Okay, so not epic fail, but a bit of a potential fail if they manage to come up with yet another phone which despite having a really cool feature where it can change modes just due to it's orientation.... it still takes a bloody eternity to switch modes.
Perhaps I'm the only one. Perhaps everybody else's phone can go from dial-a-pizza to 6-gigapixel with motion-stabilisation in 0.001 seconds but every handset I've tried has something between an annoying and an interminable wait before the thing actually starts functioning like something approximating a camera.
If I really cared about taking reasonable quality photos on the spur of the moment, I think I'd still carry a dedicated digital camera.
Until the UK mobile network operators begin to get realistic with their data pricing structures, 3G/4G services will be the preserve of those with too much money and not enough initiative.
Notice the spectrum is to be auctioned? Last time they auctioned spectrum, the prices ran up to silly money and the consumers are now paying for it.
I'll not comment on European data roaming charges to avoid getting a hernia.
Slightly odd to hear that they used a King Air as the chase ship as Scaled previously used a Rutan-designed Beechcraft Starship which always looked the part with it's futuristic/unusual canard pusher configuration.
I suppose with so few Starships remaining and the maintenance issues that implies; it may now be easier for Scaled to just borrow or lease King Airs for the job.
Still, it would be a shame to hear there are no Starships left flying.
I wonder if Nate Lawson had read Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" before his work on the Fastrak transponders?
It just so happens that Doctorow's fictional 'Little Brother' work describes just such an exploit being used on a Bay Area transit card system.
Having said that, Doctorow mentions in his preface that most of the technologies in the work are either current reality or the possibilities of the near future.
Nowadays, it seems it's more about which transit card/xpndr system hasn't been done yet.
So when the central government sanctioned and vetted Chinese Academy of Social Sciences comes round to ask if you like the government to censor your communications....
It's supposed to be an ironic wink as we're not likely to know whether 'a hell of a lot of thought' went into the security aspect until the STS has been retired.
It could be even longer if they maintain the same system for the Ares launchers although I suspect it may be different due to the addition of launch escape systems.
According to NASA documentation, the SRB Range Safety system is operated by encoded signals.
From the description in the document, it sounds like one coded signal to 'arm' and a second coded signal to 'fire'. I'd bet that due to the nature of the system, it's transmission method will be so simple that it rarely needs to be tested and as such gives little opportunity for homicidal black-hat analysis.
Finally, I'll also bet that the codes are as top-secret as to-secret can be (as in: Get caught with this and you'll disappear forever). It wouldn't surprise me if the codes are created and handled by just one person on the day of use and never used again. Or perhaps two people where only one person knows the arm code and the other the fire code before the system is finally set.
However it's done, I'd like to think that a hell of a lot of thought went into system security;)
The in-game logic source code was released in 2004 to aid 'modders' but the game engine itself remains closed to this day (although it may eventually be released).
I know it sounds paradoxical but W:ET was never derived from GPL code (in the licensing sense) because id Tech 3 was under a closed license when it was licensed to SD (This may lead to issues with SD/Activision ever being able to relicense the source)
You think that due to the date, it would be plainly obvious to all and sundry that it was extremely unlikely to be a 'superweapon'.
Okay so in 1908, you could, with enough man-power and resources, have probably built a very tall tower (but perhaps not tall enough) in Siberia, packed it with an inordinate amount of nitroglycerin and touched the whole lot off to create this effect. It would, however, be a little....shall we say....pointless.
In 1908, the necessary technology for nukes was still 30 years in the future.
I'd forgotten that the assembly platforms within the VAB are tailored to the STS.
It'd be interesting to know how NASA intends to work this as the crew-launching Ares I is a long, thin stick whereas the Ares V is an ostensibly shuttle-shaped two boosters and a central LH2/LOX tank.
The only thing I can think of is that they might crane platform-inserts into position when servicing an Ares I and then use the existing Shuttle platforms when servicing an Ares V.
The obvious solution to this problem would be to construct pad LC-39C as an Ares platform.
LC-39C was originally projected as a third Saturn V pad in a line north of LC-39B but was never constructed although a stub of it's intended crawler-way points towards the north from the dog-leg in the LC-39B crawler-way. There were actually a total of three unbuilt platforms to the north as part of an 'Advanced Saturn' program but the other two look like they'd need significant land reclamation.
The existing crawler-transporters should be sufficient to handle both the STS and Ares I as NASA is building brand-new MLPs for the Ares system.
Compared to the total cost of the Ares/Orion system, a new LC-39 pad would like like a bargain.
The spend is justified simply because (and a certain well known physicist will back me up) if we do not learn to leave this rock we, as a race, will ultimately perish here.
I'm not sure that the STS as it was finally created could ever be called a 'responsible' use of resources but right now, it's the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.
TFA seems to suggest extending the STS life while also cutting costs. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I know that strapping yourself to a rocket and heading for space is never safe but it would be better not to make it more dangerous. At the same time, I can see that extending the life by 6 months or so would help alleviate the current pressures on the STS for the station-construction mission (but that's not what the article discusses)
I presume the reasoning for not wanting to rely on the Russian crew launch system is that any souring of the American-Russian relationship could make the deal problematic. How about if it were via ESA and the forthcoming Soyuz operation at French-Guiana? Would this side-step some of the possible relationship issues?
There have been a couple of other episodes where we've had to spool up an engine and abort a landing due to traffic on the runway. Those I don't have pics for, but have been common enough that they are concerning.
It's called a 'go-around' and happens thousands of times a day at airports across the globe. It is no cause for concern, simply a reflection of the imperfect timing of 'scheduled' flights.
In every case, simple procedure is followed; at controlled fields, the ATC will usually give the command to go around but the pilot has the discretion to do so if he thinks there could be a conflict (or even if he just doesn't feel like landing that approach). At major fields, the local procedures are followed or at other fields, full power is applied, a climb is established and a turn is made to the 'dead-side' (opposite side to the circuit side).
The only time I've ever seen a remotely 'tense' go-around was a video of a junior controller at London Heathrow with a slow-to-clear Airbus on the runway and a Concorde beating down short-final. Knowing the enormous fuel cost of a Concorde go-around, the controller tried to delay down to safe minimums but the Concorde pilot made the decision for him (probably out of courtesy) and initiated the go-around with a curt radio call "Speedbird One is going around" and moving into 'wet' (afterburner) power for the climb to make sure the Airbus pilot knew his place;)
He's out in a single engine piston aircraft so if the motor went quiet, the only option would be to land.
In theory and from what I know of Nevada's geography, finding somewhere reasonable to put the plane down shouldn't be a big issue.
However, once down, he may be right up the middle of nowhere. You'd assume he'd just get on the radio but if it's an old Bellanca, there may be no battery power available, in a new Bellanca the fault that stopped the engine may also prevent the radio from working. Nevada's geography with raised ranges may block a radio signal in places and it may even be the case that he went out 'non-radio' as some pilots still do.
I do rather hope he's okay but the moral here is never go x-country without 'booking-out' first even if that means just telling your friend where you're going.
They can't actually replace entire tiles on orbit. They have a 'patching' system which allows them to spread a compound into any nicks in the tiles.
Now, the compound has to be applied by an astronaut attached to a long extension arm attached to the Shuttle's robotic arm. When they tested this a few flights ago, it became readily apparent that it was at best difficult to work this way. The length of the arm caused significant 'bouncing' with every motion. At the time they only pulled a gap filler and simulated the motion of filling a tile and it wasn't easy.
The real danger is that the control issues of having a 'massive' astronaut + EVA gear swinging around on the end of that very long arm so close to the TPS could actually cause more damage to the tiles than it fixed.
Furthermore, the compound could actually cause even worse localised heating issues on re-entry depending on how well it fills the tile ie: It could cause ducting etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so not epic fail, but a bit of a potential fail if they manage to come up with yet another phone which despite having a really cool feature where it can change modes just due to it's orientation.... it still takes a bloody eternity to switch modes.
Perhaps I'm the only one. Perhaps everybody else's phone can go from dial-a-pizza to 6-gigapixel with motion-stabilisation in 0.001 seconds but every handset I've tried has something between an annoying and an interminable wait before the thing actually starts functioning like something approximating a camera.
If I really cared about taking reasonable quality photos on the spur of the moment, I think I'd still carry a dedicated digital camera.
TFA says that they knew this would happen 'sooner or later' but doesn't mention anything specific.
The question is, did anyone have any specific knowledge of the likelihood of this specific collision prior to the event?
I'm assuming just now there wasn't orbital information of sufficient precision to predict this.
Until the UK mobile network operators begin to get realistic with their data pricing structures, 3G/4G services will be the preserve of those with too much money and not enough initiative.
Notice the spectrum is to be auctioned? Last time they auctioned spectrum, the prices ran up to silly money and the consumers are now paying for it.
I'll not comment on European data roaming charges to avoid getting a hernia.
Slightly odd to hear that they used a King Air as the chase ship as Scaled previously used a Rutan-designed Beechcraft Starship which always looked the part with it's futuristic/unusual canard pusher configuration.
I suppose with so few Starships remaining and the maintenance issues that implies; it may now be easier for Scaled to just borrow or lease King Airs for the job.
Still, it would be a shame to hear there are no Starships left flying.
Snopes - JATO car embedded in cliff
I wonder if Nate Lawson had read Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" before his work on the Fastrak transponders?
It just so happens that Doctorow's fictional 'Little Brother' work describes just such an exploit being used on a Bay Area transit card system.
Having said that, Doctorow mentions in his preface that most of the technologies in the work are either current reality or the possibilities of the near future.
Nowadays, it seems it's more about which transit card/xpndr system hasn't been done yet.
I always get this feeling when I see a university-styled promotional release that the *software* patents are already pending.
I haven't the time to search just now but I'll bet there's at least one application pertaining to this method which encompasses a hell of a lot more.
So when the central government sanctioned and vetted Chinese Academy of Social Sciences comes round to ask if you like the government to censor your communications....
...how do you reply?
Don't get the answer wrong now will you.
It's supposed to be an ironic wink as we're not likely to know whether 'a hell of a lot of thought' went into the security aspect until the STS has been retired.
It could be even longer if they maintain the same system for the Ares launchers although I suspect it may be different due to the addition of launch escape systems.
According to NASA documentation, the SRB Range Safety system is operated by encoded signals.
;)
From the description in the document, it sounds like one coded signal to 'arm' and a second coded signal to 'fire'. I'd bet that due to the nature of the system, it's transmission method will be so simple that it rarely needs to be tested and as such gives little opportunity for homicidal black-hat analysis.
Finally, I'll also bet that the codes are as top-secret as to-secret can be (as in: Get caught with this and you'll disappear forever). It wouldn't surprise me if the codes are created and handled by just one person on the day of use and never used again. Or perhaps two people where only one person knows the arm code and the other the fire code before the system is finally set.
However it's done, I'd like to think that a hell of a lot of thought went into system security
The problem with adding lights to the street is that it just allows the criminals to see what they are doing.
Just before anyone wades in...
...this probably refers to the successful completion of the open project as opposed to box-office success or other notional gauge of success. ;)
The in-game logic source code was released in 2004 to aid 'modders' but the game engine itself remains closed to this day (although it may eventually be released).
I know it sounds paradoxical but W:ET was never derived from GPL code (in the licensing sense) because id Tech 3 was under a closed license when it was licensed to SD (This may lead to issues with SD/Activision ever being able to relicense the source)
You think that due to the date, it would be plainly obvious to all and sundry that it was extremely unlikely to be a 'superweapon'.
Okay so in 1908, you could, with enough man-power and resources, have probably built a very tall tower (but perhaps not tall enough) in Siberia, packed it with an inordinate amount of nitroglycerin and touched the whole lot off to create this effect. It would, however, be a little....shall we say....pointless.
In 1908, the necessary technology for nukes was still 30 years in the future.
I'd forgotten that the assembly platforms within the VAB are tailored to the STS.
It'd be interesting to know how NASA intends to work this as the crew-launching Ares I is a long, thin stick whereas the Ares V is an ostensibly shuttle-shaped two boosters and a central LH2/LOX tank.
The only thing I can think of is that they might crane platform-inserts into position when servicing an Ares I and then use the existing Shuttle platforms when servicing an Ares V.
The obvious solution to this problem would be to construct pad LC-39C as an Ares platform.
LC-39C was originally projected as a third Saturn V pad in a line north of LC-39B but was never constructed although a stub of it's intended crawler-way points towards the north from the dog-leg in the LC-39B crawler-way. There were actually a total of three unbuilt platforms to the north as part of an 'Advanced Saturn' program but the other two look like they'd need significant land reclamation.
The existing crawler-transporters should be sufficient to handle both the STS and Ares I as NASA is building brand-new MLPs for the Ares system.
Compared to the total cost of the Ares/Orion system, a new LC-39 pad would like like a bargain.
The spend is justified simply because (and a certain well known physicist will back me up) if we do not learn to leave this rock we, as a race, will ultimately perish here.
I'm not sure that the STS as it was finally created could ever be called a 'responsible' use of resources but right now, it's the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.
TFA seems to suggest extending the STS life while also cutting costs. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I know that strapping yourself to a rocket and heading for space is never safe but it would be better not to make it more dangerous. At the same time, I can see that extending the life by 6 months or so would help alleviate the current pressures on the STS for the station-construction mission (but that's not what the article discusses)
I presume the reasoning for not wanting to rely on the Russian crew launch system is that any souring of the American-Russian relationship could make the deal problematic. How about if it were via ESA and the forthcoming Soyuz operation at French-Guiana? Would this side-step some of the possible relationship issues?
Since the nappy wearing stalkernaut incident, I've not been so sure.
I think, if they ever really do have such a fight on the ISS, they should be made to take it outside.
It's called a 'go-around' and happens thousands of times a day at airports across the globe. It is no cause for concern, simply a reflection of the imperfect timing of 'scheduled' flights.
In every case, simple procedure is followed; at controlled fields, the ATC will usually give the command to go around but the pilot has the discretion to do so if he thinks there could be a conflict (or even if he just doesn't feel like landing that approach). At major fields, the local procedures are followed or at other fields, full power is applied, a climb is established and a turn is made to the 'dead-side' (opposite side to the circuit side).
The only time I've ever seen a remotely 'tense' go-around was a video of a junior controller at London Heathrow with a slow-to-clear Airbus on the runway and a Concorde beating down short-final. Knowing the enormous fuel cost of a Concorde go-around, the controller tried to delay down to safe minimums but the Concorde pilot made the decision for him (probably out of courtesy) and initiated the go-around with a curt radio call "Speedbird One is going around" and moving into 'wet' (afterburner) power for the climb to make sure the Airbus pilot knew his place
If one of those 'QUIDS' has a mass of 10g and you want to take 10 'quid' with you on 'holiday'.
That 10 'quid' (worth £62.50), if launced on the STS would cost £240 to get to LEO due to their additional mass.
Therefore, if you used this new currency, to actually get that money (£62.50) on orbit would cost you over £300 extra.
Disclaimer: E&OE, YMMV, IANARS, My ability to perform basic mathematics is inversely proportional to the amount of alcohol I have consumed.
He's out in a single engine piston aircraft so if the motor went quiet, the only option would be to land.
In theory and from what I know of Nevada's geography, finding somewhere reasonable to put the plane down shouldn't be a big issue.
However, once down, he may be right up the middle of nowhere. You'd assume he'd just get on the radio but if it's an old Bellanca, there may be no battery power available, in a new Bellanca the fault that stopped the engine may also prevent the radio from working. Nevada's geography with raised ranges may block a radio signal in places and it may even be the case that he went out 'non-radio' as some pilots still do.
I do rather hope he's okay but the moral here is never go x-country without 'booking-out' first even if that means just telling your friend where you're going.
They can't actually replace entire tiles on orbit. They have a 'patching' system which allows them to spread a compound into any nicks in the tiles.
Now, the compound has to be applied by an astronaut attached to a long extension arm attached to the Shuttle's robotic arm. When they tested this a few flights ago, it became readily apparent that it was at best difficult to work this way. The length of the arm caused significant 'bouncing' with every motion. At the time they only pulled a gap filler and simulated the motion of filling a tile and it wasn't easy.
The real danger is that the control issues of having a 'massive' astronaut + EVA gear swinging around on the end of that very long arm so close to the TPS could actually cause more damage to the tiles than it fixed.
Furthermore, the compound could actually cause even worse localised heating issues on re-entry depending on how well it fills the tile ie: It could cause ducting etc.
I hope this system includes some method to check whether the rest of the person apart from the face is present.
Some poor Malaysian fellow has already lost a finger. I'd hate to have my head stolen just to access my bank account.
Okay, so it would work up to a point. The 'point' being the airliner that crashes into your house.