in-demand unit. It is a constant struggle to keep our pilots trained and our aircraft ready to go in the face of constant budget cuts and manpower cuts handed down from above. I don't think that we should return to a cold-war sized budget, but things are getting lean for us.
The thing is, a wing wouldn't need 18 F-22's to to perform the work of 18 F-16s. The F-22 can carry 48,000 lbs (max takeoff weight) compared to the F-16's 24,000 lbs (max takeoff weight). In addition, the F-22 is a stealth/stealthy airframe, capable of carrying ~2,000 lbs of armament in internal bays, retaining its stealth. The avionics are updated to next-gen standards, and the maneuverability and range put it in a class by itself.
In the end, this isn't completely about economics. The ostensible purpose of the military is national defense, and the pentagon feels that this aircraft would play a key role in that capacity. We could just as easily complete these missions with P-51's with updated avionics. Why not? All we're doing is dropping the occasional JDAM on insurgent hideouts, right? That kind of attitude shows a complete lack of foresight in terms of defense. If the pentagon felt that way, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
We can agree to disagree, but IMO, the F-22 is worth the cost based on whole-picture metrics.
Well, technically it did exist. It was first rolled out in 1988.
The B-1B Lancer first flew in 1984, and at 1/50th the radar signature of the B-52 (with similar mass), I'd classify it in the stealth/stealthy category.
Part of the reason for the low MC rate of our stealth aircraft is special maintenance. LO surfaces are a bitch to work with, not to mention the toxic chemicals you need to deal with.
B-52: open panel with screwdriver (they use airloks, right? or camloks?). Maintain your little heart out. Install panel with screwdriver.
B-2: Call structural folks. Cut LO material around every screw, cut and loosen LO material around panel seam. Oh yeah, you need to use stands or padding to work on it. No scratches allowed. Then do your maintenance. Then call structural again so they can reinstall the LO material over every screw hole and panel seam, and then touch up the paint. God help you if you forgot to do something under the panel and you need to have them take it off right when they get done reinstalling it.
I love the B-2 airframe but I'd rather work at McDonalds than work structural at a B-2 base.
On the other hand, the B-2 has a pretty good safety record. The fleet has a total flight hour time of over 75,000 hours with no fatalities.
On the third hand, the B-2 is a money pit in terms of maintenance, and its role can be superseded by the F-22 for the most part.
And on the fourth hand, aircraft crash sometimes. It's a human endeavor, and we all know how that goes. I am glad that the pilots are OK; as far as I know, the B-2 ejection systems has never been tested during operations.
It may be related to the reason that the F-15 fleet grounding was also publicized: The air force is using these events as a bargaining chip to get funding. The F-15's probably could have been flying after a week or two of thorough inspections, but it was drawn out from early November to late January. This had the effect of showing congress:
"See? See what happens when you force us to fly 30-year-old fighter aircraft? The defense of the nation is compromised because we can't afford new aircraft, and maintenance of the old aircraft uses up our entire budget. We need money NOW to buy NEW aircraft that will be more capable and cheaper in the long run to maintain."
And they have a point. Many of you may double-take when you see the price tag of new fighters or bombers, but let me tell you: The cost of the airplane is matched at least bi-annually by fuel, munitions, and maintenance costs. The biggest one is maintenance. One example is the F-16. It is small cheap, relatively simple, and it only has one engine. A base flying around 18 F-16's will require manning of around 800 well-paid, full-time personnel (~$122,000 per day). JP-8 fuel is around $3/gallon, and if you fly 3 sorties of 6 aircraft each, with wing tanks, that's about 3*6*2000*$3=$54,000 worth of fuel PER DAY, 5 or 6 days per week. The regularly-scheduled phase tear-downs probably cost well into the millions in terms of parts alone. Add to this the infrastructure (the base itself, heat, vehicles, electricity, support facilities like RADAR, comm, etc).
What I'm saying is that aircraft maintenance is a spendy affair. The cost of the actual aircraft makes up only a small portion of the air forces expenditures.
This relates to your question in a roundabout way. The reason that it's not secret is that the air force is looking for new aircraft. The B-2 fleet is older than many slashdotters. They are INCREDIBLY labor-intensive to maintain. The new F-22 can take over many of the original roles of the B-2, yet congress is only funding a handful of new aircraft.
The B-2 is a gorgeous machine, but we need to move to a more nimble, adaptable flight platform. Times change. We don't need to penetrate deep into soviet airspace to deliver massive quantities of nuclear ordnance anymore. We need aircraft that can be based out of forward operating locations, load up and scramble quickly, and change their mission in-flight and without compromising the aircraft or the crew. It also helps if the aircraft can fit into hardened hangars at the FOB. The F-22 fits the bill perfectly. The B-2 only flies out of its 2 bases for any mission. Yes, that's right- For a b-2 to fly a mission over Afghanistan, it takes off from Missouri, flies all the way there (subsonic), and returns to Missouri. The missions can take 24-36 hours. There are beds in the cockpit for a relief crew.
That is why this is public. That, and everyone would know anyways. It's hard to keep a crash like this secret- You know, a huge airplane crashing in front of a bunch of people.
It might just be a matter of semantics, but in this case "a bunch of random idiots"=="peers" as in, "a jury of your peers."
According to OED, a peer is: "A person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person"
She was guilty, I have no doubt, and she deserved to be found as such. The outrageous penalty was similar to a harsh penalty given to reprobate or unrepentant murderer; e.g., a murderer's attitude and actions prior to and after the act are taken into account during sentencing.
Despite the juror's inelegant comments, he had a point: the fact that Jammie treated the case with such an attitude of entitlement should affect a jury's decision. It's kind of the way involuntary manslaughter is sentenced differently from first-degree murder.
Yes, I agree that the fines were an order of magnitude too high, but the issue is not nearly as one-sided as you make it out to be. N.B. that the trial took place ~10 blocks from my house.
erm... I have taken many hard drives apart, and I've never seen a cap in them (modern ones, at least) that would have enough power to turn the platters or energize the voice coil of the read head armature. It's been a while since I've seen anything other than surface-mount components.
Usually what I find is a rare-earth magnet at one end of the voice coil's travel that locks the read heads away from the platter in the absence of voltage in the coil; this is aided as well by the torque exerted on the armature by the trace ribbons that feed voltage to the coil and read heads. Note that this magnet is separate and distinct from the two that control the lateral motion of the read/write armature.
The 'clink' that you hear is the armature knocking up against the magnet. If you take the cover off, you can recreate the sound yourself, even without power.
protip: HDD voice coils make great crude galvanometers.
It's not as bad as they make it out to be. Ocean water is corrosive; alcohol is toxic; many solvents are mutagenic; lighter fluid is flammable. All of those things are stored in tanks.
Hydrazine is corrosive, but so are most things that are stored in stainless steel containers (although chlorides are typically not stored in stainless steel, it causes cracks). The hydrazine tank on the F-16 is stainless through and through, as are the tubes and hoses that it would utilize if the epu is fired. Here's a picture of the F-16 epu tank:
It's the cylinder in the second case down. For reference, the tank is about 3.5-4 feet long. I'd say it holds about 15 gallons or so. That tank IS pretty heavy-duty, as you mentioned; it typically survives a crash. However, the tank and associate hardware, when filled, weigh upwards of 150 pounds, which would be unacceptable for a satellite that did not have to endure frequent landings or a crash. It is very likely that the hydrazine tank on the spy sat is nearly identical to this one...
http://www.psi-pci.com/images/80200.jpg...Which is sturdy, but only meant to hold 485 PSIG. I'd say the wall thickness is probably between.060" to.080" to keep it light. I'm going to say that it might not be titanium, which is very sucseptible to hydrogen embrittlement.
I doubt that it would have made it to the surface. Even if it did hit a house, it would probably only do as much damage as an equally-sized and massed device would. Ke=1/2mv^2 and all that.
I personally know of at least one person here on base who's been exposed to hydrazine, and he's fine.
Sweden does have a military- current strength is 65,500 members. We (U.S.) even have an exchange program with them for training. They have an army, a navy, an air force, and a home guard (like national guard).
Can someone explain to me how this substance is different in practice from high-voltage electrical tape? The HV tape is 'self-amalgamating,' that is, when you wrap it over itself, it bonds to itself- you can use it in place of heat-shrink tubing in some applications, and it's good to 69 kV.
plymouth-bishop "3 Bi-Seal" polyethylene high voltage tape, p/n 8051 if you're interested. I use it at work sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about first impressions is that you only get one.
I've given up trying to make political statements with my t-shirts. If clothing is so unimportant to you, then why are you so attached to yours?
-b
I think that "just making it" meant that "the solar flares won't quite touch the surface of the earth."
I was always under the impression that it would only take a relatively small expansion of the sun to boil off our atmosphere and beautiful women.
-b
>>With property tax, it's like you don't really own your property, and you are just renting it from the government.
No, the tax buys you fire and police protection, utilities, roads, public waterways, emergency response, etc. They might take it away because 1- you owe them money, it's part of our social contract, because 2- they're not simply going to let your house burn down or not investigate a murder on your property because you don't want to pay taxes.
If you don't want to pay yearly taxes on your car, then don't- just be prepared to not drive it on public roads.
Actual property taxes, as in, a tax on your couch or stereo- yes, I agree, that is evil. The gov't received their cut from the sales tax, and they have no further responsibility to support your couch and stereo.
-b
Google maps: Should they pay copyright fees for each little section of the map, e.g., as close in as you can zoom times the entirety of the map database? Or one fee for the entire world database?
If I had a band, would I pay the fee oer song or per album? Why not just release one-song albums?
If I was a researcher writing papers, would I pay the fee per subject, per volume, per page, per graph? Would I pay a fee for the main body of work plus the appendices? What about updates to textbooks? One fee for each version, or just one fee for the new version? What would stop someone from publishing my year-old version? There is not a great deal that can be 'value-added' to intro to chemistry books; the value comes from how it is taught in the book.
Let's say I am a photopgrapher specializing in stock images. I have a library of over 100,000 images of random stuff that I hope to sell rights to (a la Getty images). So, what, now I have to pay $100,000 a year/ every ten years to maintain the copyright to my work? Or do I pay $1 per photo when I can take hundreds of photographs a day? I would go broke.
This sure is complicated.
-b
The thing is, those personal property taxes (boat, car, etc.) pay for the public infrastructure that the devices use. You don't need to pay for new tabs on your car this year IF you don't plan on taking it out of your garage. The same goes for boats, etc. You wouldn't pay personal property tax on your couch, because the gov't doesn't maintain the floor that the couch sits on. Things are different for vehicles.
At least in my state (MN).
-b
And then the major labels buy up all the good indie bands, controlling their distribution, and we're left at square one.
I like your idea, but as HL Mencken said, "For every problem, there is an apparent solution that is simple, elegant and wrong."
-b
>>All critical systems have at least double redundancy, that's why nuke plants are so darn expensive to build.
Nuclear plants were especially expensive in the early days, before they decided that they didn't need to design 3X the breakrooms, stairwells, vending machines, and windows. Female employees were pleased by the plentiful bathrooms, while male employees were pleased that every computer came with three kinds of solitaire.
Of course, the sidewalks are still a mess, as any nuclear engineer can attest.
-b
"350 Liberal Arts students claimed by starvation in locked Cooper Hall"
I can see the headline now.
Florida gerrymandering taken to its logical end.
-b
That's a screaming deal. Google "60 million dollars" to get an idea of what that will buy you today. Apparently, the Reno airport is getting a $60 million makeover.
Airport makeover vs entire, accurate map of the U.S. roads.
There are aircraft that cost more than that. One airplane vs "" "".
When I started reading your post I thought you were going to give some dire number, but I think your costs are reasonable.
-b
>>The F-22 isn't "new", it was designed way back in the 80's, perhaps the late 70's, thats hardly "new" by any means.
The RFP for the program resulting in the F-22 didn't get released until 1986. The maiden flight was in 1990. In terms of designing a new airframe from scratch out of exotic materials, and exceeding stealthiness and maneuverability requirements, in addition to an advanced avionics package, yes, the F-22 was developed quickly. And it is new, by all means, as a fighter. I challenge you to find a 5th-generation fighter that was developed in the same period, in the same time frame, that comes even close to the capabilities of the F-22. Not that I think you'll respond.
I think you're missing the point about new aircraft; I guess I assumed I wouldn't have to say it. Half of an airplane is killing bad guys/gathering recon/etc., and the other half is keeping the pilot alive. If we flew P-51's, we'd lose pilots all the time. And many other countries have fighters that could handily take down an entire wing of P-51's with one wing tied behind their back.
And you're forgetting that our offensive capabilities haven't always been, nor will they always be, solely about bombing guys in caves. There is much more at stake here.
-b
At the risk of sounding political (this isn't meant to be flamebait), Europe usually stands to benefit from U.S.-led advances in military hardware. This has been true for as long as we've even been in the weapons business. Europe is, as a group, one of our best customers, along with Korea, Australia, and India. The DoD spends upwards of $30 billion a year on R&D, and this cost is not passed on to our customers. It really is a screaming deal for you (not me as a taxpayer, though). The U.S. sells about 45% of the world's exported/imported arms.
Please, please, please- our current dingbat president will be out of office soon, and I would like us to be able to start a fresh, positive chapter in world history where we are not the stupid bully. Arms sales is just what we're good at. Sweden has IKEA, France has Airbus, Finland probably has something, and we have Lockheed/Martin/Boeing/Grumman/Northrop/McDonnel Douglass/General Dynamics/Fairchild/Raytheon/Bell/etc/etc.
Our B-2's are apparently either too secret or too expensive for other countries to import, but I can assure you that they are saving up for that day.
Also, maybe a little off-topic, but nearly every industrialized country has missiles capable of 'liberating' other countries. Missiles don't need to be stealthy and they are part of the reason that we need stealth aircraft in the first place. Whether it's a missile or a bomb dropped from a B-2, everyone's going to know about it minutes after it happens.
-b
>>I would estimate the chance that they solely depend on satellites now to be small.
You're right. We still use the U-2 quite a bit, we use the MQ-1/9 Predator as a HUGE part of our medium-range surveillance over the AOR, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk is beginning to enter a useful operational role as a replacement for the U-2.
As for the satellite thing- If your enemy can track and identify your secret satellite, he can probably track your aircraft as well. The U-2 is not technically a stealth aircraft; it was designed to evade radar by flying above the russians' radar range. I don't know much about radar systems, so I can't explain that part, but I do know that at lower altitudes the U-2 would not be stealthy simply because of how it's built.
I personally think that it's great to be using unmanned recon aircraft (sorry, pilots...). The Global Hawk especially is pretty damned impressive; it's already made an autonomous flight across the pacific ocean, and it is FAA approved to fly in civilian air corridors without NOTAMs. Sweet.
-b
Compared to 4,000 F-16's, 183 F-22's is indeed a handful. Over 1,000 B-52's were built, if memory serves. The pentagon originally wanted 381 F-22's, which is still not a huge number. However, in all fairness, the F-22 would be better compared to the F-15, app. 600 of which are in service with us.
We can do much more with a modern aircraft than with our aging F-15C/D / F-16C fleet. The F-16 was intended to be basically a 'throw-away' aircraft; when it was introduced, not many people liked it, and it seemed doomed to failure. Its resiliency and proven combat record have shown us just what a capable airframe it is. The F-22 is much, much more capable. Have you seen them fly, in person, up close? They are amazing. Their capabilities are amazing. They truly are a next-generation fighter.
Yes, F-16s can still complete the missions assigned to them. That is irrelevant, though, because F-22's wouldn't just carry out F-16 missions. They would carry out F-22 missions. I know for a fact that their are mission that the F-16 fleet is struggling to meet, because I work for an in-demand unit. It is a constant struggle to keep our pilots trained and our aircraft ready to go in the face of constant budget cuts and manpower cuts handed down from above. I don't think that we should return to a cold-war sized budget, but things are getting lean for us.
The thing is, a wing wouldn't need 18 F-22's to to perform the work of 18 F-16s. The F-22 can carry 48,000 lbs (max takeoff weight) compared to the F-16's 24,000 lbs (max takeoff weight). In addition, the F-22 is a stealth/stealthy airframe, capable of carrying ~2,000 lbs of armament in internal bays, retaining its stealth. The avionics are updated to next-gen standards, and the maneuverability and range put it in a class by itself.
In the end, this isn't completely about economics. The ostensible purpose of the military is national defense, and the pentagon feels that this aircraft would play a key role in that capacity. We could just as easily complete these missions with P-51's with updated avionics. Why not? All we're doing is dropping the occasional JDAM on insurgent hideouts, right? That kind of attitude shows a complete lack of foresight in terms of defense. If the pentagon felt that way, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
We can agree to disagree, but IMO, the F-22 is worth the cost based on whole-picture metrics.
-b
Well, technically it did exist. It was first rolled out in 1988.
The B-1B Lancer first flew in 1984, and at 1/50th the radar signature of the B-52 (with similar mass), I'd classify it in the stealth/stealthy category.
-b
Ah, that would explain the wings, then.
Maybe it didn't need air, but it didn't 'need' space, either.
-b
Part of the reason for the low MC rate of our stealth aircraft is special maintenance. LO surfaces are a bitch to work with, not to mention the toxic chemicals you need to deal with.
B-52: open panel with screwdriver (they use airloks, right? or camloks?). Maintain your little heart out. Install panel with screwdriver.
B-2: Call structural folks. Cut LO material around every screw, cut and loosen LO material around panel seam. Oh yeah, you need to use stands or padding to work on it. No scratches allowed. Then do your maintenance. Then call structural again so they can reinstall the LO material over every screw hole and panel seam, and then touch up the paint. God help you if you forgot to do something under the panel and you need to have them take it off right when they get done reinstalling it.
I love the B-2 airframe but I'd rather work at McDonalds than work structural at a B-2 base.
-b
On the other hand, the B-2 has a pretty good safety record. The fleet has a total flight hour time of over 75,000 hours with no fatalities.
On the third hand, the B-2 is a money pit in terms of maintenance, and its role can be superseded by the F-22 for the most part.
And on the fourth hand, aircraft crash sometimes. It's a human endeavor, and we all know how that goes. I am glad that the pilots are OK; as far as I know, the B-2 ejection systems has never been tested during operations.
-b
It may be related to the reason that the F-15 fleet grounding was also publicized: The air force is using these events as a bargaining chip to get funding. The F-15's probably could have been flying after a week or two of thorough inspections, but it was drawn out from early November to late January. This had the effect of showing congress:
"See? See what happens when you force us to fly 30-year-old fighter aircraft? The defense of the nation is compromised because we can't afford new aircraft, and maintenance of the old aircraft uses up our entire budget. We need money NOW to buy NEW aircraft that will be more capable and cheaper in the long run to maintain."
And they have a point. Many of you may double-take when you see the price tag of new fighters or bombers, but let me tell you: The cost of the airplane is matched at least bi-annually by fuel, munitions, and maintenance costs. The biggest one is maintenance. One example is the F-16. It is small cheap, relatively simple, and it only has one engine.
A base flying around 18 F-16's will require manning of around 800 well-paid, full-time personnel (~$122,000 per day).
JP-8 fuel is around $3/gallon, and if you fly 3 sorties of 6 aircraft each, with wing tanks, that's about 3*6*2000*$3=$54,000 worth of fuel PER DAY, 5 or 6 days per week.
The regularly-scheduled phase tear-downs probably cost well into the millions in terms of parts alone.
Add to this the infrastructure (the base itself, heat, vehicles, electricity, support facilities like RADAR, comm, etc).
What I'm saying is that aircraft maintenance is a spendy affair. The cost of the actual aircraft makes up only a small portion of the air forces expenditures.
This relates to your question in a roundabout way. The reason that it's not secret is that the air force is looking for new aircraft. The B-2 fleet is older than many slashdotters. They are INCREDIBLY labor-intensive to maintain. The new F-22 can take over many of the original roles of the B-2, yet congress is only funding a handful of new aircraft.
The B-2 is a gorgeous machine, but we need to move to a more nimble, adaptable flight platform. Times change. We don't need to penetrate deep into soviet airspace to deliver massive quantities of nuclear ordnance anymore. We need aircraft that can be based out of forward operating locations, load up and scramble quickly, and change their mission in-flight and without compromising the aircraft or the crew. It also helps if the aircraft can fit into hardened hangars at the FOB. The F-22 fits the bill perfectly. The B-2 only flies out of its 2 bases for any mission. Yes, that's right- For a b-2 to fly a mission over Afghanistan, it takes off from Missouri, flies all the way there (subsonic), and returns to Missouri. The missions can take 24-36 hours. There are beds in the cockpit for a relief crew.
That is why this is public. That, and everyone would know anyways. It's hard to keep a crash like this secret- You know, a huge airplane crashing in front of a bunch of people.
-b
...and I'm no genious... LOL... I'm sorry but that is just gold, man- pure gold. -bIt might just be a matter of semantics, but in this case "a bunch of random idiots"=="peers" as in, "a jury of your peers."
According to OED, a peer is:
"A person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person"
She was guilty, I have no doubt, and she deserved to be found as such. The outrageous penalty was similar to a harsh penalty given to reprobate or unrepentant murderer; e.g., a murderer's attitude and actions prior to and after the act are taken into account during sentencing.
Despite the juror's inelegant comments, he had a point: the fact that Jammie treated the case with such an attitude of entitlement should affect a jury's decision. It's kind of the way involuntary manslaughter is sentenced differently from first-degree murder.
Yes, I agree that the fines were an order of magnitude too high, but the issue is not nearly as one-sided as you make it out to be. N.B. that the trial took place ~10 blocks from my house.
-b
erm... I have taken many hard drives apart, and I've never seen a cap in them (modern ones, at least) that would have enough power to turn the platters or energize the voice coil of the read head armature. It's been a while since I've seen anything other than surface-mount components.
Usually what I find is a rare-earth magnet at one end of the voice coil's travel that locks the read heads away from the platter in the absence of voltage in the coil; this is aided as well by the torque exerted on the armature by the trace ribbons that feed voltage to the coil and read heads. Note that this magnet is separate and distinct from the two that control the lateral motion of the read/write armature.
The 'clink' that you hear is the armature knocking up against the magnet. If you take the cover off, you can recreate the sound yourself, even without power.
protip: HDD voice coils make great crude galvanometers.
-b
IWAHED (I work around hydrazine every day):
...Which is sturdy, but only meant to hold 485 PSIG. I'd say the wall thickness is probably between .060" to .080" to keep it light. I'm going to say that it might not be titanium, which is very sucseptible to hydrogen embrittlement.
It's not as bad as they make it out to be. Ocean water is corrosive; alcohol is toxic; many solvents are mutagenic; lighter fluid is flammable. All of those things are stored in tanks.
Hydrazine is corrosive, but so are most things that are stored in stainless steel containers (although chlorides are typically not stored in stainless steel, it causes cracks). The hydrazine tank on the F-16 is stainless through and through, as are the tubes and hoses that it would utilize if the epu is fired. Here's a picture of the F-16 epu tank:
http://www.advpack.com/custom_shipping_cases/custom_cases.html
It's the cylinder in the second case down. For reference, the tank is about 3.5-4 feet long. I'd say it holds about 15 gallons or so. That tank IS pretty heavy-duty, as you mentioned; it typically survives a crash. However, the tank and associate hardware, when filled, weigh upwards of 150 pounds, which would be unacceptable for a satellite that did not have to endure frequent landings or a crash. It is very likely that the hydrazine tank on the spy sat is nearly identical to this one...
http://www.psi-pci.com/images/80200.jpg
I doubt that it would have made it to the surface. Even if it did hit a house, it would probably only do as much damage as an equally-sized and massed device would. Ke=1/2mv^2 and all that.
I personally know of at least one person here on base who's been exposed to hydrazine, and he's fine.
-b
"I refute it thus" /kicks a large stone
-Samuel Johnson
Sweden does have a military- current strength is 65,500 members. We (U.S.) even have an exchange program with them for training.
They have an army, a navy, an air force, and a home guard (like national guard).
-b
Can someone explain to me how this substance is different in practice from high-voltage electrical tape? The HV tape is 'self-amalgamating,' that is, when you wrap it over itself, it bonds to itself- you can use it in place of heat-shrink tubing in some applications, and it's good to 69 kV.
plymouth-bishop "3 Bi-Seal" polyethylene high voltage tape, p/n 8051 if you're interested. I use it at work sometimes.
-b