Your east to west example doesn't work so well. I your plane leaves at 16:00 and gets to the gate six hours later, you land at 19:00 local, with plenty of time to get to the hotel and maybe even get dinner out before getting a full night's rest in a real bed.
Your example works better for west to east, though leaving LA at 16:00 and taking 16 hours to cross the country drops you off at 11:00 the next day after sleeping in what may not be an especially comfortable bed. Still, if you can afford to get into town at 11:00 the next morning, you can afford to get into the hotel late and sleep in a little.
Flight time from LAX to San Francisco: 90 minutes gate to gate Train time from Union Station to Oakland (no train routes into San Francisco): 8.5 hours minimum, with most of those routes involving bus rides of two to six hours
It's a little less expensive to take the train (the Pacific Starlight makes the run, but takes 11+ hours to do so), but I'll gladly pay the few dollars extra to get the time back through flight. Even the worst security nightmares I've had to deal with don't make up for the time difference involved. Hell, most of the time, I've gotten my boarding pass (and I do it the old-fashioned way at the manned kiosks) and gone through security within 20 minutes of arriving, including LAX, SNA, DEN, DFW, JFK, MCI, IAD, and ORF. There are occasional longer waits, but I think the longest was only about 45 minutes.
I can't find it now, but I did post once here about the cost of taking a train from Los Angeles to Dallas. It would take two days and cost $1100 per person for a small sleeper cabin (without a private toilet) in each direction. A trip from Union Station in Los Angeles to Penn Station in New York City would take something like four days and cost nearly $2000 per person, IIRC. The non-stop flight times for these trips are about 3.5 hours and six hours, give or take.
You speak of the travel experience as though the wait to board and means to do so is the only problem, and maybe it is over with the Acela line. I, on the other hand, am not so fond of being cooped up for days at a time when I could be out seeing the sights and sleeping in a comfortable hotel bed for the much more common routes that I -- and the overwhelming majority of other travelers -- take on our trips.
Speed and width of trains is related to rail gauges, which in the US are largely standard gauge (1435mm). Tunnels and clearance between tracks play a factor as well.
Deleting child porn can be construed as knowingly destroying evidence of a crime. I can't speak for amusement parks or the legalities of what they may or may not do, but I know that deleting such images without a really strong backing is asking for trouble.
This is one of the things that's dealt with in network security, particularly incident management, and words are rarely minced when it is brought up. Work in the field long enough, and the chances are high that you'll stumble across it. (I've been fortunate not to have done so, but others I know have not been so lucky.) Upon finding it, the first thing that you do is call legal counsel. The second thing is get in touch with law enforcement (probably through your legal counsel).
In most cases, all investigation stops until they show up, because merely viewing them may be construed as a crime. You did not take, store, nor send them, but you did open the file(s), and opening other files where you've already found child porn means that you know or should know that there's a high likelihood that there are others. In the meantime, you don't show anyone else, call anyone over to verify, and you don't move, copy, or save them anywhere else, and you absolutely do not delete them. You just take notes, and wait for your attorney(s) and the guys with guns to show up.
I would question that someone 'knew' that their actions would cause harm to others.
The standard is usually "knew or should have known" -- you may not have known that the car was in gear before you tried to scare your friend by revving the engine as he walked in front of you, but you had the opportunity to check and should have done so prior to revving the engine.
And then the cop says, "Looks like you're going to prison." TFA says that anyone in this program (which can last several years) is not allowed to drive any vehicle unless it's been fitted with one of these, under penalty of jail time (and probably an irritated judge).
That's better than the 80MPH cap that's been mentioned for the Orange County/Los Angeles County area. The entire thing is pointless to work on as it stands, and billions are going to be lost as the failure proceeds.
TFS does mention that New Mexico saw a 37% drop in DWI recidivism. Others aren't likely to blow into it for them because they know that if something happens and their DNA shows up inside it (saliva is sure to get deposited, though I don't know if enough for a DNA test, but perhaps it does), they're guilty of aiding and abetting, and possible negligence charges besides.
Your estate gets the debts, not your family, unless the account was in multiple names, such as with a spouse. The remaining account holders are still responsible for the debts. If it's just in your name, and the estate runs out of money, they're stuck holding the bag.
And it's probably still going to be talk 20 years from now.
A couple of years ago, voters passed a $10 billion bond measure to get it started. What many of them missed was that this was the first $10 billion of a $40 billion total cost, much of which is expected to be federally-funded even though nobody bothered to ask the federal government for the money. If the state has to cover the entire amount, it will cost $80 billion once the bonds are paid off.
Sure, it's planned to go from San Diego to San Francisco, but it's running into enormous political problems. City after city in Orange County alone are saying that they don't want it running through their land because of the financial and political costs that go with it. That means a longer run through Riverside County -- if cities in that county let it happen -- making it more expensive. San Francisco goes back and forth on whether they'll let it actually end in the city, or force it over to Oakland.
Then there's the time it's expected to take to get from San Diego to San Francisco, a trip of about 500 miles. The low end times are quoted at about four hours, which might be acceptable, but that's for an express train, which are rare to non-existent in most plans that have been made public. Every plan I've seen has the train making numerous stops along the way -- as many as a dozen along the 45 mile-path through Orange County, let alone San Diego and Los Angeles Counties and the Bay Area -- and some reports have suggested that it would take eight to ten hours for the train to make the trip, with it spending as much time accelerating and decelerating as it does in a cruise speed -- which wouldn't be that high in the urban areas to begin with.
It's also not expected to be up and running until 2030 at the earliest. Most of the realistic estimates put it at 2040. It's a total fiasco. We can't even get a simple light rail project that runs 30 miles in place in part because the costs ballooned to more than $1 billion despite plans to run most of the line running down the center medians of the streets (hence its name, CenterLine).
Absent a minor revolution, California will never be governable enough to get something like a high-speed-rail line in place.
I didn't ask what would be the purpose of a 125-ton payload. There are a lot of things that one can do with that, including splitting the cost of a launch between a lot of smaller customers. Being able to send up 125 tons of water would itself be a significant achievement allowing improved sustainability in space.
I was asking why would SpaceX, after developing a rocket with a 125-ton payload, move to a rocket with a 140-ton payload. That was answered through brief discussion above.
I expect that SpaceX could do it with less money than legacy contractors, but a billion dollars to certify the Merlin 2 is twice what was spent to develop two rockets, three engines, and a capsule. That would have to be R&D that pays off either very fast, or over a very long time. Proven reusability would probably allow for both.
Another thought crossed my mind after my post about the Falcon X and XX. Perhaps the XX will be a sequel product, especially if the Falcon X is intended to use largely the same manufacturing dies as the Falcon 9. The first stage diameter would be larger to accommodate six engines instead of three (hex cluster, or five surrounding one?), so a logical development path is Falcon 9 -> Falcon X, using experience with the Falcon 9 rocket body to get experience with the Merlin-2, and then Falcon X -> Falcon XX, using the Merlin-2 to get experience with the Falcon XX rocket body.
I dunno. A billion dollars to certify the Merlin-2 seems like a lot of money, though if they can turn the Falcon X and XX into reusable systems, that could pay back relatively quickly.
I do have a question, though: aside from the additional 15 ton capacity of the Falcon XX, is there a reason to develop it in addition to the 125-ton payload capacity of the Falcon X? The Falcon X payload exceeds that of the Saturn V, and would allow (mass-wise) a launch of a third of the ISS at one time. Is it the simplicity of six engines in one container instead of nine in three containers?
abelenky17 is off-base. The ones most likely to be of interest are also the largest (and generally most-capable) units, which would require the most fuel to move. Mercury SIGINT satellites are around five tons, and the Lacrosse synthetic aperture radar satellites reportedly mass up to 16 tons, and both are in LEO.
This isn't to say that they cannot change orbits, just that it requires a very good reason to do so, as not only does it use up precious fuel, but like any operational satellite it has scheduled uses. They're never put up there "just in case we need them."
It's also not to say that there is no use for highly-variable orbits. That the Air Force has been playing with their recently-launched toy shows as much. It's just that such things are not trivial achievements. Such capabilities make it much harder to hide from overhead eyes. Lacrosse-5 has some kind of technology that allows it to "disappear" even in direct sunlight, which makes much more sense than loading it with tons of fuel, but still leaves it fairly predictable.
I'm well aware of how much fuel most jets use when flying supersonic. Only the Concorde and a few recent fighters do well at speeds above Mach 1; even the B-1B uses supersonic flight for only quick runs in and out because it sucks fuel.
The question that I was answering was whether "slightly used Russian ex-military aircraft" were available, not whether it was a practical purchase. Of course it's not. Hell, flying oneself around is not usually a practical option unless you're one of the rare ones who can make money at the in-person meetings you fly to.
They're expensive to fly, expensive to insure, and enormously expensive to maintain because of the specialized knowledge required just for the annuals, let alone any overhauls. The primary purpose of owning a tactical jet such as a MiG-23 is to show off. I never claimed otherwise.
No, not useful nor economic for SST, but why wouldn't you get them over the ocean? That's where you can pass Mach 1. Stay on an IFR flight plan, keep the ADIZ in mind, and make damned sure you don't drift inside of it during supersonic flight without notifying ATC, lest you find a fighter of somewhat different make behind you and a sudden need to test your ejection seat.
LH2 tanks require more insulation (meaning more weight). The planes can only carry so much fuel by volume. The maximum fuel capacity for a 737-NG is 26,000 liters. The density of Jet A at 15C is about 800g/L. The density of liquid hydrogen is 71g/L at 20K. At these densities, you get masses of about 21,000kg of Jet A and 1900kg of LH2. The specific energy of Jet A is about 43MJ/kg, and 143MJ/kg for LH2. At those levels, you get total stored energy of about 1.1 million MJ for Jet A, and only 270,000 MJ for LH2.
The numbers just don't work, and these don't consider the complicating factors from dealing with cryogenic fuels.
The picture seems to show scimitar prop blades, which are much more efficient and produce less blade noise. I can also see where the props could have a battery-assisted power boost during take-off and climb to reduce overall engine noise while maintaining performance.
I can imagine this getting a negative PR image, though, because the general populace will see it as going backward. I already hear enough people complaining about the return to space capsules instead of developing another winged spacecraft. This would be a much more everyday thing, though perhaps a significantly lower flight cost would persuade them that it is better, and if they can maintain a cruise speed of a little under 450 miles per hour (which Wikipedia says is the point where props start running into wave drag), they won't take that much longer to make a given flight. Even a flight to New York from Los Angeles might take only an hour longer -- if that much -- to arrive.
You can buy MiG and Sukhoi fighters. They've been demilitarized, of course, but they're still capable of supersonic flight, and can be flown in the US, provided you have the proper licenses and ratings. There's a guy on the East Coast that owns several MiGs, IIRC.
I've never been to a BMW dealer, no. But according to Edmunds, the only options are the convenience package and an automatic transmission. I would guess that even base BMW cars have a much, much longer list of options.
True, but so far as I can find, the Fiesta is still a somewhat different class of car. According to Edmunds, the sedan and the coupe have the same interior dimensions and almost identical exterior dimensions. The Prius is still larger, comes standard with lots of electronic stuff and a good sound system. The Fiesta still considers anything much more than power mirrors an option. They are different classes of cars intended for different kinds of buyers.
Also, the Fiesta in the US is not apparently available with the 1.4L TDCi option, leaving it at a much less fuel-friendly 32MPG.
I'm not really familiar with British models, but I think the North American Ford Fiesta is based largely on the European model. Comparing those two is not really relevant, as the Prius is a mid-sized sedan and the Fiesta is a sub-compact coupe. You may as well call a netbook better because it's less expensive than a 15" notebook.
Slashdot Mirror
Your east to west example doesn't work so well. I your plane leaves at 16:00 and gets to the gate six hours later, you land at 19:00 local, with plenty of time to get to the hotel and maybe even get dinner out before getting a full night's rest in a real bed.
Your example works better for west to east, though leaving LA at 16:00 and taking 16 hours to cross the country drops you off at 11:00 the next day after sleeping in what may not be an especially comfortable bed. Still, if you can afford to get into town at 11:00 the next morning, you can afford to get into the hotel late and sleep in a little.
For which you still have to pay fair market price. Try to undercut that price too far, and you're tied up in lawsuits for years.
Eminent domain is not a license to steal land at zero cost.
Flight time from LAX to San Francisco: 90 minutes gate to gate
Train time from Union Station to Oakland (no train routes into San Francisco): 8.5 hours minimum, with most of those routes involving bus rides of two to six hours
It's a little less expensive to take the train (the Pacific Starlight makes the run, but takes 11+ hours to do so), but I'll gladly pay the few dollars extra to get the time back through flight. Even the worst security nightmares I've had to deal with don't make up for the time difference involved. Hell, most of the time, I've gotten my boarding pass (and I do it the old-fashioned way at the manned kiosks) and gone through security within 20 minutes of arriving, including LAX, SNA, DEN, DFW, JFK, MCI, IAD, and ORF. There are occasional longer waits, but I think the longest was only about 45 minutes.
I can't find it now, but I did post once here about the cost of taking a train from Los Angeles to Dallas. It would take two days and cost $1100 per person for a small sleeper cabin (without a private toilet) in each direction. A trip from Union Station in Los Angeles to Penn Station in New York City would take something like four days and cost nearly $2000 per person, IIRC. The non-stop flight times for these trips are about 3.5 hours and six hours, give or take.
You speak of the travel experience as though the wait to board and means to do so is the only problem, and maybe it is over with the Acela line. I, on the other hand, am not so fond of being cooped up for days at a time when I could be out seeing the sights and sleeping in a comfortable hotel bed for the much more common routes that I -- and the overwhelming majority of other travelers -- take on our trips.
Speed and width of trains is related to rail gauges, which in the US are largely standard gauge (1435mm). Tunnels and clearance between tracks play a factor as well.
Deleting child porn can be construed as knowingly destroying evidence of a crime. I can't speak for amusement parks or the legalities of what they may or may not do, but I know that deleting such images without a really strong backing is asking for trouble.
This is one of the things that's dealt with in network security, particularly incident management, and words are rarely minced when it is brought up. Work in the field long enough, and the chances are high that you'll stumble across it. (I've been fortunate not to have done so, but others I know have not been so lucky.) Upon finding it, the first thing that you do is call legal counsel. The second thing is get in touch with law enforcement (probably through your legal counsel).
In most cases, all investigation stops until they show up, because merely viewing them may be construed as a crime. You did not take, store, nor send them, but you did open the file(s), and opening other files where you've already found child porn means that you know or should know that there's a high likelihood that there are others. In the meantime, you don't show anyone else, call anyone over to verify, and you don't move, copy, or save them anywhere else, and you absolutely do not delete them. You just take notes, and wait for your attorney(s) and the guys with guns to show up.
I would question that someone 'knew' that their actions would cause harm to others.
The standard is usually "knew or should have known" -- you may not have known that the car was in gear before you tried to scare your friend by revving the engine as he walked in front of you, but you had the opportunity to check and should have done so prior to revving the engine.
And then the cop says, "Looks like you're going to prison." TFA says that anyone in this program (which can last several years) is not allowed to drive any vehicle unless it's been fitted with one of these, under penalty of jail time (and probably an irritated judge).
That's better than the 80MPH cap that's been mentioned for the Orange County/Los Angeles County area. The entire thing is pointless to work on as it stands, and billions are going to be lost as the failure proceeds.
TFS does mention that New Mexico saw a 37% drop in DWI recidivism. Others aren't likely to blow into it for them because they know that if something happens and their DNA shows up inside it (saliva is sure to get deposited, though I don't know if enough for a DNA test, but perhaps it does), they're guilty of aiding and abetting, and possible negligence charges besides.
Your estate gets the debts, not your family, unless the account was in multiple names, such as with a spouse. The remaining account holders are still responsible for the debts. If it's just in your name, and the estate runs out of money, they're stuck holding the bag.
And it's probably still going to be talk 20 years from now.
A couple of years ago, voters passed a $10 billion bond measure to get it started. What many of them missed was that this was the first $10 billion of a $40 billion total cost, much of which is expected to be federally-funded even though nobody bothered to ask the federal government for the money. If the state has to cover the entire amount, it will cost $80 billion once the bonds are paid off.
Sure, it's planned to go from San Diego to San Francisco, but it's running into enormous political problems. City after city in Orange County alone are saying that they don't want it running through their land because of the financial and political costs that go with it. That means a longer run through Riverside County -- if cities in that county let it happen -- making it more expensive. San Francisco goes back and forth on whether they'll let it actually end in the city, or force it over to Oakland.
Then there's the time it's expected to take to get from San Diego to San Francisco, a trip of about 500 miles. The low end times are quoted at about four hours, which might be acceptable, but that's for an express train, which are rare to non-existent in most plans that have been made public. Every plan I've seen has the train making numerous stops along the way -- as many as a dozen along the 45 mile-path through Orange County, let alone San Diego and Los Angeles Counties and the Bay Area -- and some reports have suggested that it would take eight to ten hours for the train to make the trip, with it spending as much time accelerating and decelerating as it does in a cruise speed -- which wouldn't be that high in the urban areas to begin with.
It's also not expected to be up and running until 2030 at the earliest. Most of the realistic estimates put it at 2040. It's a total fiasco. We can't even get a simple light rail project that runs 30 miles in place in part because the costs ballooned to more than $1 billion despite plans to run most of the line running down the center medians of the streets (hence its name, CenterLine).
Absent a minor revolution, California will never be governable enough to get something like a high-speed-rail line in place.
It does when an elephant is driving.
I didn't ask what would be the purpose of a 125-ton payload. There are a lot of things that one can do with that, including splitting the cost of a launch between a lot of smaller customers. Being able to send up 125 tons of water would itself be a significant achievement allowing improved sustainability in space.
I was asking why would SpaceX, after developing a rocket with a 125-ton payload, move to a rocket with a 140-ton payload. That was answered through brief discussion above.
I expect that SpaceX could do it with less money than legacy contractors, but a billion dollars to certify the Merlin 2 is twice what was spent to develop two rockets, three engines, and a capsule. That would have to be R&D that pays off either very fast, or over a very long time. Proven reusability would probably allow for both.
Another thought crossed my mind after my post about the Falcon X and XX. Perhaps the XX will be a sequel product, especially if the Falcon X is intended to use largely the same manufacturing dies as the Falcon 9. The first stage diameter would be larger to accommodate six engines instead of three (hex cluster, or five surrounding one?), so a logical development path is Falcon 9 -> Falcon X, using experience with the Falcon 9 rocket body to get experience with the Merlin-2, and then Falcon X -> Falcon XX, using the Merlin-2 to get experience with the Falcon XX rocket body.
I dunno. A billion dollars to certify the Merlin-2 seems like a lot of money, though if they can turn the Falcon X and XX into reusable systems, that could pay back relatively quickly.
I do have a question, though: aside from the additional 15 ton capacity of the Falcon XX, is there a reason to develop it in addition to the 125-ton payload capacity of the Falcon X? The Falcon X payload exceeds that of the Saturn V, and would allow (mass-wise) a launch of a third of the ISS at one time. Is it the simplicity of six engines in one container instead of nine in three containers?
abelenky17 is off-base. The ones most likely to be of interest are also the largest (and generally most-capable) units, which would require the most fuel to move. Mercury SIGINT satellites are around five tons, and the Lacrosse synthetic aperture radar satellites reportedly mass up to 16 tons, and both are in LEO.
This isn't to say that they cannot change orbits, just that it requires a very good reason to do so, as not only does it use up precious fuel, but like any operational satellite it has scheduled uses. They're never put up there "just in case we need them."
It's also not to say that there is no use for highly-variable orbits. That the Air Force has been playing with their recently-launched toy shows as much. It's just that such things are not trivial achievements. Such capabilities make it much harder to hide from overhead eyes. Lacrosse-5 has some kind of technology that allows it to "disappear" even in direct sunlight, which makes much more sense than loading it with tons of fuel, but still leaves it fairly predictable.
Are they happy to remove random commas, too? :)
I'm well aware of how much fuel most jets use when flying supersonic. Only the Concorde and a few recent fighters do well at speeds above Mach 1; even the B-1B uses supersonic flight for only quick runs in and out because it sucks fuel.
The question that I was answering was whether "slightly used Russian ex-military aircraft" were available, not whether it was a practical purchase. Of course it's not. Hell, flying oneself around is not usually a practical option unless you're one of the rare ones who can make money at the in-person meetings you fly to.
They're expensive to fly, expensive to insure, and enormously expensive to maintain because of the specialized knowledge required just for the annuals, let alone any overhauls. The primary purpose of owning a tactical jet such as a MiG-23 is to show off. I never claimed otherwise.
No, not useful nor economic for SST, but why wouldn't you get them over the ocean? That's where you can pass Mach 1. Stay on an IFR flight plan, keep the ADIZ in mind, and make damned sure you don't drift inside of it during supersonic flight without notifying ATC, lest you find a fighter of somewhat different make behind you and a sudden need to test your ejection seat.
LH2 tanks require more insulation (meaning more weight). The planes can only carry so much fuel by volume. The maximum fuel capacity for a 737-NG is 26,000 liters. The density of Jet A at 15C is about 800g/L. The density of liquid hydrogen is 71g/L at 20K. At these densities, you get masses of about 21,000kg of Jet A and 1900kg of LH2. The specific energy of Jet A is about 43MJ/kg, and 143MJ/kg for LH2. At those levels, you get total stored energy of about 1.1 million MJ for Jet A, and only 270,000 MJ for LH2.
The numbers just don't work, and these don't consider the complicating factors from dealing with cryogenic fuels.
The picture seems to show scimitar prop blades, which are much more efficient and produce less blade noise. I can also see where the props could have a battery-assisted power boost during take-off and climb to reduce overall engine noise while maintaining performance.
I can imagine this getting a negative PR image, though, because the general populace will see it as going backward. I already hear enough people complaining about the return to space capsules instead of developing another winged spacecraft. This would be a much more everyday thing, though perhaps a significantly lower flight cost would persuade them that it is better, and if they can maintain a cruise speed of a little under 450 miles per hour (which Wikipedia says is the point where props start running into wave drag), they won't take that much longer to make a given flight. Even a flight to New York from Los Angeles might take only an hour longer -- if that much -- to arrive.
You can buy MiG and Sukhoi fighters. They've been demilitarized, of course, but they're still capable of supersonic flight, and can be flown in the US, provided you have the proper licenses and ratings. There's a guy on the East Coast that owns several MiGs, IIRC.
I've never been to a BMW dealer, no. But according to Edmunds, the only options are the convenience package and an automatic transmission. I would guess that even base BMW cars have a much, much longer list of options.
True, but so far as I can find, the Fiesta is still a somewhat different class of car. According to Edmunds, the sedan and the coupe have the same interior dimensions and almost identical exterior dimensions. The Prius is still larger, comes standard with lots of electronic stuff and a good sound system. The Fiesta still considers anything much more than power mirrors an option. They are different classes of cars intended for different kinds of buyers.
Also, the Fiesta in the US is not apparently available with the 1.4L TDCi option, leaving it at a much less fuel-friendly 32MPG.
I'm not really familiar with British models, but I think the North American Ford Fiesta is based largely on the European model. Comparing those two is not really relevant, as the Prius is a mid-sized sedan and the Fiesta is a sub-compact coupe. You may as well call a netbook better because it's less expensive than a 15" notebook.