Unless you study the risks and determine that the existing design is capable of handling it.
Which was NOT DONE, in this case.
So basically, you're saying that you're smarter than the guys running things at NASA and you think you can do things better than they can, right? I just want to be sure that's what you're trying to get off your chest here.
No, I'm not smarter than the guys running things at NASA. But I feel I do have more training with regard to engineering analysis and risk analysis than the members in management, especially considering some of the remarks made by Dittemore and company during the first weeks of the investigation. Go look them up if you'd like. The analysis of the foam impact was extremely poor (As an undergraduate risk analysis paper, it deserved a failing grade) as I've already pointed out. These questionable results were never questioned by those in charge and were used to discredit any challenges by other engineers and analysts.
Hey, I'm not saying that the people over at NASA aren't doing their best. What I've beeen saying is that the culture of NASA has evolved to become one that is incapable of dealing properly with complexity of operating the space shuttle. Despite the fact that this was pointed out after the Challenger disaster, they havfe slipped back to their old faults.
Thanks for the job offer, but I'm quite happy where I am. One of the reasons I wouldn't want to work for NASA is the fear that I am unwilling to take on the immense responsibility such a position. Also the same reason I rejected medicine as a career choice. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't criticize doctors who perform bad medicine. And it also doesn't mean that I shouldn't criticize engineers who support/condone bad engineering.
Yeah, but how much of that 1080p resolution is realized on the 4th generation copy? Or 7th? What about color/tint accuracy? The reason I prefer DLP to film is because the quality of the film print falls far far below the theoretical capabilities of film. Any grain in the original, or introduced during duplication is magnified over and over in the print making process, turning gold into lead.
I don't have a problem with the IMAX resolution/frame rate. I love both. I have a problem with the viewing angle/size. It's just too damn big and makes me nauseous quite easily. I don't watch my 27" inch tv from 12" and I don't like the way you have to turn you head to capture the entire screen in IMAX.
Hmm, hadn't heard of that. But yes, with DLP and film, the legacy 24fps shit has got to go. 48 fps sounds like a good speed for compatibility and solving legacy "fielding" issues. I'd love to see films produced in this format. Akira re-re-release?
Like the subject says, I don't want film, I want digital. Having seen several films (Akira (twice digital, once on film), Monster's Inc. (1+1), SW: TPM (1+1), etc.) on DLP and on film, I can say that the film going experience is a full order of magnitude better on DLP. The blacks are black. The edges are sharper, the film "jitter" is gone and the whole image simply kicks ass. Yes, I know that film is theoretically better. But the print you see in the theatre is 4 generations old if you're lucky and 6 or 7 if you're not. So forget nausea inducing IMAX, bring it in DLP and I'll go to see it 5 times.
Again, go look at the immense volume of information published during this investigation. This wasn't a cursory ho-hum "it doesn't matter" check, nor was it a "holy crap, it wasn't designed for this, they're going to die, but let's not tell anyone" type of thing. The experts there (of which you are not one) examined the data at their disposal (which you do not possess) and consulted their own education and experience with the program (which you do not have) and made a determination (which you are not qualified to do) that the risk to the orbiter was low. This is proving to be incorrect. That doesn't mean they "fucked up". They had no way of knowing any better. Again, if you're 99% right 100 times, you'll be wrong once. It happens. Deal with it.
But the analysis was flawed from the beginning (and yes, I have read the report). They assumed (with a VERY wide margin of error) that the foam had struck the tiles only. They extrapolated the damage from the impact based on empirical results many magnitudes smaller. And they disregarded the results of one of their own analsis tools. And their conclusion stated that there was NO RISK to the orbiter. The very uncertainty of the data they were working with should have made such a conclusion impossible. That is bad engineering and bad analysis. If bad engineering leads to good results 99 out of 100 times, it's still bad engineering. Just because all of the Comets didn't blow up doesn't mean that the ones that didn't blow up were safe.
If you're going to ignore the advice of the experts, just because that advice very infrequently ends up being wrong, you are going to end up wrong far more often than not, much to the detriment of the space program and the lives of those depending on you.
Just because one is an expert on "tile design" or "carbon-carbon structures" doesn't mean one is an expert on risk analysis and engineering analysis. And you don't need to use layman's terms for me. I can look stuff up just as well as you can.
If you can design a spacecraft that's perfectly safe, and designed to withstand any and all forms of abuse and unexpected events that the existing orbiter could potentially experience, and do that at a cost less than 100 times what the existing orbiter costs, you will be rich.
Yes I would be. Of course such a project is not feasible. But if I design a ship, and it begins to experience phenomena it was not designed for, the design needs to be changed. To leave the design as-is is to subject yourself to a risk you have not accounted for. Risks exist everywhere and designs should take those risks into accout. However when you observe phenomena that you haven't accounted for, that means your risk analysis is no longer valid until you can account for the new phenomena properly. The fact that the orbiter was being struck was a failure in itself. It just didn't result in a total failure until the failure of Columbia. If your car's winshield flapped open occasionally, but never caused a crash, would you consider it a "safe design?".
I never claimed that space travel isn't risky. The risk is the very reason that people involved should be doubly paranoid and stringent about identifying and eliminating potential risks. The fact is that foam impacts were happening and little was done about it. The fact is that a LARGE foam impact happened and only ONE analysis was done based on haphazard guessing as to the foam impact area and with damage extrapolated from incomplete historical data. The fact is that requests for more information was denied. These facts lead me to believe that NASA lacks the engineering culture to properly implement a robust manned space program.
Whoa there, this is a pretty loaded statement. In what ways does NASA continue to "flaunt their disregard for basic engineering principles"? Care to give us some examples? Or are you just throwing out unsubstantiated, emotional statements because you're pissed off at something?
By continuing to operate an incredibly complex and well designed project under conditions it wasn't designed for. O-rings were not designed for ANY blow-by. The C-C edge and tiles were not designed for ANY impact by foam. I spent two months in college going over the culture, engineering and decisions which led to the Challenger failure. To see the same thing happen again does piss me off.
Do we continue to have Slashdot readers that think they can do a better job than the guys with the PhD's and decades of experience? Maybe you should start up your own space exploration company.
Give me the money and I will. I do have an engineering degree and I do have a graduate degree in engineering risk analysis. The same decision making muddle behind the Challenger disaster is behind the Columbia disaster. Just because the people doing the muddle have "experience" and graduate degrees doesn't make the muddle any less of a mess. The problem lies not in the people, but in the social structure and the culture. NASA continues to fool itself into thinking that design flaws were safe, even though engineering analysis never supported that conclusion. And twice we've all had to pay for their mistakes. You can fool yourself, but you can't fool nature.
Based on the information they had at the time, the risk that there would be catastrophic damage from the foam hitting the wing was not significant....
They could not have foreseen the damage and based on their extensive knowledge of the orbiter and the nature of the foam and impact, determined that any damage was unlikely to pose a re-entry risk.
And you know this how? The leading edges and the protective
tiles were never designed for ANY impact. Do you want me
to repeat that. The leading edge Carbon-Carbon structures
and the protective tiles were never designed for any impact.
The fact that the orbiter had survived previous impacts did not
negate the fact that they were now operating the shuttle under
conditions it was not designed for and which they did not
understand. The same type of decision making led to the
Challenger disaster.
"O-rings are experiencing blow-by". "Oh, is that good?" "No,
the O-rings were never designed for blow-by" "But it's been
working so far, can you prove that it will fail?" "No, but we
can't prove that it's won't either." "Well, it's been working so
far, I don't see why we should scrap a 10 billion dollar project
just because you're a bad engineer."
And for the Columbia FUBAR: "The foam on the shuttle is falling off
and hitting the Shuttle". "Oh, is that good?" "No, the shuttle
was never designed to take impacts during launch, especially the
tiles and the leading edge" "But it's been working so far and
we've survived impacts before, can you explain why it's still
working?" "No, but it might fail. We can't prove that it's safe
" "Well, it's been working so far, I don't see why we should
scrap a 10 billion dollar project..."
Please give the guys at NASA a little more credit.
I give credit where credit is due. And the credit for the
fuck-ups that led to this disaster lie squarely at the feet of
NASA, who, despite the fact that systemic and organizational errors which
led to the Challenger disaster were exposed, continued to flaunt their
disregard for basic engineering principles. They didn't learn that
just because something "worked" doesn't mean that it's safe. Especially
when equipment is experiencing conditions it was never designed for.
Thanks, I already have the mini-M (#1391472 is a mini model). The missing key is precisely I'd love to get a buckling spring HHKb, it has all of the keys you need and the control key is in the right place. Anybody know how much is needed to tool up for a run of one of these? EnkiduEOT
At work I use a Happy Hacking Keyboard. At home, I use an IBM Model M (part# 1391472, birthday July 23, 1987). I love the compact layout of the Happy Hackin Keyboard and I love the positive click and rock solid (no make that titanium billet solid) feel of the M. Would somebody please, please make a USB, HHKb Lite layout, buckling spring keyboard? I'd be willing to pay up to US$400 for a keyboard like this. Provided, of course, it's as tough as my M. (I intend to pass my M down to my children.)
Maybe a link (or several links) in each chain was human error, but to place the blame for each entire accident on those two decisions is bullshit. Regarding the Challenger accident, if they hadn't had to build the booster rockets in sections for political reasons, there never would have been any O-rings to start with. Oh, and if they had actually sat down and figured out the actual engineering costs of using liquid hydrogen, they would not have needed the damn boosters in the first place. The Challenger accident could have been prevented by altering any one of those links. Of course, that doesn't deny the fact that the Space Shuttle program has been a farce or over-hyped capabilites, rushed engineering, and poor management. Remember, each space shuttle was supposed to fly more than once a month.
Safer space flight IS possible (remember when flying was dangerous?). Yes, the challenges are greater, but none of them are beyond our knowledge of physics or engineering. Building robust, safe, efficient spacecraft has been possible 20+ years ago. Building robust, safe, efficient reuseable spacecraft wasn't 20 years ago, but we may be getting close now.
Once again, the boondoggle continues to roll on, sucking up billions of dollars of U.S. tax dollars chasing the promised "clean" fusion energy that would make everything cheap and simple. Let me point some things out to you guys:
Once we get more energy out than we put it, we're on our way. Hah! Far from it. What form is that energy in my friend? It's mostly in gamma rays and fast neutrons. Well, we *can* convert that into heat, but only after making something (probably water) very radioactive. Remember, the energy is only useful if you can use it.
Fusion energy will be ubiquitous soon. NOT. Even the most optimistic of fusion researchers are saying "20 years". I haven't been alive that long, but ever since I could read science magazines and encyclopaedias, it has always been 20 years.
Mr. Fusion doesn't exist and won't exist. And unless there is a radical re-arrangement of our scientifice knowledge and our technical capabilities, it ain't going to exist in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes, or our children's children's lifetimes. Fusion requires ridicuously hot temperatures, high pressures and produces lots of nasty fast neurtrons. Think huge, inefficient energy installations producing tons of radioactive waste and require millions of dollars of maintenance. Repeat after me, Mr. Fusion is a movie prop, just like warp drive and transporters.
And why are we persuing this hopeless mirage like Ponce de Leon, starving in a land of plenty? I, personally, have no idea. Hey, dipshits. Look up. You see that big bright ball of light? It's called the Sun and it's a functioning, efficient fusion generator just pouring it's useful energy (in the form of visible and near visible light) out at us. And why is the energy so useful? Because the dirty fusion by-products have been filtered into heat and light by ~500k km of Sun stuff situated between us and the fusion. (And don't give me that shit about solar panels costing more energy to make than they produce. You don't need to convert it directly into electricty, do you?). If solar energy is so damn inefficient, how do you think our entire planet got along until now? Even oil is solar energy filtered through a couple generations of conversion.
It seems to me that the main problem holding solar energy back is the lack of efficient, large scale, energy storage facilities. Hey, give me a billion and I'll make a couple for you and we can get off of this fusion chase, and start generating useful energy. From the sun. Like the rest of the Earth.
In the closing paragraph of Thomas Paine's "Dissertation On First Principles Of Government", he wrote:
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
I fear that many in our current cabinet would consider such statements "unpatriotic" and Mr. Paine a danger to the security of the state. Note that my sig is apropos also.
Vim will rot13 for you with g?{Motion} or {Visual}g?.
Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I find it interesting that the posts criticizing my post are focusing on the last least important statement in my post. How about some comments on the substantive portion of my post, on how (in the last 40 years) we have a shitty shitty record of "rebuilding" democracies.
Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Rebuilding: Let's see, how about some examples of "rebuilding" we've directly involved outselves in more recently (40 years):
Guatemala: urged by the United Fruit Company (outraged that the democratically elected socialist government was going to take their land, paying them exactly what they originally paid for it), we engineer a coup d'etat, installing a repressive dictatorship who proceed to kill and torture political opponents for the next 30 years. The U.S. continues to pour millions of dollars of support to the dictatorships. Only recently has Gautemala emerged from the long shadow of this brutal regime which was supported almost exclusively by the U.S. government.
Chile: After a socialist government is democratically elected (and mismanages for a couple of years), we support Pinochet and his military junta in a coup d'etat. The military dictatorship, under guise of fighting communism, establish a brutal police state, torturing and "disappearing" political opponents (labeled Marxists and including American citizens) for the next two decades. The U.S., again pours millions of dollars of support into the dictatorship. You know the rest.
Vietnam: The American backed South Vietnamese government reneges on a promise to hold national elections (fearful that Ho Chih Mihn might actually win a fair election) and civil war breaks out. The U.S. attempts to prop up the repressive South Vietnamese government with money and advisors, eventually, sending American troops into battle against the Viet Cong (South Vietnamese rebels) and the N.V.A. The U.S. is supported by many troops from Canada, ANZAC and the R.O.K. Millions of people are killed in the conflict before the U.S. withdraws its troops. You know the rest.
Iran: After the democratically elected government takes steps to nationalize the oil industry, the CIA engineers a coup, where the Shah of Iran replaces a Constitutional Monarchy. The Shah, while stealing billions of dollars from the country, represses political freedom so fiercely that it political dissent squirts into the only haven it has, extremist religion. The formerly unpopular religious extremists gain thousands of converts, they overthrow the Shah and kidnap the American Embassy. You know the rest.
Iraq: Pissed off at the betrayal of Iran (and unable to muster the balls to outright declare war on Iran after the specter of Vietnam), we support Saddam Hussein with materiel and money, as long as he continues his war against Iran. We turn a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons as long as he continues this war. You know the rest.
Afghanistan:... nevermind, look it up for yourself, how we trained, armed and supported the extremists who created the core of Al Qaeda. The chickens coming home to roost indeed.
All of this is well documented and easily verifiable by reading some modern history books or googling around on the web. I would say that our record of "rebuilding" countries into democracies (especially when large corporate interests area involved) is about as shitty as it gets. The cynic in me wants to say that the only reason that Japan and Germany succeeded in becoming democracies was because they had no natural resources for post-war American companies to exploit. Hence there was no need for the U.S. to go in and "intervene". BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.
To be a programmer, you just need to get a foot in the door. That means you just have to have some exposure to programming and CS topics, not a full-blown major.
Horse puckey. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: People who write code whilst ignorant of the basics of closures, inheritance and data structures, unaware of the dangers of exponential complexity, and untutored in the subtleties of search and sort are the reason so many programs make me want to commit acts of depraved indifference to human life. They are the reason simple file operations take 10 Megs of memory. They are the reason file formats are bloated, inefficient and internally inconsistent. They are the reason most java programs run like crap, creating/deleting many megabytes worth of unnecessary objects every second.
People like that are no more programmers than the guys who pump gas are mechanical engineers. Programmers don't just write code, they should design code. They should resolve and reduce the complexities of the real world into an abstract form on which processes and humans can interact. Programmers should understand the beauty of abstraction, the hard realities of computation and the subtleties of resolving the two. Programmers need to more than glorified code monkeys. Unfortunately, too often, they are just that.
Of course, that's not saying that a degree in non-CS is a bad thing, far from it. But just because you know C++ syntax and some libraries doesn't make you a programmer.
Double WRONG! The foam was not just accelerated by gravity, but also by the (relative) mach 2+ slipstream. The Shuttle was accelerating upward (by the solid rocket boosters and the main shuttle engines) at 5 or so g's and the foam was accelerated backwards by gravity plus the wind. The Boeing report estimated it's speed at 400-500mph. Don't know if that was relative or absolute. If it's relative then the foam impacted at least 400mph, otherwise, at least 700mph. Either way more than "a foam cooler falling off the back of a semi". Fucking idiot.
Although NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said Wednesday during congressional testimony that the foam in question was traveling at a rate of roughly 50 mph, his comments don't jibe with reports by NASA and Boeing engineers.
Yeah real scientific analysis there. A large piece of foam accelerates to 50 mph in a mach 2 wind. Sone engineer he is.
Yeah, but scientific enquiry, also goes by the rule of Occam's razor where you don't make up stuff with unsupported evidence. Heck, the Challenger disaster *could* have been caused by martians beaming rays at the O-rings. But we had lots of evidence pointing to the culprit, low temperature failure of the O-rings.
Currently, we have evidence of an impact near the wheel well tiles by a large object and a failure of containment near that point during entry. Despite the hopeful analysis by NASA: "It was all foam and it didn't hit any critical tiles, and even if it did, the Crater impact analysis program is wrong and the impact wasn't deeper than the tile and even if it did hit we got hit before and it landed safely so we'll be fine." I haven't seen any change from the same complacency and lack of rigor that influenced the decision to launch the Challenger all those years ago.
That doesn't mean that I think journalists are great at scientific enquiry. However, the heads of NASA don't seem to be terribly scientific either. Here's some choice quotes.
"Right now, it just does not make sense to us that a piece of debris would be the root cause for the loss of Columbia and its crew," Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore said.
And
Dittemore also discounted the possibility that ice had formed on the shuttle or the external fuel tank and could have damaged the tiles. ''I don't think it's ice,'' he said. ''I don't think this came off as a chunk of foam solidified with ice.''
Based on WHAT? Whose jumping to conclusions now? It's called bullshitting until you get the results you want. For the record, here's my list of the mistakes I'm aware of in the analysis and conclusions surrounding the launch foam incident. Remember, this analysis was supposed to be the worst case scenario. And they concluded that there was "no substantial risk".
Assuming that the foam was all foam with no ice with out any supporting evidence.
Discarding the predicted results from the Crater program (3 inches).
Extrapolating based on the 1992 impact (a much smaller piece of debris).
Ignoring the possibility of damage to a critical tile.
Ignoring the possibility of damage to the tile increased turbulence over the wing.
My family and I are entitled to as much safety as we can afford.
Except that SUV's in general aren't safer. Yes they are safer in multi-collision crashes, but they have a much higher rate of rollover AND have a higher rate of fatalities when rollover occurs. The laws that classify an SUV as a light truck allows it to pollute more also allows it to be less safe in roll overs. See this site for some good reasons why SUV's aren't safer. Also, if you're already a good driver, having a heavier, bigger vehicle makes you a worse driver because braking/accelerating/maneuvering are ALL compromised by the increased weight and height of an SUV. Just because you feel safer in an SUV doesn't mean you are safer.
Despite your stilted sentences and bad grammar, you had me agreeing with you until you said "Most don't have computer science majors, and in some cases are better programmers because of it."
Horse puckey. People who write code whilst ignorant of the basics of closures, inheritance and data structures, unaware of the dangers of exponential complexity, and untutored in the subtleties of search and sort are the reason so many programs make me want to commit acts of depraved indifference to human life. They are the reason simple file operations take 10 Megs of memory. They are the reason file formats are bloated, inefficient and internally inconsistent. They are the reason most java programs run like crap, creating/deleting many megabytes worth of unnecessary objects every second.
People like that are no more programmers than the guys who pump gas are mechanical engineers. Programmers shouldn't just write code, they should design code. They should resolve and reduce the complexities of the real world into an abstract form on which processes and humans can interact. Programmers should understand the beauty of abstraction, the hard realities of computation and the subtleties of resolving the two. Programmers need to more than glorified code writers.
That doesn't mean that people who can do the above need to be uber geeky. All the time. But it does mean that they should be able to see a program on many levels and understand the implications of the decisions they make on all those levels. And if that means they need to be uber geeky then so be it.
Please keep your friends far far away from the programs I write and use.
Exactly my view. I'll change and upgrade with my computers at work. I'll upgrade my apps, I'll patch the OS (particularly since IT will fix it if things get totally wacked). I run Win2000 and RH7.2 at work. I want my home computer to always work. I run MacOSX at home.
For my PDA, I expect it's primary duties to be a notepad + address book + scheduler + RPN calculator. I want something that is small, nimble, quick to use, easy to backup, and will never crash on me. I'll live with a wait cursor on my computers but not on my PDA. I'll live with multiple clicks to perform one task on my computer but not on my PDA. If I want a portable MP3 player, I'll get a Zen or a iPod. And for my PDA needs, the PalmOS based ones are it. I currently use a Handera330 and have no complaints. I'd take a Tungsten T in a heartbeat. Not for its whizz bang features, but for its formfactor and screen. Oh, and I'd trade color for battery life anyday on a PDA.
The Sharp would be a cool laptop backup though. If I worked as a SysAdmin, I'd carry one with a CF ethernet adapter and a serial cable everywhere. However, I'm a code slinger and much prefer my Happy Hacking Keyboard to a thumbpad.
The sad thing is that they didn't even TRY to get pictures from the ground. It could have been done and yes the resolution might not have been great but it would have been an much much better than NOTHING.
With only the launch video for information the analysis was 90% WAG (wild ass guess). At best the analysis would have consisted of: "We think the foam is this big, and since we assume the foam is this big we assume it weighs this much, and since it weighed this much, and it looks like it hit around here, so it shouldn't have caused any serious damage. And plus, it was okay the last few times this happened." If I were in charge of a no fail safe system (the exterior hull of the Shuttle) and I hear that kind of bullshit, the first words out of my mouth would be, "Clean out your desk, you're fired for incompetence." What about possible ice? Why did the foam fall off? Could it have been wet? Did they analyze the retrieved tank's foam? Did they measure the missing foam? What was the weather before launch? There were too many unknowns and more information was needed before a proper analysis could have been done. And ANY pictures would have added a whole dimension to the data available for analysis.
Face it, they bet the shuttle on that WAG. And they lost big. This is an exact repeat of the complacency and lack of paranoia that led to the Challenger disaster. People in charge of spacecraft should be paranoid assholes who insist on things being done as perfectly as humanly possible. And "It was okay the last few times" is not a statement that people like that make.
Slashdot Mirror
here Or just look throught articles on yahoo's full coverage section. I just call them like I see them.
Hey, I'm not saying that the people over at NASA aren't doing their best. What I've beeen saying is that the culture of NASA has evolved to become one that is incapable of dealing properly with complexity of operating the space shuttle. Despite the fact that this was pointed out after the Challenger disaster, they havfe slipped back to their old faults.
Thanks for the job offer, but I'm quite happy where I am. One of the reasons I wouldn't want to work for NASA is the fear that I am unwilling to take on the immense responsibility such a position. Also the same reason I rejected medicine as a career choice. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't criticize doctors who perform bad medicine. And it also doesn't mean that I shouldn't criticize engineers who support/condone bad engineering.
I don't have a problem with the IMAX resolution/frame rate. I love both. I have a problem with the viewing angle/size. It's just too damn big and makes me nauseous quite easily. I don't watch my 27" inch tv from 12" and I don't like the way you have to turn you head to capture the entire screen in IMAX.
Hmm, hadn't heard of that. But yes, with DLP and film, the legacy 24fps shit has got to go. 48 fps sounds like a good speed for compatibility and solving legacy "fielding" issues. I'd love to see films produced in this format. Akira re-re-release?
Like the subject says, I don't want film, I want digital. Having seen several films (Akira (twice digital, once on film), Monster's Inc. (1+1), SW: TPM (1+1), etc.) on DLP and on film, I can say that the film going experience is a full order of magnitude better on DLP. The blacks are black. The edges are sharper, the film "jitter" is gone and the whole image simply kicks ass. Yes, I know that film is theoretically better. But the print you see in the theatre is 4 generations old if you're lucky and 6 or 7 if you're not. So forget nausea inducing IMAX, bring it in DLP and I'll go to see it 5 times.
I never claimed that space travel isn't risky. The risk is the very reason that people involved should be doubly paranoid and stringent about identifying and eliminating potential risks. The fact is that foam impacts were happening and little was done about it. The fact is that a LARGE foam impact happened and only ONE analysis was done based on haphazard guessing as to the foam impact area and with damage extrapolated from incomplete historical data. The fact is that requests for more information was denied. These facts lead me to believe that NASA lacks the engineering culture to properly implement a robust manned space program.
By continuing to operate an incredibly complex and well designed project under conditions it wasn't designed for. O-rings were not designed for ANY blow-by. The C-C edge and tiles were not designed for ANY impact by foam. I spent two months in college going over the culture, engineering and decisions which led to the Challenger failure. To see the same thing happen again does piss me off. Give me the money and I will. I do have an engineering degree and I do have a graduate degree in engineering risk analysis. The same decision making muddle behind the Challenger disaster is behind the Columbia disaster. Just because the people doing the muddle have "experience" and graduate degrees doesn't make the muddle any less of a mess. The problem lies not in the people, but in the social structure and the culture. NASA continues to fool itself into thinking that design flaws were safe, even though engineering analysis never supported that conclusion. And twice we've all had to pay for their mistakes. You can fool yourself, but you can't fool nature.And you know this how? The leading edges and the protective tiles were never designed for ANY impact. Do you want me to repeat that. The leading edge Carbon-Carbon structures and the protective tiles were never designed for any impact. The fact that the orbiter had survived previous impacts did not negate the fact that they were now operating the shuttle under conditions it was not designed for and which they did not understand. The same type of decision making led to the Challenger disaster.
"O-rings are experiencing blow-by". "Oh, is that good?" "No, the O-rings were never designed for blow-by" "But it's been working so far, can you prove that it will fail?" "No, but we can't prove that it's won't either." "Well, it's been working so far, I don't see why we should scrap a 10 billion dollar project just because you're a bad engineer."
And for the Columbia FUBAR: "The foam on the shuttle is falling off and hitting the Shuttle". "Oh, is that good?" "No, the shuttle was never designed to take impacts during launch, especially the tiles and the leading edge" "But it's been working so far and we've survived impacts before, can you explain why it's still working?" "No, but it might fail. We can't prove that it's safe " "Well, it's been working so far, I don't see why we should scrap a 10 billion dollar project ..."
I give credit where credit is due. And the credit for the fuck-ups that led to this disaster lie squarely at the feet of NASA, who, despite the fact that systemic and organizational errors which led to the Challenger disaster were exposed, continued to flaunt their disregard for basic engineering principles. They didn't learn that just because something "worked" doesn't mean that it's safe. Especially when equipment is experiencing conditions it was never designed for.
Thanks, I already have the mini-M (#1391472 is a mini model). The missing key is precisely I'd love to get a buckling spring HHKb, it has all of the keys you need and the control key is in the right place. Anybody know how much is needed to tool up for a run of one of these? EnkiduEOT
At work I use a Happy Hacking Keyboard. At home, I use an IBM Model M (part# 1391472, birthday July 23, 1987). I love the compact layout of the Happy Hackin Keyboard and I love the positive click and rock solid (no make that titanium billet solid) feel of the M. Would somebody please, please make a USB, HHKb Lite layout, buckling spring keyboard? I'd be willing to pay up to US$400 for a keyboard like this. Provided, of course, it's as tough as my M. (I intend to pass my M down to my children.)
The ACLU has a good summary of what you're asking for here: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12263&c=206
The EFF has their analysis here: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_ militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html.
And the Center for Democracy & Technology has a long list of links here: http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/analysis.sh tml
Now go read at least one of these links before making anymore comments on how you don't think the Patriot act isn't bad for your freedom. EnkiduEOT
Safer space flight IS possible (remember when flying was dangerous?). Yes, the challenges are greater, but none of them are beyond our knowledge of physics or engineering. Building robust, safe, efficient spacecraft has been possible 20+ years ago. Building robust, safe, efficient reuseable spacecraft wasn't 20 years ago, but we may be getting close now.
EnkiduEOT
Once again, the boondoggle continues to roll on, sucking up billions of dollars of U.S. tax dollars chasing the promised "clean" fusion energy that would make everything cheap and simple. Let me point some things out to you guys:
And why are we persuing this hopeless mirage like Ponce de Leon, starving in a land of plenty? I, personally, have no idea. Hey, dipshits. Look up. You see that big bright ball of light? It's called the Sun and it's a functioning, efficient fusion generator just pouring it's useful energy (in the form of visible and near visible light) out at us. And why is the energy so useful? Because the dirty fusion by-products have been filtered into heat and light by ~500k km of Sun stuff situated between us and the fusion. (And don't give me that shit about solar panels costing more energy to make than they produce. You don't need to convert it directly into electricty, do you?). If solar energy is so damn inefficient, how do you think our entire planet got along until now? Even oil is solar energy filtered through a couple generations of conversion.
It seems to me that the main problem holding solar energy back is the lack of efficient, large scale, energy storage facilities. Hey, give me a billion and I'll make a couple for you and we can get off of this fusion chase, and start generating useful energy. From the sun. Like the rest of the Earth.
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
I fear that many in our current cabinet would consider such statements "unpatriotic" and Mr. Paine a danger to the security of the state. Note that my sig is apropos also.
Vim will rot13 for you with g?{Motion} or {Visual}g?.
I find it interesting that the posts criticizing my post are focusing on the last least important statement in my post. How about some comments on the substantive portion of my post, on how (in the last 40 years) we have a shitty shitty record of "rebuilding" democracies.
- Guatemala: urged by the United Fruit Company (outraged that the democratically elected socialist government was going to take their land, paying them exactly what they originally paid for it), we engineer a coup d'etat, installing a repressive dictatorship who proceed to kill and torture political opponents for the next 30 years. The U.S. continues to pour millions of dollars of support to the dictatorships. Only recently has Gautemala emerged from the long shadow of this brutal regime which was supported almost exclusively by the U.S. government.
- Chile: After a socialist government is democratically elected (and mismanages for a couple of years), we support Pinochet and his military junta in a coup d'etat. The military dictatorship, under guise of fighting communism, establish a brutal police state, torturing and "disappearing" political opponents (labeled Marxists and including American citizens) for the next two decades. The U.S., again pours millions of dollars of support into the dictatorship. You know the rest.
- Vietnam: The American backed South Vietnamese government reneges on a promise to hold national elections (fearful that Ho Chih Mihn might actually win a fair election) and civil war breaks out. The U.S. attempts to prop up the repressive South Vietnamese government with money and advisors, eventually, sending American troops into battle against the Viet Cong (South Vietnamese rebels) and the N.V.A. The U.S. is supported by many troops from Canada, ANZAC and the R.O.K. Millions of people are killed in the conflict before the U.S. withdraws its troops. You know the rest.
- Iran: After the democratically elected government takes steps to nationalize the oil industry, the CIA engineers a coup, where the Shah of Iran replaces a Constitutional Monarchy. The Shah, while stealing billions of dollars from the country, represses political freedom so fiercely that it political dissent squirts into the only haven it has, extremist religion. The formerly unpopular religious extremists gain thousands of converts, they overthrow the Shah and kidnap the American Embassy. You know the rest.
- Iraq: Pissed off at the betrayal of Iran (and unable to muster the balls to outright declare war on Iran after the specter of Vietnam), we support Saddam Hussein with materiel and money, as long as he continues his war against Iran. We turn a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons as long as he continues this war. You know the rest.
- Afghanistan:... nevermind, look it up for yourself, how we trained, armed and supported the extremists who created the core of Al Qaeda. The chickens coming home to roost indeed.
All of this is well documented and easily verifiable by reading some modern history books or googling around on the web. I would say that our record of "rebuilding" countries into democracies (especially when large corporate interests area involved) is about as shitty as it gets. The cynic in me wants to say that the only reason that Japan and Germany succeeded in becoming democracies was because they had no natural resources for post-war American companies to exploit. Hence there was no need for the U.S. to go in and "intervene". BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.People like that are no more programmers than the guys who pump gas are mechanical engineers. Programmers don't just write code, they should design code. They should resolve and reduce the complexities of the real world into an abstract form on which processes and humans can interact. Programmers should understand the beauty of abstraction, the hard realities of computation and the subtleties of resolving the two. Programmers need to more than glorified code monkeys. Unfortunately, too often, they are just that.
Of course, that's not saying that a degree in non-CS is a bad thing, far from it. But just because you know C++ syntax and some libraries doesn't make you a programmer.
EnkiduEOT
EnkiduEOT
EnkiduEOT
Currently, we have evidence of an impact near the wheel well tiles by a large object and a failure of containment near that point during entry. Despite the hopeful analysis by NASA: "It was all foam and it didn't hit any critical tiles, and even if it did, the Crater impact analysis program is wrong and the impact wasn't deeper than the tile and even if it did hit we got hit before and it landed safely so we'll be fine." I haven't seen any change from the same complacency and lack of rigor that influenced the decision to launch the Challenger all those years ago.
That doesn't mean that I think journalists are great at scientific enquiry. However, the heads of NASA don't seem to be terribly scientific either. Here's some choice quotes.
AndBased on WHAT? Whose jumping to conclusions now? It's called bullshitting until you get the results you want. For the record, here's my list of the mistakes I'm aware of in the analysis and conclusions surrounding the launch foam incident. Remember, this analysis was supposed to be the worst case scenario. And they concluded that there was "no substantial risk".
EnkiduEOT
Except that SUV's in general aren't safer. Yes they are safer in multi-collision crashes, but they have a much higher rate of rollover AND have a higher rate of fatalities when rollover occurs. The laws that classify an SUV as a light truck allows it to pollute more also allows it to be less safe in roll overs. See this site for some good reasons why SUV's aren't safer. Also, if you're already a good driver, having a heavier, bigger vehicle makes you a worse driver because braking/accelerating/maneuvering are ALL compromised by the increased weight and height of an SUV. Just because you feel safer in an SUV doesn't mean you are safer.
Horse puckey. People who write code whilst ignorant of the basics of closures, inheritance and data structures, unaware of the dangers of exponential complexity, and untutored in the subtleties of search and sort are the reason so many programs make me want to commit acts of depraved indifference to human life. They are the reason simple file operations take 10 Megs of memory. They are the reason file formats are bloated, inefficient and internally inconsistent. They are the reason most java programs run like crap, creating/deleting many megabytes worth of unnecessary objects every second.
People like that are no more programmers than the guys who pump gas are mechanical engineers. Programmers shouldn't just write code, they should design code. They should resolve and reduce the complexities of the real world into an abstract form on which processes and humans can interact. Programmers should understand the beauty of abstraction, the hard realities of computation and the subtleties of resolving the two. Programmers need to more than glorified code writers.
That doesn't mean that people who can do the above need to be uber geeky. All the time. But it does mean that they should be able to see a program on many levels and understand the implications of the decisions they make on all those levels. And if that means they need to be uber geeky then so be it.
Please keep your friends far far away from the programs I write and use.
For my PDA, I expect it's primary duties to be a notepad + address book + scheduler + RPN calculator. I want something that is small, nimble, quick to use, easy to backup, and will never crash on me. I'll live with a wait cursor on my computers but not on my PDA. I'll live with multiple clicks to perform one task on my computer but not on my PDA. If I want a portable MP3 player, I'll get a Zen or a iPod. And for my PDA needs, the PalmOS based ones are it. I currently use a Handera330 and have no complaints. I'd take a Tungsten T in a heartbeat. Not for its whizz bang features, but for its formfactor and screen. Oh, and I'd trade color for battery life anyday on a PDA.
The Sharp would be a cool laptop backup though. If I worked as a SysAdmin, I'd carry one with a CF ethernet adapter and a serial cable everywhere. However, I'm a code slinger and much prefer my Happy Hacking Keyboard to a thumbpad.
EnkiduEOT
With only the launch video for information the analysis was 90% WAG (wild ass guess). At best the analysis would have consisted of: "We think the foam is this big, and since we assume the foam is this big we assume it weighs this much, and since it weighed this much, and it looks like it hit around here, so it shouldn't have caused any serious damage. And plus, it was okay the last few times this happened." If I were in charge of a no fail safe system (the exterior hull of the Shuttle) and I hear that kind of bullshit, the first words out of my mouth would be, "Clean out your desk, you're fired for incompetence." What about possible ice? Why did the foam fall off? Could it have been wet? Did they analyze the retrieved tank's foam? Did they measure the missing foam? What was the weather before launch? There were too many unknowns and more information was needed before a proper analysis could have been done. And ANY pictures would have added a whole dimension to the data available for analysis.
Face it, they bet the shuttle on that WAG. And they lost big. This is an exact repeat of the complacency and lack of paranoia that led to the Challenger disaster. People in charge of spacecraft should be paranoid assholes who insist on things being done as perfectly as humanly possible. And "It was okay the last few times" is not a statement that people like that make.