Of course neither country has a strong infrastructure to build such an endeavour (they act like they do but it all looks pretty dismal). However, far better than discussions on building up missile bases aimed at each other (i.e. ABM site in Poland, Russia countering that with additional missiles).
Another to consider is Russians are essential for USA space program (and other way around). NASA was created because the Russians launched first satellite. Apollo program was created because the Russians launched first man in space. Shuttle was created because Russians still flying spaceships. ISS was created because we partnered with Russians (Space Station Freedom never got off the ground because no Russians involved). VSE, Obamaspace, SLS, and derivatives going nowhere because it has nothing to do with the Russians. Well there is the USAF space command, maybe they're still countering the Russians.
So if you are going to do a big space program... don't forget the Russians. Of course some will say don't forget Russian spies but so what else is new. If you are a country you gotta deal with spies, like server owners have to deal with spyware.
Well, looks like got a bit of relief as this bill send back to drawing board. More opportunity to prevent bills like this one. If you all wondering why EFF asks for help and donations, now you know.
Alrighty WTF is this heading all about? This thing about certain people so worried about pirates reminds me of similar situations when a country had a great thing going and they dismantled it out of fear of someone "stealing it." Colossus, an awesome computer designed and built by the Brits decipher German encrypted transmissions during WWII, ok so this thing was big and scary with zillion vacuum tubes and miles of cables but it was (first?) digital computer. But Churchill so worried this technology may fall into the wrong hands (countries behind the Iron Curtain), he had it dismantled and disbanded the team. If not, could UK been a leader computer technology in later years?
And there was the Avro Arrow, the most badass fighter jet of the time that could go really fast and really high. Five prototypes flying before SR71 and the XB70. But (there's of stories floating around) they did have considerable tooling and skills to fabricate titanium structures. But this technology and skill is considered secret. All Arrow jets were destroyed and tooling dismantled when program was cancelled, it seems this was deliberately done to prevent the Soviets from stealing ability to fabricate titanium into high speed jets. At the time Canada was third place in aerospace technology. If not dismantled, could Canada been a more formidable aerospace technology leader in later years?
Now I may have some facts screwed up but you all get what I am leading to. There are some people so worried about pirates they want to implement means to dismantle internet technology that was developed here in USA but in doing so they will place us way down with third world countries.
> now it requires that as few people as possible hate you. 'I think we should reflect on that before we start another war.'
lots of luck with that, it seems now that we are "pulling out" of Iraq, we're looking to start another war with Iran (OK, so we've been "at war" with them since 1979) but it seems they're (high level govt officials and many Americans) itching for a shooting war with them.
I don't really care about gadgets with exception of two-way radios (which are all user add-ons). My gripe is I hate the trends of car designs particularly shorter windows. I recently drove a new Acura (loaner while my older one was in for repair), it was scary. So many blind spots and reduced peripheral vision. It was like driving a bus or large truck, I had to constantly be aware of others approaching from behind. With a smaller car, you can quickly look to know surroundings before changing lanes especially doing it quickly.
I have to say my best car was a 1982 Mercury Zephyer (basically a Ford Fairmont). I got it for $3600 used in 1986 at 50K miles, drove it to 214K miles (by then piston rings were shot and the car was getting to be too much of a smoko). It was 4-door, big windows, small (or mid) size with 22mpg (it had a 20 gal tank for a whopping 440 mile range). Trunk was huge, lots of leg room both front and back. When me and my buddies went someplace, we used my car as all four of us can comfortably occupy. It had column shift so no big divider in the center. This makes it ideal to setup cluster of two-way radios (however, back then I was not into it as much as I'm now). Previous car I had before was a TransAm, I first got it because it looked fun but sold it a year later. Yes it has the big 400hp engine but it pretty much can only seat two (back seat is worthless), trunk was small, range was only 200 miles (it was a gas guzzler but tank was small), and basically it was uncomfortable to sit in after awhile. My friends thought I was crazy for giving that up for the Zephyer (they called it an old lady car).
I miss that Mercury Zephyer, it would be great for all my commo equipment which is ***difficult*** to setup in today's cars. No, I'm not going to get some big SUV, truck, Suburban, or (shudder) a used Crown Vic. However, looking back Ford hit it right with that model, like Chrysler with the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant. Not expensive and the damn things run forever. In fact I had a Valiant bought used with a lot of miles, drove for lots more miles (like an idiot I gave away and bought the TransAm). My friend continued to drive the Valiant for many more miles until it was t-boned by a 4-wheeler (and later scrapped, crushed, sent to Japan and made into Toyota bumpers).
I always think how US automakers struggle and yet they had some good cars. OK so these some of these are not chick magnets but there are more effective ways to get laid. As far as loading up vehicles with electronic gadgets, should I say previous/. article on The Future of Hi-Tech Auto Theft?
FYI, in California it is illegal to work a laptop in front seat while driving. Someone mentioned he has his laptop mounted on one of those stands like in police cars, he isn't bothered about it as they think he must work for the government.
Well, going OT on this one but I gotta unload. I recently saw the movie "Network" (Finch as "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"), I've seen clips of it before but watched the entire movie. It has Peter Finch as a major network anchor who goes off on a diatribe during broadcast, "I've got nothing to say but bull---- because all we have been talking about in the news is bull----." Everyone in the control room is shocked, one says "cut him off" but William Holden (show producer) says no, keep him on. Earlier he Holden was attending a TV network banquet and president of the network announced they are scaling back the news division as it is not profitable [for those too young to remember, news divisions were not moneymakers like they are nowadays]. Understandably Holden figures let this anchor continue with his diatribe because his news division is going down anyway. In other activities in this movie was they got ahold of a film made by a group of terrorists as they were robbing a bank (i.e. SLA Patty Hearst style). A director, portrayed by Faye Dunaway gets this idea of recruiting this group to do other films and they can have a reality show with robberies, assassinations, etc. Rest of the group gets this WTF look on their faces and ask is she really sure they can get good ratings. Later instead of canning the anchor for his diatribe on BS, they retain him and encourage him to do more. Meanwhile show directors and the terrorist group argue over who gets credit. Going back to the anchor portrayed by Finch, the show becomes something like Jerry Springer but instead of guests, he makes grand speeches such as TV is all lies and BS and the most powerful propaganda machine ever. Near the end of the movie, his ratings were going down so show producers decide to have the last show go out with a bang. They had a couple guys in audience pull out guns and shoot the anchor while on live TV. It was a bizarre show but flash forward to the 21st century, shows these days have all those attributes.
On being on topic, I could give a rat's ass about TV tech. I want content!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know back when they paid writers livable wages, Sci-fi channel had sci-fi shows, History channel had history.... and when you go way back when into the 20th century you can watch old movies on late night OTA TV (I was mesmerized by Gina Lollobrigida when I first saw the movie "Fast and Sexy" in the 1970s).
Yep, exactly. Going to Mars is really hard, heck even getting to orbit is tough. So many things have to work or else the whole thing fails. This spacecraft failure is most likely one particular item that was not thoroughly tested (my personal speculation). It does remind me of a mention in the book "Korolev" by James Harford where it describes when Soviets launched a satellite that could have been the first to detect Van Allen radiation belts. However the tape recorder onboard failed because engineer responsible said no more ground testing is needed (I may have forgot some of the details, don't have the book handy right now). My impression is some of the spacecraft people wanted to do some more tests or add some backup circuitry but the engineer insisted the tape recorder will work (I guess it records signal data for later transmission back to ground stations). Tape recorder failed or the data was out of calibration. But I'm thinking this was very ambitious as those early years was a steep learning curve for both US and USSR.
Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.
It seems most people see launching things into LEO is routine but talking with people who actually do the work (instead of armchair QB and paperpushers on the upper floors), rockets are very complex with so many parts and components. All (with exception of items covered by redundancy) must work in order to achieve speed and altitude to sustain orbit. Are they scaling back someplace that impacts quality? Of course USA hasn't had big failures with human carrying vehicles since 2003 (but then we don't fly such anymore).
Sorry, I cannot come up with a "In Soviet Russia..." or a car analogy. But this thread is just begging for one.
So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.
Yep. To make the battles more "clean" (reduce collateral damage) they used "computer games" to carry out battles. Reason is they have been at war for 500 years and come to an agreement to make the war not as devastating. Program would tally up casulties and each side by agreement have to send some of their people into these tubes that vaporizes them. Capt Kirk blasted a portion of their computer system that also brought down both offense and defense computer (and probably severed the comm link with the other planet). President of the planet they were on was shocked, "Do you know what this means?!?! Other side will see it as a breach of the agreement and will think we are in for serious war!" Kirk said, "yes! and you better start building guns, bombs and another weapons!" He then said, "or an alternate is you can have peace with the other side." President didn't know anything else as they have been at war for 500 years and tradition prevails, he would not know what to do [no skills to wage peace]. A dipolmat was with the landing party at the time offered his services to help make a peace treaty.
thanks to all that replied to my "gripes" of my conceal carry post. I guess I can see the logic of letting students and teachers carry guns.... provided they're not nutzoid. However, I have read many public schools have metal detectors and security guards (a school "secured" like an airport!?!?!). Seems like a terrible tradeoff, I remember in the 20th century when I only had to watch out for bullies, not bullets at my school. And back then you can go to airports, hang out and watch airplanes instead of being labeled a potential terrorist like in that FAA poster.
Speaking of hand guns, someone said if someone pulls out a handgun, take off running as most likely they will miss. Unless the shooter is trained to handle handguns, the way an untrained person fires the weapon, they will inadvertantly mis-aim when pulling the trigger. I read someplace that significant number of people shot are friends and family either from "moments of rage" or "friendly fire" (mistaken identity).
What gets me steamed about budgets is huge debate on small stuff. Geez a $40 payroll tax cut? (which is really Social Security deduction people should get back later as it is an entitlement). All this debate over $40!?!?!? It is like they argue over NASA, NSF, NOAA, etc. budgets that don't amount to diddly. Meanwhile on big ticket items (DoD) is never debated. I'm going to mention Social Security as that is entitlement program separate from budgets that lead to deficits. SS has its own problems (will leave that for another thread).
It is the ***same*** mentality that people who want to lose weight so they have a Diet Coke along with a large meal. If ya want to lose weight you must either reduce intake, do more exercise, or both. A Diet Coke is only 0.05% of the big picture. Be a man and have a real coke.
Regarding incidents of mass shootings, i.e. Columbine and Virginia Tech, a gun enthusiast said all these places are "gun free" zones. He said more and more states are removing gun bans on various places because places that allow conceal carry never had mass shootings. Logic goes that if anyone is allowed conceal carry, then whenever or whereever a madman shooter goes wild, other people (students and teachers) can pull out their handguns and waste the perpetrator. This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid these days. Like using logic that there were "no terrorist attacks" in the 1800s (there were but were called something else).
>Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
Or maybe they have but those very few times have not been reported. There was a discussion someplace (this forum or someplace else) that while their airport security is very good, it is not absolute. The myth goes on like Rolls Royce cars never break down (but spoke with a RR owner and he says his car needs maintenance all the time). Then your airports may be secure but everyplace else is not. So then you have to secure everything then the country becomes a prison and basically a non-economy.
I was thinking the same, I think what made PARC, Bell Labs, etc. successful is they had smart people acting like "alchemists." Now embracing a good idea and putting it to the market is wise for a company, however, if you first have to show positive impact of revenue stream then that will create a "glass ceiling." It seems new concepts come about because someone had a passion to make something, and it would be nice to make a few bucks in the meantime. But if intent is to make lotsa money, then that passion ("I gotta make this idea into actual thing or I will die") is squelched (the glass ceiling).
I think the fatal aspect of the F22 is the cost (it is rrrrrrreeeeeeaaaaaaaallllllllyyyyyyyy expensive). Now it is said "war drives progress" but if it becomes so costly that not even the Pentagon can afford it then what is the point? There are those saying "this is the high price of freedom" (whatever that means while we ram SOPA and jail some poor smuck that downloaded a X-men movie) then LockMart should/can come up with a airplane that will not bankrupt the country. I haven't heard of any of those guys especially higher ups saying they are willing to take a pay cut from their 7-digit salaries and various perks. Or doing some creative means of making the aircraft affordable.
Or as in another post regarding Avro Arrow, will engineers laid off from F22 move north to Canada and work on their manned lunar program? (I know, a silly comparison).
uhmmm, you mean like when Canada developed the Avro Arrow which was the the most bad ass fighter jet of the time (and competed with US made jets) but only to cancel the program and have all those engineers move south to NASA and take important roles in the Apollo program?
... and why it was designed the way it was. What was their intentions (flight every two weeks) but what resulted (astronomical operating costs). Cannot really blame those that made the decisions as Shuttle was the ***first*** attempt for a lowcost reusable spaceship. It was a huge effort requiring lots of work and tough decisions, the kind that mentally cripples most folks*. Consider the first "reusable" airplanes for transport of multiple passengers and cargo had their host of problems (i.e. Tri-motors).
Here it from the guys that made the decisions in these MIT lectures (there are many, below just a few). What moved me the most is much of talent, infrastructure and companies that designed, built, and tested items of the Shuttle no longer exists. I say give it up on trying to revive Shuttle. First rebuilt the industrial base, otherwise we will struggling like Korolev trying to get resources.
*I talked to someone that worked on wind tunnel tests of various Shuttle configurations in the early 70s (his work was dynamic pressure measurements from shockwaves). There was a period when people were working double shifts in the wind tunnel facility (16 hours on, 8 hours off instead of usual day, swing, grave shift crews) while people at NASA HQ were arguing with the OMB. Idea of SRBs meant they drilled holes and mounted SRB segments on the ET portion of wind tunnel model (didn't bother to remove it from test section for work in machine shop). This double-shift work went on and on. Finally after (I think it was months) and on a Friday, they said "alright, we can go back to regular single shifts and will see you Monday." This person I spoke with said him and another guy he worked with went to have some pizza and beer. The other guy died the next day, he was only 49 years old.
UV is the showstopper as it is very intense above 100K, it was not expected to last more than a few hours in sunlight. They launched it (along with three others) late Sunday afternoon so most of eastward travel is done at night and figured the sun UV will deteriorate the latex following morning causing balloon to pop and land. Objective of two balloons (K6RPT-11 and -12) is distance. These were planned to be floaters (buoyant at 120K or so) but expect to only make it partway across the US, K6RPT-12 popped and landed in Indiana (some hams have tracked it down and will recover). But....... K6RPT-11 kept going throughout the day then crossed the coastline the next night and contact was lost over Atlantic. Then it was picked up the next morning from Azores, now hams on other side of pond got active on tracking this thing. It kept going, survived two days of UV but looks like it didn't survive the UV the third day.
You all has gots to admit this is one for the books!!!!!!!!!
Other two balloons K6RPT-12 and -13 were going for altitude record (CNSP achieved a record of 136,545 ft in Oct). These came down in west Nevada close to that shaded area of restricted airspace that has Tonopah Test Range and Groom Lake. Payload of K6RPT-13 is same as the record altitude setter from October and has signatures of CNSP members, I think they should have kept it and enshrined in a plexiglass pyramid. But I guess if it gets lost then may as well lose it in Area 51.
well maybe I was being too idealistic. In the ideal world i.e. back in NACA days they can spend time on research, i.e. RT Jones working on swept wing (he really wanted to do the oblique wing) http://www.desktop.aero/library/whitepaper/OFW_WP_Ch1_v0711.html
I'm concerned about declining government research facilities i.e. NASA. Reason is private companies are profit driven, government is not. Before you all start screaming "damn socialists" you need to realize there was a time which researchers can work on developing new technology and not be concerned with PHB asking for productivity reports. Now we can argue about the goals (i.e. weapons) but looking at NASA's predecessor N.A.C.A. which they had facilities and labs (many at Ames Research Center, it was Ames Aeronautical Laboratory in the days). These facilities housed scientists, engineers, technicians to work on various things too expensive and risky for private companies, it was this work that helped US become a leader in aerospace technology (specifically why NACA was created in 1915). Again we can argue about govt research but look at it this way, if we don't do it someone else will (and they are). At Edwards AFB in the 1950s, Scott Crossfield said of the inventory of the highest flying, fastest flying aircraft, "Not even Howard Hughes has what we have!" Twenty years before, Hughes had the fastest airplane.
Many people argue over govt waste, corporate handouts, and evils of socialism but consider the US has the best airplanes because the research and development was subsidized by the US govt. Heck, other countries do the same. Now there was a time when private companies did research without concern of quarterly profits. Bell labs (the transistor), Xerox Palo Alto (desktop computer with windows and mouse), IBM Almaden (harddrive). But these private research labs are now applied technology centers. I don't really know if Google has a dedicated lab devoted to longterm research and they may not be around long enough.
Speaking of Hanger One, Navy made big use of it when Moffett was active. It housed many P3s which can be serviced and shielded from rain and wind. Airshows they had back then (1980s) had huge turnout of 100,000s and more (admittance was free). Companies along Ellis st got pissed with so many cars parked in their lots but flying demos were impressive and lots of displays even USGS had a display. You can tour P3s and talk with the officers. Amateur radio people provided communications support including amateur TV, I talked with one guy who was on top of Hanger One with his ATV camera, he said he was able to see the planes i.e. Blue Angels fly across right at his eye level. He said was scary climbing up as walkway inside was thin with a single cable on each side.
From a bio of Joseph Ames which ARC was named after, and a true American who put service before self:
from http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001639.html
Ames expected the NACA to encourage engineering education. He pressed universities to train more aerodynamicists, then structured NACA to give young engineers on-the-job training. Ames gave the NACA a focused vision that was research-based and decided that aerodynamics was the most important field of endeavor. Two years later he accepted the Collier Trophy on behalf of the NACA. He kept the NACA alive when Herbert Hoover tried to eliminate it and transfer its duties to industry.
Ames accepted a nomination by Air Minister Hermann Goring to the Deutsche Akademie der Luftfartforschung. Ames then considered it an honor, many Americans did, and was surprised to learn about the massive Nazi investment in aeronautical infrastructure, then six times larger than the NACA. Ames urged the funding for a second laboratory [ at Moffett Field ] and expansion of the NACA facilities to prepare for war.
they have been using Hangers 2 and 3 which do not have many aircraft inside. The Airship Ventures "Eureka" takes little space (it is a pretty small airship for those two hangers). Air Guard, 129 Rescue Wing, supposably doesn't want to place aircraft inside Hangers 2 and 3. Mythbusters will be able to use those hangers for quite some time.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course neither country has a strong infrastructure to build such an endeavour (they act like they do but it all looks pretty dismal). However, far better than discussions on building up missile bases aimed at each other (i.e. ABM site in Poland, Russia countering that with additional missiles).
Another to consider is Russians are essential for USA space program (and other way around). NASA was created because the Russians launched first satellite. Apollo program was created because the Russians launched first man in space. Shuttle was created because Russians still flying spaceships. ISS was created because we partnered with Russians (Space Station Freedom never got off the ground because no Russians involved). VSE, Obamaspace, SLS, and derivatives going nowhere because it has nothing to do with the Russians. Well there is the USAF space command, maybe they're still countering the Russians.
So if you are going to do a big space program... don't forget the Russians. Of course some will say don't forget Russian spies but so what else is new. If you are a country you gotta deal with spies, like server owners have to deal with spyware.
> I'm surprised he was even required to go through the screening process
maybe he said, "I'm Rand Paul!"
TSA screener: "yeah right, and I'm John Boehner. Now hold still."
Well, looks like got a bit of relief as this bill send back to drawing board. More opportunity to prevent bills like this one. If you all wondering why EFF asks for help and donations, now you know.
Alrighty WTF is this heading all about? This thing about certain people so worried about pirates reminds me of similar situations when a country had a great thing going and they dismantled it out of fear of someone "stealing it." Colossus, an awesome computer designed and built by the Brits decipher German encrypted transmissions during WWII, ok so this thing was big and scary with zillion vacuum tubes and miles of cables but it was (first?) digital computer. But Churchill so worried this technology may fall into the wrong hands (countries behind the Iron Curtain), he had it dismantled and disbanded the team. If not, could UK been a leader computer technology in later years?
And there was the Avro Arrow, the most badass fighter jet of the time that could go really fast and really high. Five prototypes flying before SR71 and the XB70. But (there's of stories floating around) they did have considerable tooling and skills to fabricate titanium structures. But this technology and skill is considered secret. All Arrow jets were destroyed and tooling dismantled when program was cancelled, it seems this was deliberately done to prevent the Soviets from stealing ability to fabricate titanium into high speed jets. At the time Canada was third place in aerospace technology. If not dismantled, could Canada been a more formidable aerospace technology leader in later years?
Now I may have some facts screwed up but you all get what I am leading to. There are some people so worried about pirates they want to implement means to dismantle internet technology that was developed here in USA but in doing so they will place us way down with third world countries.
> now it requires that as few people as possible hate you. 'I think we should reflect on that before we start another war.'
lots of luck with that, it seems now that we are "pulling out" of Iraq, we're looking to start another war with Iran (OK, so we've been "at war" with them since 1979) but it seems they're (high level govt officials and many Americans) itching for a shooting war with them.
I don't really care about gadgets with exception of two-way radios (which are all user add-ons). My gripe is I hate the trends of car designs particularly shorter windows. I recently drove a new Acura (loaner while my older one was in for repair), it was scary. So many blind spots and reduced peripheral vision. It was like driving a bus or large truck, I had to constantly be aware of others approaching from behind. With a smaller car, you can quickly look to know surroundings before changing lanes especially doing it quickly.
I have to say my best car was a 1982 Mercury Zephyer (basically a Ford Fairmont). I got it for $3600 used in 1986 at 50K miles, drove it to 214K miles (by then piston rings were shot and the car was getting to be too much of a smoko). It was 4-door, big windows, small (or mid) size with 22mpg (it had a 20 gal tank for a whopping 440 mile range). Trunk was huge, lots of leg room both front and back. When me and my buddies went someplace, we used my car as all four of us can comfortably occupy. It had column shift so no big divider in the center. This makes it ideal to setup cluster of two-way radios (however, back then I was not into it as much as I'm now). Previous car I had before was a TransAm, I first got it because it looked fun but sold it a year later. Yes it has the big 400hp engine but it pretty much can only seat two (back seat is worthless), trunk was small, range was only 200 miles (it was a gas guzzler but tank was small), and basically it was uncomfortable to sit in after awhile. My friends thought I was crazy for giving that up for the Zephyer (they called it an old lady car).
I miss that Mercury Zephyer, it would be great for all my commo equipment which is ***difficult*** to setup in today's cars. No, I'm not going to get some big SUV, truck, Suburban, or (shudder) a used Crown Vic. However, looking back Ford hit it right with that model, like Chrysler with the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant. Not expensive and the damn things run forever. In fact I had a Valiant bought used with a lot of miles, drove for lots more miles (like an idiot I gave away and bought the TransAm). My friend continued to drive the Valiant for many more miles until it was t-boned by a 4-wheeler (and later scrapped, crushed, sent to Japan and made into Toyota bumpers).
I always think how US automakers struggle and yet they had some good cars. OK so these some of these are not chick magnets but there are more effective ways to get laid. As far as loading up vehicles with electronic gadgets, should I say previous /. article on The Future of Hi-Tech Auto Theft?
FYI, in California it is illegal to work a laptop in front seat while driving. Someone mentioned he has his laptop mounted on one of those stands like in police cars, he isn't bothered about it as they think he must work for the government.
Lo-Jack freq is 173.075 if you want to DF one of these guys.
Well, going OT on this one but I gotta unload. I recently saw the movie "Network" (Finch as "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"), I've seen clips of it before but watched the entire movie. It has Peter Finch as a major network anchor who goes off on a diatribe during broadcast, "I've got nothing to say but bull---- because all we have been talking about in the news is bull----." Everyone in the control room is shocked, one says "cut him off" but William Holden (show producer) says no, keep him on. Earlier he Holden was attending a TV network banquet and president of the network announced they are scaling back the news division as it is not profitable [for those too young to remember, news divisions were not moneymakers like they are nowadays]. Understandably Holden figures let this anchor continue with his diatribe because his news division is going down anyway. In other activities in this movie was they got ahold of a film made by a group of terrorists as they were robbing a bank (i.e. SLA Patty Hearst style). A director, portrayed by Faye Dunaway gets this idea of recruiting this group to do other films and they can have a reality show with robberies, assassinations, etc. Rest of the group gets this WTF look on their faces and ask is she really sure they can get good ratings. Later instead of canning the anchor for his diatribe on BS, they retain him and encourage him to do more. Meanwhile show directors and the terrorist group argue over who gets credit. Going back to the anchor portrayed by Finch, the show becomes something like Jerry Springer but instead of guests, he makes grand speeches such as TV is all lies and BS and the most powerful propaganda machine ever. Near the end of the movie, his ratings were going down so show producers decide to have the last show go out with a bang. They had a couple guys in audience pull out guns and shoot the anchor while on live TV. It was a bizarre show but flash forward to the 21st century, shows these days have all those attributes.
On being on topic, I could give a rat's ass about TV tech. I want content!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know back when they paid writers livable wages, Sci-fi channel had sci-fi shows, History channel had history.... and when you go way back when into the 20th century you can watch old movies on late night OTA TV (I was mesmerized by Gina Lollobrigida when I first saw the movie "Fast and Sexy" in the 1970s).
Yep, exactly. Going to Mars is really hard, heck even getting to orbit is tough. So many things have to work or else the whole thing fails. This spacecraft failure is most likely one particular item that was not thoroughly tested (my personal speculation). It does remind me of a mention in the book "Korolev" by James Harford where it describes when Soviets launched a satellite that could have been the first to detect Van Allen radiation belts. However the tape recorder onboard failed because engineer responsible said no more ground testing is needed (I may have forgot some of the details, don't have the book handy right now). My impression is some of the spacecraft people wanted to do some more tests or add some backup circuitry but the engineer insisted the tape recorder will work (I guess it records signal data for later transmission back to ground stations). Tape recorder failed or the data was out of calibration. But I'm thinking this was very ambitious as those early years was a steep learning curve for both US and USSR.
If you have not, read the book. It is very detailed, almost have to indulge yourself into "thinking Russian" (i.e. like reading Anna Karenina) since it is a different culture for engineers. http://www.amazon.com/Korolev-Masterminded-Soviet-Drive-America/dp/0471327212
Alrighty I see we have "In Soviet Russia" comments, how about a car analogy? This is /. afterall.
Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.
It seems most people see launching things into LEO is routine but talking with people who actually do the work (instead of armchair QB and paperpushers on the upper floors), rockets are very complex with so many parts and components. All (with exception of items covered by redundancy) must work in order to achieve speed and altitude to sustain orbit. Are they scaling back someplace that impacts quality? Of course USA hasn't had big failures with human carrying vehicles since 2003 (but then we don't fly such anymore).
Sorry, I cannot come up with a "In Soviet Russia..." or a car analogy. But this thread is just begging for one.
So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.
Yep. To make the battles more "clean" (reduce collateral damage) they used "computer games" to carry out battles. Reason is they have been at war for 500 years and come to an agreement to make the war not as devastating. Program would tally up casulties and each side by agreement have to send some of their people into these tubes that vaporizes them. Capt Kirk blasted a portion of their computer system that also brought down both offense and defense computer (and probably severed the comm link with the other planet). President of the planet they were on was shocked, "Do you know what this means?!?! Other side will see it as a breach of the agreement and will think we are in for serious war!" Kirk said, "yes! and you better start building guns, bombs and another weapons!" He then said, "or an alternate is you can have peace with the other side." President didn't know anything else as they have been at war for 500 years and tradition prevails, he would not know what to do [no skills to wage peace]. A dipolmat was with the landing party at the time offered his services to help make a peace treaty.
thanks to all that replied to my "gripes" of my conceal carry post. I guess I can see the logic of letting students and teachers carry guns.... provided they're not nutzoid. However, I have read many public schools have metal detectors and security guards (a school "secured" like an airport!?!?!). Seems like a terrible tradeoff, I remember in the 20th century when I only had to watch out for bullies, not bullets at my school. And back then you can go to airports, hang out and watch airplanes instead of being labeled a potential terrorist like in that FAA poster.
Speaking of hand guns, someone said if someone pulls out a handgun, take off running as most likely they will miss. Unless the shooter is trained to handle handguns, the way an untrained person fires the weapon, they will inadvertantly mis-aim when pulling the trigger. I read someplace that significant number of people shot are friends and family either from "moments of rage" or "friendly fire" (mistaken identity).
What gets me steamed about budgets is huge debate on small stuff. Geez a $40 payroll tax cut? (which is really Social Security deduction people should get back later as it is an entitlement). All this debate over $40!?!?!? It is like they argue over NASA, NSF, NOAA, etc. budgets that don't amount to diddly. Meanwhile on big ticket items (DoD) is never debated. I'm going to mention Social Security as that is entitlement program separate from budgets that lead to deficits. SS has its own problems (will leave that for another thread).
It is the ***same*** mentality that people who want to lose weight so they have a Diet Coke along with a large meal. If ya want to lose weight you must either reduce intake, do more exercise, or both. A Diet Coke is only 0.05% of the big picture. Be a man and have a real coke.
Regarding incidents of mass shootings, i.e. Columbine and Virginia Tech, a gun enthusiast said all these places are "gun free" zones. He said more and more states are removing gun bans on various places because places that allow conceal carry never had mass shootings. Logic goes that if anyone is allowed conceal carry, then whenever or whereever a madman shooter goes wild, other people (students and teachers) can pull out their handguns and waste the perpetrator. This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid these days. Like using logic that there were "no terrorist attacks" in the 1800s (there were but were called something else).
>Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
Or maybe they have but those very few times have not been reported. There was a discussion someplace (this forum or someplace else) that while their airport security is very good, it is not absolute. The myth goes on like Rolls Royce cars never break down (but spoke with a RR owner and he says his car needs maintenance all the time). Then your airports may be secure but everyplace else is not. So then you have to secure everything then the country becomes a prison and basically a non-economy.
I was thinking the same, I think what made PARC, Bell Labs, etc. successful is they had smart people acting like "alchemists." Now embracing a good idea and putting it to the market is wise for a company, however, if you first have to show positive impact of revenue stream then that will create a "glass ceiling." It seems new concepts come about because someone had a passion to make something, and it would be nice to make a few bucks in the meantime. But if intent is to make lotsa money, then that passion ("I gotta make this idea into actual thing or I will die") is squelched (the glass ceiling).
Richard Elkus said all our research places have gone away, they are now applied technology centers,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfqKZlMfnX4
I think the fatal aspect of the F22 is the cost (it is rrrrrrreeeeeeaaaaaaaallllllllyyyyyyyy expensive). Now it is said "war drives progress" but if it becomes so costly that not even the Pentagon can afford it then what is the point? There are those saying "this is the high price of freedom" (whatever that means while we ram SOPA and jail some poor smuck that downloaded a X-men movie) then LockMart should/can come up with a airplane that will not bankrupt the country. I haven't heard of any of those guys especially higher ups saying they are willing to take a pay cut from their 7-digit salaries and various perks. Or doing some creative means of making the aircraft affordable.
Or as in another post regarding Avro Arrow, will engineers laid off from F22 move north to Canada and work on their manned lunar program? (I know, a silly comparison).
uhmmm, you mean like when Canada developed the Avro Arrow which was the the most bad ass fighter jet of the time (and competed with US made jets) but only to cancel the program and have all those engineers move south to NASA and take important roles in the Apollo program?
... and why it was designed the way it was. What was their intentions (flight every two weeks) but what resulted (astronomical operating costs). Cannot really blame those that made the decisions as Shuttle was the ***first*** attempt for a lowcost reusable spaceship. It was a huge effort requiring lots of work and tough decisions, the kind that mentally cripples most folks*. Consider the first "reusable" airplanes for transport of multiple passengers and cargo had their host of problems (i.e. Tri-motors).
Here it from the guys that made the decisions in these MIT lectures (there are many, below just a few). What moved me the most is much of talent, infrastructure and companies that designed, built, and tested items of the Shuttle no longer exists. I say give it up on trying to revive Shuttle. First rebuilt the industrial base, otherwise we will struggling like Korolev trying to get resources.
MIT 16.885J Aircraft Systems Engineering, Fall 2005
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/lecture-notes/
Lecture 1: The Origins of the Space Shuttle by Dale Myers
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/lecture-notes/lecture-1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiYhQtGpRhc
Lecture 2: Space Shuttle History by Aaron Cohen
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/lecture-notes/lecture-2/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ2H06sseLM
Lecture 3: Orbiter Sub-System Design by Aaron Cohen
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/lecture-notes/lecture-3/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDMbBjH8ZSs
Lecture 4: The Decision to Build the Shuttle by John Logsdon
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/lecture-notes/lecture-4/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAyzURugaw
*I talked to someone that worked on wind tunnel tests of various Shuttle configurations in the early 70s (his work was dynamic pressure measurements from shockwaves). There was a period when people were working double shifts in the wind tunnel facility (16 hours on, 8 hours off instead of usual day, swing, grave shift crews) while people at NASA HQ were arguing with the OMB. Idea of SRBs meant they drilled holes and mounted SRB segments on the ET portion of wind tunnel model (didn't bother to remove it from test section for work in machine shop). This double-shift work went on and on. Finally after (I think it was months) and on a Friday, they said "alright, we can go back to regular single shifts and will see you Monday." This person I spoke with said him and another guy he worked with went to have some pizza and beer. The other guy died the next day, he was only 49 years old.
It's true! Safest solution is to keep automobiles in the garage. But that's not what automobiles are for.
UV is the showstopper as it is very intense above 100K, it was not expected to last more than a few hours in sunlight. They launched it (along with three others) late Sunday afternoon so most of eastward travel is done at night and figured the sun UV will deteriorate the latex following morning causing balloon to pop and land. Objective of two balloons (K6RPT-11 and -12) is distance. These were planned to be floaters (buoyant at 120K or so) but expect to only make it partway across the US, K6RPT-12 popped and landed in Indiana (some hams have tracked it down and will recover). But....... K6RPT-11 kept going throughout the day then crossed the coastline the next night and contact was lost over Atlantic. Then it was picked up the next morning from Azores, now hams on other side of pond got active on tracking this thing. It kept going, survived two days of UV but looks like it didn't survive the UV the third day.
There's ongoing discussion on QRZ (one claimed all kinds of laws were broken), http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?324759-Amateur-Radio-Balloon-crosses-the-Atlantic
You all has gots to admit this is one for the books!!!!!!!!!
Other two balloons K6RPT-12 and -13 were going for altitude record (CNSP achieved a record of 136,545 ft in Oct). These came down in west Nevada close to that shaded area of restricted airspace that has Tonopah Test Range and Groom Lake. Payload of K6RPT-13 is same as the record altitude setter from October and has signatures of CNSP members, I think they should have kept it and enshrined in a plexiglass pyramid. But I guess if it gets lost then may as well lose it in Area 51.
well maybe I was being too idealistic. In the ideal world i.e. back in NACA days they can spend time on research, i.e. RT Jones working on swept wing (he really wanted to do the oblique wing) http://www.desktop.aero/library/whitepaper/OFW_WP_Ch1_v0711.html
use http://hidemyass.com/
I'm concerned about declining government research facilities i.e. NASA. Reason is private companies are profit driven, government is not. Before you all start screaming "damn socialists" you need to realize there was a time which researchers can work on developing new technology and not be concerned with PHB asking for productivity reports. Now we can argue about the goals (i.e. weapons) but looking at NASA's predecessor N.A.C.A. which they had facilities and labs (many at Ames Research Center, it was Ames Aeronautical Laboratory in the days). These facilities housed scientists, engineers, technicians to work on various things too expensive and risky for private companies, it was this work that helped US become a leader in aerospace technology (specifically why NACA was created in 1915). Again we can argue about govt research but look at it this way, if we don't do it someone else will (and they are). At Edwards AFB in the 1950s, Scott Crossfield said of the inventory of the highest flying, fastest flying aircraft, "Not even Howard Hughes has what we have!" Twenty years before, Hughes had the fastest airplane.
Many people argue over govt waste, corporate handouts, and evils of socialism but consider the US has the best airplanes because the research and development was subsidized by the US govt. Heck, other countries do the same. Now there was a time when private companies did research without concern of quarterly profits. Bell labs (the transistor), Xerox Palo Alto (desktop computer with windows and mouse), IBM Almaden (harddrive). But these private research labs are now applied technology centers. I don't really know if Google has a dedicated lab devoted to longterm research and they may not be around long enough.
Speaking of Hanger One, Navy made big use of it when Moffett was active. It housed many P3s which can be serviced and shielded from rain and wind. Airshows they had back then (1980s) had huge turnout of 100,000s and more (admittance was free). Companies along Ellis st got pissed with so many cars parked in their lots but flying demos were impressive and lots of displays even USGS had a display. You can tour P3s and talk with the officers. Amateur radio people provided communications support including amateur TV, I talked with one guy who was on top of Hanger One with his ATV camera, he said he was able to see the planes i.e. Blue Angels fly across right at his eye level. He said was scary climbing up as walkway inside was thin with a single cable on each side.
From a bio of Joseph Ames which ARC was named after, and a true American who put service before self:
from http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001639.html
Ames expected the NACA to encourage engineering education. He pressed universities to train more aerodynamicists, then structured NACA to give young engineers on-the-job training. Ames gave the NACA a focused vision that was research-based and decided that aerodynamics was the most important field of endeavor. Two years later he accepted the Collier Trophy on behalf of the NACA. He kept the NACA alive when Herbert Hoover tried to eliminate it and transfer its duties to industry.
Ames accepted a nomination by Air Minister Hermann Goring to the Deutsche Akademie der Luftfartforschung. Ames then considered it an honor, many Americans did, and was surprised to learn about the massive Nazi investment in aeronautical infrastructure, then six times larger than the NACA. Ames urged the funding for a second laboratory [ at Moffett Field ] and expansion of the NACA facilities to prepare for war.
they have been using Hangers 2 and 3 which do not have many aircraft inside. The Airship Ventures "Eureka" takes little space (it is a pretty small airship for those two hangers). Air Guard, 129 Rescue Wing, supposably doesn't want to place aircraft inside Hangers 2 and 3. Mythbusters will be able to use those hangers for quite some time.