There's some major logistical challenges to go along with the technical challenges:
1) They need at least two pilots to spell each other (which means more weight)
2) The new plane would have to go faster - at 70kph, flying 40,000 km would take 24 days
3) There would need to be room for food and water (which, again would mean more weight)
4) They would need, uh, facilities (again, more weight)
I guess you could solve all of these problems by simply scaling up the plane. I think that might also break the record for longest wingspan...
When I was an internet noob back in 1996, I had a vague recollection of Pascal from my CS 101 days. But for what I needed to do (interactive web pages), Javascript was the only way to go. Javascript was free, I didn't need to install anything to make it work, and it worked (sorta) on the platform everyone was using (internet browsers). Plus, there was plenty of demos and open-source code to steal.
Later, when I needed to do server-side programming, I learned PHP. Why? Because LAMP was free, easy to install (by that point the "AMP" part was bundled) and it worked on the platform everyone was using (internet browsers). Plus, there was plenty of demos and code to steal.
It was only much later that I realized how ugly Javascript and PHP code could be. But at the time, code elegance wasn't even on my radar screen. I just wanted to make things work. I suspect that my experience has been mirrored many time over.
Outsource production of the bomber to China. That'll cut costs by at least 50%. Oh yeah, and maintenance/tech support can be done in India. And I hear Russia's a great place to hire low-salary pilots. We can "right-size" the military down to under 100 managers! Er...generals.
In the short term, Lockheed better fix this problem, and fast. And I'm sure they will - this kind of "bug" doesn't just affect pilot confidence, it also affects investor confidence. I'll let you decide which Lockheed cares about more.
In the long term, the military has to get away from its Top Gun mindset. It's 2012 - all future combat aircraft (and possibly support aircraft as well) should be unmanned. Why?
1) Cost. A human pilot represents a multi-million dollar engineering challenge, from life support system (such as O2 flow) to aircraft survivability to ergonomics.
2) Capability. As others here have noted, modern fighter aircraft's maneuverability have long since been hamstrung by the physiological limitations of the pilot. A human pilot also represents a waste of space and weight that could be used for fuel, sensors and weapons. The lack of a cockpit also implies smaller aircraft with a thinner profile increasing "stealthiness".
3) Reduced Political Profile. The Navy has just grounded their Firescout UAVs following two crashes. But that grounding doesn't make big news, because no one died when the UAVs went down and the program has a relatively modest budget, at least compared to the F-22 and F-35.
And yet the military still doesn't have a clue - the Navy just released their proposal for a F-18 replacement that includes a "optional manned" variant. In fact, this dictates a design that meets manned requirements first, with "optional unmanned" variant to follow, in much the same way that the F-35B STOVL dictated the design (and timeline and costs) of the JSF program.
UAVs (as well as Unmanned Surface Vehicles) can and should be used to make the US military safer, more cost-effective and more capable.
I love the idea of having my own flying car. And PAL-V is a great technology demonstrator - they should keep at it.
That said, there's some basic safety and legal problems with flying cars that need to be addressed.
Safety: What happens when it breaks down? When your car has engine problems, you pull over and coast to a stop. In a personal aircraft you plunge to your death. Two engines seems like a solution, but expensive and bulky. And what happens when you lose a rotor blade/wing? I know that some small aircraft have parachutes that are supposed to save the entire plane, but they wouldn't have a chance to work if you're flying at 500 feet. Also, keep in mind that there's no such thing as a fender-bender at altitude, so traffic would no longer a simple aggravation. It would be a life-threatening hazard. And then there's all the distracted pilot/drivers, texting, shaving, applying makeup...
Legal: Ok, so the legal ramifications are really just an extension of automotive law, but with the caveat that the damages will be much higher, since there will be a much rate of loss of life. Flying cars crashing into each other, flying cars falling on houses/people, cleanup costs...
Maybe we should wait until we can have robots fly us there safely.
Pass legislation that all non-commercial vehicles have to get at least 40 miles to the gallon (or energy equivalent), cutting off money to all terrorist-sponsoring countries.
It'll never happen, though.
Are you high? Each bomb costs nearly $16 million. For something that blows up.
For that price, why not make a bomb that fills up their tunnels with the pulped shreds of one dollar bills?
Carr's notion of "war" is outdated. The short history of internet hacking has shown that a) national borders are close to meaningless b) a defined start and end of hostilities is difficult, if not impossible to ascertain and c) the attackers and defenders need not belong to traditional defense establishments.
What the US government should do (and they may require this already, I don't know) is create a standard that would ensure security is built into any system developed for government use. Of course, relying on existing operating systems with known vulnerabilities means that the foundation of US government security is shaky.
The whole "Wolfgang-Pauli-Karl-Jung-I-Ching-We're-too-grounded-in-a-causal-mindset" seems like a pretty specious argument for why we would lose a war. I have a feeling that Carr read a book by Nicolescu and wanted to show people how smart he is.
I agree - it is a jobs program, and therefore difficult to cut. But it's not impossible.
TSA should be ordered to slowly scale back what they check for: no more shoe removal, then no more liquid limit. Gradually, perhaps we can get to a point where screenings are more like pre-9/11. With a simplified screening system, fewer agents should be needed.
Plenty of people have written about overpopulation, but no one has actually demonstrated their dedication to fixing the problem by killing themselves. Go ahead, Tom, lead the way.
Growing up, my friends and I would live for snow days. Why don't you also take away Mom, Dad and apple pie, too?
Granted, with global warming, there seems to be fewer big blizzards, anyway. Now kids will have to pray for an increasingly unlikely confluence of events: a major blizzard, plus a major network outage. Sigh.
This was my initial reaction, too.
Of course, I also think that if cars were invented yesterday, they'd never get approved for use. Too dangerous.
And motorcycles? Forget about it.
The original post states that the bomb would hit the ground "well beyond twice the speed of sound". I would have thought that even a sleek, heavy object would reach terminal velocity due to air resistance before reaching such speeds. Assuming that it were dropped from 30,000 feet, how fast would it be moving when it hit the ground? (Assuming that it was about 3 ft in diameter and 20 ft long from the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator)
Thanks!
I think we can all agree that an airship working directly over enemy territory would be terribly vulnerable. Presumably, the ISIS would operate well behind a safety cordon of fighters the same way AWACS and JSTARS planes do.
I assume that the reason the DoD is exploring this option is the operational difficulty in maintaining multiple shifts of AWACS + JSTARS in a warzone. The airship, on the other hand, would be able to maintain its station for days on end, without the need for refueling or returning to base for a new crew.
However, a stickier problem emerges - would it be able to stay on station? According to this site: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/938402041.Es.r.html,
winds in the stratosphere are around 100mph. Would solar-powered engines be able to keep the airship in the same place in the sky?
Thanks for posting this video. Unfortunately, I don't see this as more than a proof-of-concept. Here's why:
Discomfort - Look at Radi's posture when he's walking. He's hunched over, which is bound to cause back pain after continued use. Also, the battery pack prevents him from using the backrests of chairs comfortably when he's sitting. And the forearm controller looks annoyingly cumbersome when he's working at his computer. At least a wheelchair doesn't cause physical discomfort or pain.
Battery life - This is a serious concern. Can that small a battery hold a charge for eight hours? At least a wheelchair will never run low on juice.
It is clumsy and slow - Notice how slowly Radi's friends have to walk to keep pace with him: they're not so much walking slowly as they are standing very quickly. And he needs to stop every time he wants to do something different.
Even with all these caveats, ReWalk is a promising start - Argo should definitely keep developing it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really great that someone is working on this.
However, SolarImpulse is shooting for an eventual round-the-world, non-stop flight. They're even designing a new plane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse#Planned_second_aircraft_.28HB-SIB.29
There's some major logistical challenges to go along with the technical challenges:
1) They need at least two pilots to spell each other (which means more weight)
2) The new plane would have to go faster - at 70kph, flying 40,000 km would take 24 days
3) There would need to be room for food and water (which, again would mean more weight)
4) They would need, uh, facilities (again, more weight)
I guess you could solve all of these problems by simply scaling up the plane. I think that might also break the record for longest wingspan...
When I was an internet noob back in 1996, I had a vague recollection of Pascal from my CS 101 days. But for what I needed to do (interactive web pages), Javascript was the only way to go. Javascript was free, I didn't need to install anything to make it work, and it worked (sorta) on the platform everyone was using (internet browsers). Plus, there was plenty of demos and open-source code to steal.
Later, when I needed to do server-side programming, I learned PHP. Why? Because LAMP was free, easy to install (by that point the "AMP" part was bundled) and it worked on the platform everyone was using (internet browsers). Plus, there was plenty of demos and code to steal.
It was only much later that I realized how ugly Javascript and PHP code could be. But at the time, code elegance wasn't even on my radar screen. I just wanted to make things work. I suspect that my experience has been mirrored many time over.
Outsource production of the bomber to China. That'll cut costs by at least 50%. Oh yeah, and maintenance/tech support can be done in India. And I hear Russia's a great place to hire low-salary pilots. We can "right-size" the military down to under 100 managers! Er...generals.
In the long term, the military has to get away from its Top Gun mindset. It's 2012 - all future combat aircraft (and possibly support aircraft as well) should be unmanned. Why?
And yet the military still doesn't have a clue - the Navy just released their proposal for a F-18 replacement that includes a "optional manned" variant. In fact, this dictates a design that meets manned requirements first, with "optional unmanned" variant to follow, in much the same way that the F-35B STOVL dictated the design (and timeline and costs) of the JSF program.
UAVs (as well as Unmanned Surface Vehicles) can and should be used to make the US military safer, more cost-effective and more capable.
I love the idea of having my own flying car. And PAL-V is a great technology demonstrator - they should keep at it.
That said, there's some basic safety and legal problems with flying cars that need to be addressed.
Safety: What happens when it breaks down? When your car has engine problems, you pull over and coast to a stop. In a personal aircraft you plunge to your death. Two engines seems like a solution, but expensive and bulky. And what happens when you lose a rotor blade/wing? I know that some small aircraft have parachutes that are supposed to save the entire plane, but they wouldn't have a chance to work if you're flying at 500 feet. Also, keep in mind that there's no such thing as a fender-bender at altitude, so traffic would no longer a simple aggravation. It would be a life-threatening hazard. And then there's all the distracted pilot/drivers, texting, shaving, applying makeup...
Legal: Ok, so the legal ramifications are really just an extension of automotive law, but with the caveat that the damages will be much higher, since there will be a much rate of loss of life. Flying cars crashing into each other, flying cars falling on houses/people, cleanup costs...
Maybe we should wait until we can have robots fly us there safely.
Pass legislation that all non-commercial vehicles have to get at least 40 miles to the gallon (or energy equivalent), cutting off money to all terrorist-sponsoring countries. It'll never happen, though.
Are you high? Each bomb costs nearly $16 million. For something that blows up. For that price, why not make a bomb that fills up their tunnels with the pulped shreds of one dollar bills?
Hey! Whenever you denigrate bat feces, you hurt the feelings of all bats - Nazi!
Carr's notion of "war" is outdated. The short history of internet hacking has shown that a) national borders are close to meaningless b) a defined start and end of hostilities is difficult, if not impossible to ascertain and c) the attackers and defenders need not belong to traditional defense establishments.
What the US government should do (and they may require this already, I don't know) is create a standard that would ensure security is built into any system developed for government use. Of course, relying on existing operating systems with known vulnerabilities means that the foundation of US government security is shaky.
The whole "Wolfgang-Pauli-Karl-Jung-I-Ching-We're-too-grounded-in-a-causal-mindset" seems like a pretty specious argument for why we would lose a war. I have a feeling that Carr read a book by Nicolescu and wanted to show people how smart he is.
I agree - it is a jobs program, and therefore difficult to cut. But it's not impossible. TSA should be ordered to slowly scale back what they check for: no more shoe removal, then no more liquid limit. Gradually, perhaps we can get to a point where screenings are more like pre-9/11. With a simplified screening system, fewer agents should be needed.
Plenty of people have written about overpopulation, but no one has actually demonstrated their dedication to fixing the problem by killing themselves. Go ahead, Tom, lead the way.
Growing up, my friends and I would live for snow days. Why don't you also take away Mom, Dad and apple pie, too? Granted, with global warming, there seems to be fewer big blizzards, anyway. Now kids will have to pray for an increasingly unlikely confluence of events: a major blizzard, plus a major network outage. Sigh.
This was my initial reaction, too. Of course, I also think that if cars were invented yesterday, they'd never get approved for use. Too dangerous. And motorcycles? Forget about it.
This action merely underscores the Saudi Government's technical ignorance of the nature of the Internet.
pi=3
The original post states that the bomb would hit the ground "well beyond twice the speed of sound". I would have thought that even a sleek, heavy object would reach terminal velocity due to air resistance before reaching such speeds. Assuming that it were dropped from 30,000 feet, how fast would it be moving when it hit the ground? (Assuming that it was about 3 ft in diameter and 20 ft long from the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator) Thanks!
"The iPhone 4 - it's to die for!"
Check out the DoD's guidelines for securing classified data:
http://nsi.org/Library/Govt/Nispom.html
Especially pertinent here is Transmission policy for different types of classified data
http://nsi.org/Library/Govt/Nispom.html#link5
and network security
http://nsi.org/Library/Govt/Nispom.html#link8
Not exactly scintillating reading, but them's the rules.
The possibilities are endless.
I think we can all agree that an airship working directly over enemy territory would be terribly vulnerable. Presumably, the ISIS would operate well behind a safety cordon of fighters the same way AWACS and JSTARS planes do.
I assume that the reason the DoD is exploring this option is the operational difficulty in maintaining multiple shifts of AWACS + JSTARS in a warzone. The airship, on the other hand, would be able to maintain its station for days on end, without the need for refueling or returning to base for a new crew.
However, a stickier problem emerges - would it be able to stay on station? According to this site: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/938402041.Es.r.html, winds in the stratosphere are around 100mph. Would solar-powered engines be able to keep the airship in the same place in the sky?
Does anyone have a link to the TED conference talk? I can't find the video on the TED website. Thanks!
Even with all these caveats, ReWalk is a promising start - Argo should definitely keep developing it.