Actually, I think LoTR is a very well-loved book among the regulars on Slashdot because they all admire Peter Jackson's audacity and vision to actually film three movies out of a book (a long-time favorite among Slashdot readers) that everyone else had said could not be turned into theatrical features.
It also helps that Jackson created almost from scratch a visual-effects team that has done amazing CGI work that rivals anything done by the folks at Lucasfilm.
It's the reasons I mentioned above that LoTR deserves its own category in Slashdot. =)
I think while Maxivision with its 48 frames per second projection is a major improvement over the current 24 frames per second used in movie projection, there are a bunch of problems to deal with:
1. The cost in terms of film is going to be exorbitant. Maxivision requires 50% more film stock on a per hour basis compared to regular film, and the shipping cost for a single print of a movie with 50% more film stock gets very expensive really fast.
2. Maxivision requires that the movie camera run at twice the speed of current cameras. We're not talking special-effects cameras that run at high speed for short periods of time, but a camera that records at twice the speed of current cameras for long periods of time. That will require better-quality mechanical components inside the camera, which of course will get expensive quite fast.
3. Maxivision requires film-handling equipment that runs at twice the speed of current projectors. That means the projector will have be built to higher mechanical standards, have to be maintained to higher standards, and will need much larger feed and takeup platters. Cheap it won't be.
4. Maxivision still has all the downsides of regular movie film, namely the issue of general wear and tear on the film itself. It doesn't solve the issues of film breakage, scratches, etc.
How about the possibility that the Mach (BSD) OS kernel that is the basis of MacOS X 10.x versions may have infringing code by SCO standards? Boy if SCO sues Apple like that it will REALLY open a can of worms in terms of causing all kinds of legal hassles. =(
...when they start suing the people who developed various versions of Berkeley Systems Development (BSD) UNIX.
Such an act will effectively have SCO piss of the ENTIRE UNIX community, and G*d help McBride when the Macintosh crowd with its noisy supporters get involved, given that MacOS X is built heavily on BSD UNIX.:-/
MS-DOS owes more to CP/M than Unix when it comes to command line interfaces. Given the very different command line structures of Unix and CP/M, SCO doesn't have a chance. =)
Actually, I think when Yankovic did "The Saga Begins," he probably did it not only with the approval of Lucasfilm, but very likely Lucasfilm may have provided him with a working script of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace under a non-disclosure agreement for Yankovic to work on that song. After all, the music video came out only a few weeks after the movie was released! Given the many scenery changes in that music video (not to mention a lot of costume changes!), I think that Yankovic had been working on that video for at least 3-4 months, long before the movie was released to the theaters.
I think people have to start realizing here that there is a very fine line between parody and a slander suit.
If you look at "Weird Al" Yankovic, he very well knows about this issue, hence the reason why he personally asks the original copyright holder of the song for permission before doing his parody of it. The same applies for MAD magazine; the editors there have to be VERY careful in their parody creations to prevent some corporate type showing up with a nasty slander suit. You wonder has MAD parodied PepsiCo or the Coca-Cola Company lately....
Now you know why Disney and the Coca-Cola Company agressively protect their copyrights--even a wrongly-written parody could have very negative effects on the company reputation. Does any remember the case Disney brought against the people who wrote the infamous Mickey Mouse and the Air Pirates comic in the early 1970's?
If you want to see what good writing can do for anime, I suggest you get the upcoming first season of Bishoujo Senshi Sailormoon on UNCUT subtitled-English DVD that ADV Films will release this July on a two-box DVD set.
Don't laugh folks: the original version shown in Japan is in many ways a VASTLY different show than the DiC English-language "adaptation" that was originally shown in 1995. The original version is a much darker series, with much more serious storylines and the end of the first season caused some controversy in Japan in the way it ended. I especially recommend watching the first seven episodes, which has some of the best-written stories outside of the Sailor Moon S (third) season.
Unfortunately, it also says way too much about how short-sighted TV executives are nowadays.
TV executives frequently do not like hour-long dramas due to the high cost of production per hour; they still (unfortunately for us TV viewers:( ) like reality shows because reality shows have relatively low cost of production per hour. Even with its exotic locales, the best-known reality show (Survivor) is still a bargain compared to shows like the now-cancelled Firefly, the soon-to-end Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, and the potentially-cancelled Enterprise.
The days of a network letting a show find its audience are long over. You'll never see anything like how NBC allowed Hill Street Blues to eventually become a big hit again.
LABS was obselete by the 1980's.
on
Nuke-Lobbing
·
· Score: 1
I believe that the toss bombing idea went by the wayside when special parachutes that could retard the speed of the bomb rapidly and the use of delayed detonation systems became widely available during the early 1980's on the B57, B61 and soon B83 bombs (the older B28 and B43 bombs were already being phased out at that time).
The USAF Weapons Laboratory seriously looked at retrofitting some B61 nuclear bombs with a small solid fuel rocket motor that would essentially "fly" the bomb well away from the flight path of the bomb-carrying airplane. That way, the airplane drops the bomb, the rocket motor fires and manuevers the bomb at an angle away from the airplane; this allows the airplane to fly one direction and the bomb will fly in another direction, so the airplane will be safely away from the blast effects when the bomb goes off. I don't think the idea ever made it to production, though.
The during the late 1980's the USAF was in serious development of SRAM II missile, which would have replaced most B61 bombs; it would have been a small guided missile with the W-80 warhead from the Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) but it would have a range of up to 50 miles from the launch airplane. The end of the Cold War and changes in nuclear warfare doctrine ended that program in the early 1990's.
Eh, not really.
on
Nuke-Lobbing
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't think the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS) manuever is practiced nowadays.
Mostly because the airplane that delivered the bomb has to make a sharp popup manuever to do this, and that makes the plane extremely vulnerable to ground AA fire and to other fighters. With the advent of parachutes to slow down the bomb drop rate and delayed-action detonation circuits (both of which were developed for the B28, B43, B57, B61 and B83 bombs due to the fact bombers dropped the bombs at very low altitude at high speed), LABS manuevers are fortunately not necessary nowadays.
By the way, one other thing--the weight of modern nuclear bombs are surprisingly low. The variable yield (10 to 250 kT) B61 bomb weighs only about 700 pounds; the 1 MT B83 bomb only weigh just under 1000 pounds! Given that the F-16C and F-18C/E models regularly carry 2,000 lb. iron bombs on a regular basis, the only modification necessary for the F-16C and F-18C/E to carry nuclear bombs is the extra control avionics needed to arm the bomb itself.
The big issue is that the RIAA is running the record industry like a price-fixing cartel, with that cartel determining the price of an album-length CD.
At US$18 per disc, that is just too expensive for many consumers. Anyone who's taken a basic course in microeconomics know that a cartel has too many incentives to undercut that cartel--Napster and KaZaa were born because consumers were balking at paying the high album prices.
Now, if album-length CD's were sold at US$11 per disc, then things will be WAY better, since there is much lower financial incentive to pirate music.
Look at the DVD market in the USA. Because new-release DVD movie discs go for around US$20, there is very little financial incentive to pirate the movie. Between the high cost of DVD recorder drives, the high cost of DVD recordable media, and the fact DiVX files of a movie takes about 350 MB disc space per hour of movie (a daunting thing to download even with broadband connections), I don't expect DVD piracy to be a serious problem in the USA.
Re:U2..? High speed...?
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
U-2R/S models are still operational with the USAF today, primarily for wide area tactical reconnaissance using visual, IR/UV and electronic intelligence sensor from high altitude just outside enemy territory. Remember before Operation Iraqi Freedom started there was a big argument in the UN about U-2 overflights to monitor arms compliance by Iraq?
However, I expect the U-2 to slowly leave operational service as the USAF begins to put into service the Northrup Grumman RQ-4A Global Hawk high-altitude reconnaissance drone, which does everything the U-2 does in terms of reconnaissance but without risking the pilot. What's interesting is that the USAF could have had something akin to Global Hawk with the Compass Cope reconnaissance drone that was developed during the 1970's.
A minor tidbit.
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, the TR-1A got redesignated U-2R and U-2S during the 1990's after the Cold War ended.
Recently, the U-2R/S models got major upgrade with non-afterburning versions of the GE F404 engine (almost identical to the engines on the F-117A); with these new engines the plane could operate at high altitudes longer due to improved fuel consumption and also were much more tolerant of compressor stalls at high altitude.
Actually, Rutan's concept with SpaceShipOne uses a lot of the technology pioneered first in the UK but perfected in Germany for one large airplane carrying only a slightly smaller plane and launching the smaller airplane once the larger plane needs to return to base. (Note: this idea is much more complicated than a large bomber dropping a small plane like what the US did with its X-plane launches from modified B-29's and B-52's.)
Late in World War II, the Junkers company built a number of specially-modified Ju 88 bombers that had a large explosive warhead fitted in place of the four-man cockpit. Junkers fitted special brace mounts on top of this modified Ju 88 so accommodated a small fighter like an Me 109G or Fw 190A series fighter airplane. The whole composite flying unit (called Mistel) was guided by the pilot in the fighter until near the final dive into the target, where the fighter separated from the Ju 88 to escape while the bomber flew straight into the target. Mistel was used late in World War II, though its success was marginal at best.
Very late in World War II, engineers at Daimler-Benz took the idea of Mistel to the next level with their A composite flying machine project proposal. It was essentially a large jet-powered airplane with relatively tall fixed undercarriage that had a smaller jet powered bomber slung underneath. This allowed the smaller bomber to fly much further than possible, since the smaller bomber didn't need to consume fuel on the way to the target.
Essentially, the Rutan SpaceShipOne unveiled today uses the same technological ideas pioneered on the Daimler-Benz A project, but with modern aerospace materials and engines the whole composite flying unit is vastly lighter than the German project.
While Ellison is an excellent writer that has done a number of great stories, I'd rather have the museum concentrate on the type of history that I suggested in another message here.
And DEFINITELY include as much of Forrest J. Ackerman's massive collection of science fiction memorabilia as possible, too. Without the pulp magazines of the 1920's to circa 1950 (Ackerman has a huge collection of them), science fiction as we know it today would not be possible--after all, many of the most famous authors of this genre started publishing in the pulps.
One more thing: Paul Allen should try to get as much memorabilia from Forrest J. Ackerman's HUGE collection as possible to be displayed in the museum.
Without access to what Ackerman has accumulated over the years, you really can't have the type of display of the history of science fiction that Allen envisions.
I think Mr. Allen should include the following displays in the museum:
1. The origins of science fiction, including homages to Mary Shelley (the author of Frankenstein, considered by many to be the first science fiction novel ever written), Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs.
2. The rise and heyday of science fiction pulp magazines from the late 1920's to circa 1950. Many of the truly great names of science fiction started writing stories for these magazines.
3. The rapid ascendency of science fiction book popularity from the 1960's on.
4. The influence of radio plays, movies and television on science fiction.
5. The influence of science fiction fandom. Allen should pay close attention to how conventions such as Worldcon spread the popularity of science fiction. He needs to mention groups such as the the pioneering Futurians in the US Northeast during the 1930's, plus long-running groups like the Los Angeles Science Fiction Society (LASFS) and Northeast Science Fiction Association (NESFA).
I think due to the design of the PlayStation 2's highly-integrated mainboard you can forget about upgrading the video output of current PS2's in the North Ameerican and European to support progressive scan video. =(
It's more likely that we'll see new-production PS2's that will sport progressive-scan outputs using the three-RCA connector component video connection found here in the USA or the special component video connector used in Europe.
I've found that the recent Samsung monitors are excellent units.
If you want a CRT, get the SyncMaster 763MB 17" monitor. It's pretty reasonably priced, and its sharpness of text and graphics are just unbeatable for its price, thanks to its very tiny pixel size. The brightness quality of the 763MB is quite good, too.
If you want a LCD, get the SyncMaster 152T (15" with 1024x768 native resolution) or the SyncMaster 191T (19" with 1280x1024 native resolution). Both of these monitors have under 25 ms response times, excellent color saturation, excellent brightness and contrast, and very sharp graphics quality.
The noise I'm talking about is from the engines as the plane takes off and does it climb-out sequence. On the Concorde, the four Olympus 593 turbojets are running at full afterburner during this phase of flight; the result is noise levels that you usually associate with jet fighters running full afterburner during takeoff, which is definitely in the loud department.
With Boeing's High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) design, the plane will use a variable-cycle engine that will generate noise levels akin to that you get from a 747-400 during the takeoff and climb-out sequence (e.g., no need for running afterburners in low speed flight). It's only when the plane achieves supersonic speed that the afterburners are "lighted."
Boeing has considerable input from Japanese aerospace companies with their widebody jets--in fact, the Japanese already makes large body sections for the 767 and 777!
Because of the extremely daunting cost of the next-generation SST, the only way it's going to be built will require a true international collaboration program. This means using the expertise of Boeing, the EADS aerospace group in Europe, Russian aerospace companies (which will give the Russians much-needed hard currency revenues), and/or the Japanese aerospace companies combined in a consortium.
That was quite true with the Olympus 593 turbojets used on the Concorde, but jet engine technology has advanced quite a lot since the early 1960's!
When NASA and Boeing was running the High-Speed Transport (HST) project, their biggest studies was on the possibility of a jet engine that could operate at Mach 2.0 supersonic cruise yet still meet today's strict noise emission rules on takeoff and exhaust emission rules at cruising altitude. They concluded it was well with reach for such an engine could be built, thanks to modern combustion chamber designs, better engine nacelle designs, and jet engine technology derived from the engines developed for the Advanced Technology Fighter (ATF) competition program of the early 1990's. In short, the F-22A Raptor sports jet engines that may be the technological "key" to make a second-generation SST possible.
I think the other big issue that hindered the Concorde was its relatively short range--it could only fly non-stop between New York City and London/Paris.
We have the technical knowledge to build a much larger SST seating up to 300 passengers that can fly Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop; that right there makes it possible to fly from any airport on the US East Coast to most of Europe easily, or fly Los Angeles to Sydney with one fuel fuel stop in Honolulu or New York city to Johannesburg with one fuel stop at the Cape Verde Islands.
Maybe it's time for Boeing to revive the High-Speed Transport (HST) project and team up with EADS/Airbus Industrie, the Japanese aerospace industy and/or the Russian aerospace industry to build such a plane.
Re:Where are the Concorde replacements?
on
Concorde to be Grounded
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think there are these issues that hindered Concorde operations:
1. The plane is very noisy due to its engine design.
2. The plane only seats 100 passengers, so its fuel efficiency is very poor.
3. The plane's range is barely enough for a transatlantic crossing from New York to Paris or London.
However, today's aerospace technology is MUCH further advanced than the 1960's when the Concorde was being developed. During the late 1990's, NASA and Boeing did a major research study for a High-Speed Transport (HST). They concluded it was technically feasible using modern aerospace materials for a SST seating up to 300 passengers to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop at Mach 2.0 yet meet today's strict rules for jet engine noise and exhaust emissions; the only reason why Boeing didn't turn it into a real airliner project was its US$18 billion cost in 1998 dollars.
I believe that with the retirement of Concorde it could be the impetus for Boeing to revive HST and team up with EADS/Airbus Industrie and/or the Russian aerospace industry to build such a plane. Unlike Concorde, HST's much longer range, much higher passenger capacity and quieter engines means HST could fly many more transoceanic routes profitably yet be acceptable to environmental-conscious airports around the world. Imagine flying Los Angeles to Sydney or New York City to Johannesburg in half the time it takes now even with one fuel stop; imagine Paris to Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo to Sydney, or Johannesburg to Singapore non-stop in 40 to 50 percent less time than it takes now.
I personally believe such a plane are already on the request lists for the major airlines after 2012.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think LoTR is a very well-loved book among the regulars on Slashdot because they all admire Peter Jackson's audacity and vision to actually film three movies out of a book (a long-time favorite among Slashdot readers) that everyone else had said could not be turned into theatrical features.
It also helps that Jackson created almost from scratch a visual-effects team that has done amazing CGI work that rivals anything done by the folks at Lucasfilm.
It's the reasons I mentioned above that LoTR deserves its own category in Slashdot. =)
I think while Maxivision with its 48 frames per second projection is a major improvement over the current 24 frames per second used in movie projection, there are a bunch of problems to deal with:
1. The cost in terms of film is going to be exorbitant. Maxivision requires 50% more film stock on a per hour basis compared to regular film, and the shipping cost for a single print of a movie with 50% more film stock gets very expensive really fast.
2. Maxivision requires that the movie camera run at twice the speed of current cameras. We're not talking special-effects cameras that run at high speed for short periods of time, but a camera that records at twice the speed of current cameras for long periods of time. That will require better-quality mechanical components inside the camera, which of course will get expensive quite fast.
3. Maxivision requires film-handling equipment that runs at twice the speed of current projectors. That means the projector will have be built to higher mechanical standards, have to be maintained to higher standards, and will need much larger feed and takeup platters. Cheap it won't be.
4. Maxivision still has all the downsides of regular movie film, namely the issue of general wear and tear on the film itself. It doesn't solve the issues of film breakage, scratches, etc.
What code would Apple have stolen????
How about the possibility that the Mach (BSD) OS kernel that is the basis of MacOS X 10.x versions may have infringing code by SCO standards? Boy if SCO sues Apple like that it will REALLY open a can of worms in terms of causing all kinds of legal hassles. =(
...when they start suing the people who developed various versions of Berkeley Systems Development (BSD) UNIX.
:-/
Such an act will effectively have SCO piss of the ENTIRE UNIX community, and G*d help McBride when the Macintosh crowd with its noisy supporters get involved, given that MacOS X is built heavily on BSD UNIX.
MS-DOS owes more to CP/M than Unix when it comes to command line interfaces. Given the very different command line structures of Unix and CP/M, SCO doesn't have a chance. =)
Actually, I think when Yankovic did "The Saga Begins," he probably did it not only with the approval of Lucasfilm, but very likely Lucasfilm may have provided him with a working script of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace under a non-disclosure agreement for Yankovic to work on that song. After all, the music video came out only a few weeks after the movie was released! Given the many scenery changes in that music video (not to mention a lot of costume changes!), I think that Yankovic had been working on that video for at least 3-4 months, long before the movie was released to the theaters.
I think people have to start realizing here that there is a very fine line between parody and a slander suit.
If you look at "Weird Al" Yankovic, he very well knows about this issue, hence the reason why he personally asks the original copyright holder of the song for permission before doing his parody of it. The same applies for MAD magazine; the editors there have to be VERY careful in their parody creations to prevent some corporate type showing up with a nasty slander suit. You wonder has MAD parodied PepsiCo or the Coca-Cola Company lately....
Now you know why Disney and the Coca-Cola Company agressively protect their copyrights--even a wrongly-written parody could have very negative effects on the company reputation. Does any remember the case Disney brought against the people who wrote the infamous Mickey Mouse and the Air Pirates comic in the early 1970's?
If you want to see what good writing can do for anime, I suggest you get the upcoming first season of Bishoujo Senshi Sailormoon on UNCUT subtitled-English DVD that ADV Films will release this July on a two-box DVD set.
Don't laugh folks: the original version shown in Japan is in many ways a VASTLY different show than the DiC English-language "adaptation" that was originally shown in 1995. The original version is a much darker series, with much more serious storylines and the end of the first season caused some controversy in Japan in the way it ended. I especially recommend watching the first seven episodes, which has some of the best-written stories outside of the Sailor Moon S (third) season.
Unfortunately, it also says way too much about how short-sighted TV executives are nowadays.
:( ) like reality shows because reality shows have relatively low cost of production per hour. Even with its exotic locales, the best-known reality show (Survivor) is still a bargain compared to shows like the now-cancelled Firefly, the soon-to-end Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, and the potentially-cancelled Enterprise.
TV executives frequently do not like hour-long dramas due to the high cost of production per hour; they still (unfortunately for us TV viewers
The days of a network letting a show find its audience are long over. You'll never see anything like how NBC allowed Hill Street Blues to eventually become a big hit again.
I believe that the toss bombing idea went by the wayside when special parachutes that could retard the speed of the bomb rapidly and the use of delayed detonation systems became widely available during the early 1980's on the B57, B61 and soon B83 bombs (the older B28 and B43 bombs were already being phased out at that time).
The USAF Weapons Laboratory seriously looked at retrofitting some B61 nuclear bombs with a small solid fuel rocket motor that would essentially "fly" the bomb well away from the flight path of the bomb-carrying airplane. That way, the airplane drops the bomb, the rocket motor fires and manuevers the bomb at an angle away from the airplane; this allows the airplane to fly one direction and the bomb will fly in another direction, so the airplane will be safely away from the blast effects when the bomb goes off. I don't think the idea ever made it to production, though.
The during the late 1980's the USAF was in serious development of SRAM II missile, which would have replaced most B61 bombs; it would have been a small guided missile with the W-80 warhead from the Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) but it would have a range of up to 50 miles from the launch airplane. The end of the Cold War and changes in nuclear warfare doctrine ended that program in the early 1990's.
I don't think the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS) manuever is practiced nowadays.
Mostly because the airplane that delivered the bomb has to make a sharp popup manuever to do this, and that makes the plane extremely vulnerable to ground AA fire and to other fighters. With the advent of parachutes to slow down the bomb drop rate and delayed-action detonation circuits (both of which were developed for the B28, B43, B57, B61 and B83 bombs due to the fact bombers dropped the bombs at very low altitude at high speed), LABS manuevers are fortunately not necessary nowadays.
By the way, one other thing--the weight of modern nuclear bombs are surprisingly low. The variable yield (10 to 250 kT) B61 bomb weighs only about 700 pounds; the 1 MT B83 bomb only weigh just under 1000 pounds! Given that the F-16C and F-18C/E models regularly carry 2,000 lb. iron bombs on a regular basis, the only modification necessary for the F-16C and F-18C/E to carry nuclear bombs is the extra control avionics needed to arm the bomb itself.
The big issue is that the RIAA is running the record industry like a price-fixing cartel, with that cartel determining the price of an album-length CD.
At US$18 per disc, that is just too expensive for many consumers. Anyone who's taken a basic course in microeconomics know that a cartel has too many incentives to undercut that cartel--Napster and KaZaa were born because consumers were balking at paying the high album prices.
Now, if album-length CD's were sold at US$11 per disc, then things will be WAY better, since there is much lower financial incentive to pirate music.
Look at the DVD market in the USA. Because new-release DVD movie discs go for around US$20, there is very little financial incentive to pirate the movie. Between the high cost of DVD recorder drives, the high cost of DVD recordable media, and the fact DiVX files of a movie takes about 350 MB disc space per hour of movie (a daunting thing to download even with broadband connections), I don't expect DVD piracy to be a serious problem in the USA.
U-2R/S models are still operational with the USAF today, primarily for wide area tactical reconnaissance using visual, IR/UV and electronic intelligence sensor from high altitude just outside enemy territory. Remember before Operation Iraqi Freedom started there was a big argument in the UN about U-2 overflights to monitor arms compliance by Iraq?
However, I expect the U-2 to slowly leave operational service as the USAF begins to put into service the Northrup Grumman RQ-4A Global Hawk high-altitude reconnaissance drone, which does everything the U-2 does in terms of reconnaissance but without risking the pilot. What's interesting is that the USAF could have had something akin to Global Hawk with the Compass Cope reconnaissance drone that was developed during the 1970's.
Actually, the TR-1A got redesignated U-2R and U-2S during the 1990's after the Cold War ended.
Recently, the U-2R/S models got major upgrade with non-afterburning versions of the GE F404 engine (almost identical to the engines on the F-117A); with these new engines the plane could operate at high altitudes longer due to improved fuel consumption and also were much more tolerant of compressor stalls at high altitude.
Actually, Rutan's concept with SpaceShipOne uses a lot of the technology pioneered first in the UK but perfected in Germany for one large airplane carrying only a slightly smaller plane and launching the smaller airplane once the larger plane needs to return to base. (Note: this idea is much more complicated than a large bomber dropping a small plane like what the US did with its X-plane launches from modified B-29's and B-52's.)
Late in World War II, the Junkers company built a number of specially-modified Ju 88 bombers that had a large explosive warhead fitted in place of the four-man cockpit. Junkers fitted special brace mounts on top of this modified Ju 88 so accommodated a small fighter like an Me 109G or Fw 190A series fighter airplane. The whole composite flying unit (called Mistel) was guided by the pilot in the fighter until near the final dive into the target, where the fighter separated from the Ju 88 to escape while the bomber flew straight into the target. Mistel was used late in World War II, though its success was marginal at best.
Very late in World War II, engineers at Daimler-Benz took the idea of Mistel to the next level with their A composite flying machine project proposal. It was essentially a large jet-powered airplane with relatively tall fixed undercarriage that had a smaller jet powered bomber slung underneath. This allowed the smaller bomber to fly much further than possible, since the smaller bomber didn't need to consume fuel on the way to the target.
Essentially, the Rutan SpaceShipOne unveiled today uses the same technological ideas pioneered on the Daimler-Benz A project, but with modern aerospace materials and engines the whole composite flying unit is vastly lighter than the German project.
Just FYI. =)
While Ellison is an excellent writer that has done a number of great stories, I'd rather have the museum concentrate on the type of history that I suggested in another message here.
And DEFINITELY include as much of Forrest J. Ackerman's massive collection of science fiction memorabilia as possible, too. Without the pulp magazines of the 1920's to circa 1950 (Ackerman has a huge collection of them), science fiction as we know it today would not be possible--after all, many of the most famous authors of this genre started publishing in the pulps.
One more thing: Paul Allen should try to get as much memorabilia from Forrest J. Ackerman's HUGE collection as possible to be displayed in the museum.
Without access to what Ackerman has accumulated over the years, you really can't have the type of display of the history of science fiction that Allen envisions.
I think Mr. Allen should include the following displays in the museum:
1. The origins of science fiction, including homages to Mary Shelley (the author of Frankenstein, considered by many to be the first science fiction novel ever written), Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs.
2. The rise and heyday of science fiction pulp magazines from the late 1920's to circa 1950. Many of the truly great names of science fiction started writing stories for these magazines.
3. The rapid ascendency of science fiction book popularity from the 1960's on.
4. The influence of radio plays, movies and television on science fiction.
5. The influence of science fiction fandom. Allen should pay close attention to how conventions such as Worldcon spread the popularity of science fiction. He needs to mention groups such as the the pioneering Futurians in the US Northeast during the 1930's, plus long-running groups like the Los Angeles Science Fiction Society (LASFS) and Northeast Science Fiction Association (NESFA).
I think due to the design of the PlayStation 2's highly-integrated mainboard you can forget about upgrading the video output of current PS2's in the North Ameerican and European to support progressive scan video. =(
It's more likely that we'll see new-production PS2's that will sport progressive-scan outputs using the three-RCA connector component video connection found here in the USA or the special component video connector used in Europe.
I've found that the recent Samsung monitors are excellent units.
If you want a CRT, get the SyncMaster 763MB 17" monitor. It's pretty reasonably priced, and its sharpness of text and graphics are just unbeatable for its price, thanks to its very tiny pixel size. The brightness quality of the 763MB is quite good, too.
If you want a LCD, get the SyncMaster 152T (15" with 1024x768 native resolution) or the SyncMaster 191T (19" with 1280x1024 native resolution). Both of these monitors have under 25 ms response times, excellent color saturation, excellent brightness and contrast, and very sharp graphics quality.
Wrongo. :-)
The noise I'm talking about is from the engines as the plane takes off and does it climb-out sequence. On the Concorde, the four Olympus 593 turbojets are running at full afterburner during this phase of flight; the result is noise levels that you usually associate with jet fighters running full afterburner during takeoff, which is definitely in the loud department.
With Boeing's High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) design, the plane will use a variable-cycle engine that will generate noise levels akin to that you get from a 747-400 during the takeoff and climb-out sequence (e.g., no need for running afterburners in low speed flight). It's only when the plane achieves supersonic speed that the afterburners are "lighted."
Ahem.
Boeing has considerable input from Japanese aerospace companies with their widebody jets--in fact, the Japanese already makes large body sections for the 767 and 777!
Because of the extremely daunting cost of the next-generation SST, the only way it's going to be built will require a true international collaboration program. This means using the expertise of Boeing, the EADS aerospace group in Europe, Russian aerospace companies (which will give the Russians much-needed hard currency revenues), and/or the Japanese aerospace companies combined in a consortium.
That was quite true with the Olympus 593 turbojets used on the Concorde, but jet engine technology has advanced quite a lot since the early 1960's!
When NASA and Boeing was running the High-Speed Transport (HST) project, their biggest studies was on the possibility of a jet engine that could operate at Mach 2.0 supersonic cruise yet still meet today's strict noise emission rules on takeoff and exhaust emission rules at cruising altitude. They concluded it was well with reach for such an engine could be built, thanks to modern combustion chamber designs, better engine nacelle designs, and jet engine technology derived from the engines developed for the Advanced Technology Fighter (ATF) competition program of the early 1990's. In short, the F-22A Raptor sports jet engines that may be the technological "key" to make a second-generation SST possible.
I think the other big issue that hindered the Concorde was its relatively short range--it could only fly non-stop between New York City and London/Paris.
We have the technical knowledge to build a much larger SST seating up to 300 passengers that can fly Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop; that right there makes it possible to fly from any airport on the US East Coast to most of Europe easily, or fly Los Angeles to Sydney with one fuel fuel stop in Honolulu or New York city to Johannesburg with one fuel stop at the Cape Verde Islands.
Maybe it's time for Boeing to revive the High-Speed Transport (HST) project and team up with EADS/Airbus Industrie, the Japanese aerospace industy and/or the Russian aerospace industry to build such a plane.
I think there are these issues that hindered Concorde operations:
1. The plane is very noisy due to its engine design.
2. The plane only seats 100 passengers, so its fuel efficiency is very poor.
3. The plane's range is barely enough for a transatlantic crossing from New York to Paris or London.
However, today's aerospace technology is MUCH further advanced than the 1960's when the Concorde was being developed. During the late 1990's, NASA and Boeing did a major research study for a High-Speed Transport (HST). They concluded it was technically feasible using modern aerospace materials for a SST seating up to 300 passengers to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop at Mach 2.0 yet meet today's strict rules for jet engine noise and exhaust emissions; the only reason why Boeing didn't turn it into a real airliner project was its US$18 billion cost in 1998 dollars.
I believe that with the retirement of Concorde it could be the impetus for Boeing to revive HST and team up with EADS/Airbus Industrie and/or the Russian aerospace industry to build such a plane. Unlike Concorde, HST's much longer range, much higher passenger capacity and quieter engines means HST could fly many more transoceanic routes profitably yet be acceptable to environmental-conscious airports around the world. Imagine flying Los Angeles to Sydney or New York City to Johannesburg in half the time it takes now even with one fuel stop; imagine Paris to Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo to Sydney, or Johannesburg to Singapore non-stop in 40 to 50 percent less time than it takes now.
I personally believe such a plane are already on the request lists for the major airlines after 2012.