Actually, NASA's ROI is pretty good at about $7 returned for every $1 spent. They also develop a lot of technology that doesn't have a financial ROI, but rather a simple non-tangible benefit to society as a whole. For example, they developed the CCD imager for use in the Hubble Telescope. That technology is now widely used in inexpensive digital cameras but is more importantly also used in medical imagers for detecting breast cancer. It has eliminated something like a half a million unneeded biopsies which not only save that cost, but also the pain from the procedure itself.
Hitler's Idea? Bullcrap. Henry Ford produced the first "car for the people" with the introduction of the Model T. Porsche simply wanted to do for Germany what the Ford did for the US. Hitler had the same ambition, so they produced the VW.
We've done a lot of studies with the human eye's ability to perceive change. And you are correct that they don't run at a certain clock speed, however, they can not discern anything above an average of 20 to 24 frame per second.
We actually found a few things quite interesting, that in some instances the eye can actually miss a change if it happens too quickly. LED taillights on cars were a problem when they were first being developed because they were turning on too quickly. Some drivers missed that they actually activated. Slowing down the light to simulate the "heat up" of an incandesant bulb fixed it. Then we played around with speeding it back up to the fastest detectable speed. They now appear to turn on instantly, but in reality, they're not, there is a small build up.
I built a scanning laser projector that can easily update 60 times per second. It wasn't using MEMS either, which are smaller and much faster, but it was using Galvos.
Considering your eyes work at around 24 frames per second, I'd say it was acceptable. (TV and Computer monitors run at 60fps as well.)
Now that I think about it, DLP Televisions are using MEMS devices with an array of mirrors that move just as fast... and I've never heard complaints about their refresh rate.
That is correct. The bank site doesn't have to have any malicious code on it. The hacker would "inject" the malicious code in it via the weakness. More than likely, there would be a malicious site involved, just to send the data to, but it is not necessary.
For example, PayPal was the target of an attack like this and the user was sent to PayPals site... the certificate even checked out, but the injection attack still allowed the data to be stolen none the less. And that wasn't even using Flash.
"When is the last time you clicked on an email link sent to you out of the blue...and then stuck in your user name and password."
Therein lies the problem. You assume that it requires you to do that. Simple XSS hacks take you to a page where you login. Advanced (read real) XSS hacks take you to pages where you have already logged in. Say, for example, an e-mail system. They do it using a hidden iFrame, so you never even see it. Then the script can "browse" the site looking for key bits of information and will then pass it on to a malicious site via a hidden post. You will never even be aware that the hack has taken place.
A lot of times hacks like this simply crack open the door to other hacks. But, each one gives the hacker more and more information... closer and closer to the secrets.
Don't underestimate these "simple" type of attacks. They can be and are a lot more dangerous than you think.
With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with
Right... whenever you have more than one country who thinks they are a superpower, you have a good chance that there will be a war.
A good country that want's to remain around needs to have a strong defense. Just because the current battlefield isn't so obvious doesn't mean the next one won't be.
TFA, this plane is a light sport airplane. By definition, it then has a maximum gross weight of 1,320 lbs.
The engine is a 100hp Rotax engine. This is a common aviation engine (mostly in light sports, but also in some "larger" aircraft, like the Diamond Katana which actaully used an 80 hp version of the engine.)
It is more than capable of getting a 1,320 lb plane into the air and flying at over 100mph (or even 100kts = 115mph.) The Diamond Katana had a gross weight of 1600 lbs if I remember correctly. My little old Cessna 150 had a 1600 lb gross weight and it used an antique Continental O-200 engine... which was 200 cubic inches and 100 hp (on a good day... when it was new... on a test stand... with the correct temp... if you were lucky!)
Actually, you're incorrect. It is perfectly legal to own a US Figther Jet. Getting a hold of them is the trick. Actually anything prior to the F-14 is pretty easy to get, aircraft since then is a lot harder, because most of them are still in service and the government hasn't released them. Owning a jet simply takes one step... having the government officially "demilitarize" it. Once that is done, they can be sold to private individuals. Demilitarizing them simply ensures that no advanced equipment works, like Weapons, Radar, Radar Jamming equipment, etc. They don't want it to fall into the wrong hands. (Think about the F-14s and Iran.)
In fact, owning Soviet based aircraft is legal as well, you just can't import it, just like you said, because of it's classification as a weapon. The ATF doesn't like it. If someone was able to produce a copy of the MiG from the ground up in the US then it would be perfectly legal to own and fly it under the Experimental Aircraft category.
There's no law that lets you forbid importation of products Actually, there are laws that do just that! For example, you can't import advanced weapon systems even if you own them. Otherwise, I'd be flying a Mig 29!:-)
"An airspeed indicator is almost critical..."
Pffft! Pilots are taught to fly without instruments. When I was learning (oh so many years ago) my instructor intentionally blanked out my instruments to make sure I knew the feel of the plane... and not to rely on what the instruments were telling me.
Now, during IFR, you need it, but VFR... not a bit. You can easily feel how the landing is going, without the need of an airspeed indicator. And yes... I did learn in a 150... 1969 150J to be exact. Which I still own to this day. There were several occasions in my past where I've taken off only to realize that the pitot tube cover was still on... landing wasn't an issue - who looks at airspeed when they're landing anyway?
In addition to the airspeed indicator, you also have a backup to it... a stall warning indicator or buzzer. Just keep it from not buzzing and you're ok. If you start to approach stall, the plane will also "tell" you buy the lack of control or a slight buffeting in the controls. If you encounter it, just push the nose slightly over and it will go away.
Two Cameras... or Four. Stereoscopic vision can easily distinguish fingers from the background. Four cameras would help it even better, which would allow for more random placement of the fingers (or hands.)
The field of view for the cameras can easily be widened with a simple fish eye lens.
Actually, there is a big difference between the two. The Apple device simply implements the touch surface on the back of the computer. The Microsoft device does it on both sides AND, most importantly, has the ability to track the location of the fingers on the back and display them on the front, so the user get's good feedback as to where his fingers are actually in relation to the device.
Whew... I guess it's a good thing my Beechcraft Skipper doesn't have lights, brakes, wheels, pneumatic tires and... oh, wait a minute... it has all of those features!
Hmmm... I guess I could shed some additional weight from my plane if I removed all that unneeded stuff, huh?
Actually, the cell walls are destroyed by the crystalization of water, not the expansion of it. The crystalization causes the water to "cut" through the walls like a knife... from the outside in... not from the inside out via expansion. There is also other chemical breakdowns that occur during freezing that cause even more damage. But, in either case, the density of the water isn't a factor.
Sounds like the old saying about giving the kid a fish or teaching a kid to fish? Hmmm. I'd rather give the kid the tools they'll need to suceed/survive then just give them the food themselves.
IMO, these computers are the tools they will need to understand and work with the rest of the world. Maybe even give them directions on where to go and get food. (Hmmm... what a concept... food doesn't grow at my house either, but I do know how to go get it.)
The United States did that a while back with a Soviet Mig 15 that was flown from North Korea and landed in South Korea. After careful study at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, we "offered" it back to it's "rightful owners."
For some reason, no one accepted it and it is now on permenant display at the United States Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio.
Both of his proposed designs (M200 and M400) use 8 engines. All of the planes you mentioned in your list use a single engine to fly, except the F-15 which uses two for shear power. The F-15 can actually fly with one quite adequetly, but a Soviet/Russian desgined Sukhoi or Mig fighter could then easily catch it. Even the Harrier and F35 use single engines.
Also, I have no plans at this time to produce or sell my design, nor have I ever stated a desire too. It's simply an excercise in engineering. You will notice that I have not provided any design info or links to my research company. I also do not consider Moeller to be a competitor in any way. Aside from the fact that I do not think he will actually produce a viable machine, I also feel our target markets are entirely different. I'm trying to develop a simple reference design for the last 5 mile problem. His design is to solve an end to end congestion problem. I think my research is closer to what can be done Today. I do not doubt that as some point in the future a design concept similar to the Skycar will be mass produced, but from my research and others, I do not see the technology or the market conditions being feasable for it now or in the near future.
Your comment about the noise shows your lack of understanding. The noise level his engines produce is in the area of 135-140 db... which is significantly higher than a normal airplane flying in and out of an airport (which is usually around 100 db during takeoff.) My comment about his design was that he is an engineer who specialized in making motorcycle engines quiet, yet he can't seem to quiet down his rotary engines in the Skycar.
Lastly, I'm still trying to understand your Helicopter comment. Everything I said applies equally well to them as well. They have single points of failures, but they are mitigated by design. If a helicopter looses an engine, it can still autorotate down. If a plane looses it's engine, it still is a glider. If a Moeller Skycar looses an engine, or two (which is more likely) what is the backup mode? If a bird is sucked into a nacelle and the impeller is damaged, it looses effectiveness and there is no backup. In a design like his, it is imperative that all engines produce a thrust that is stable and predictable. If one is failing, how do you compensate? Sure your computers can "detect" it is not running optimally and reduce the others, but if it is beyond about 70%, it will no longer produce lift and completely fail to maintain enough vertical thrust to fly safely. He's reciently added a parachute system, but in every single instance if them firing to date, the plane is basically junked. When you pull that handle, the insurance company owns the remains of that plane. His will be no different. If I have a simple failure, should it cost me the entire plane? My Cessna threw a cylinder about 15 years ago. I landed the plane (albiet on a country road) but within a two weeks it was back in the air.
I haven't even begun to talk about the FAA Certification requriements he's going to have to tackle. His design has fundamental problems that is basically going to make FAR Part 23 nearly impossible to fly. Besides that, what issues is he going to have deal with with the pilot themselves. Just off the top of my head, I can see that every person who flys one of his will have to have a high performance, multi-engine and complex endorcements on their pilots license (granted, the're all pretty easy, but you still have to do it.) I could go on and on, but I'm sure my point is proven.
I haven't seen a single person claim that it doesn't fly. It does. However, there are very real impracticalities in his designs. Take for example the engines. It takes 8 of them to get it to hover 10 feet. Sorry, but in the real world, 8 engines means 8 points of failure. What about noise. As I pointed out in my other post, those engines are loud... very, very loud. Moller created his fortune by selling mufflers... yet he can't seem to even figure that one out. Think about that for a minute. Also, this is a guy who has been making the same claims for 40 years. 40 years! $200 million in development and he still has these basic problems. To me, it seems that he is going down the wrong path and just refuses to change course.
There are othe great examples of flying cars out there... and some even made it to market, but only one is really a contender today - and that's the MIT Terrafeuga. They're tackling the problem from an entirely different point of view. They've also solved a lot of the challenges that have plagued others. However, their system will require an entirely new type of aircraft, which naturally will be expensive when compared to a car, but just a little high compared to a comparable aircraft. ~$150k
I, myself, have a different take on it. I'm working on a design where we can keep the plane a plane and the ground vehicle a ground vehicle. Yet they mate carrier style. It's less effecient, but both vehicles are more effecient and effective at being their own vehicle type. The trick is how to get them to mate and perform effeciently as a unit. Really, I'm trying to solve the last 5 mile problem. I can fly anywhere, but getting to my final destination is the key. My proposed system can also be fitted to existing aircraft without the need for major modifications - which is much more likely to be accepted in the market.
It's a lower priority than my laser heads up display, so it's still in the development phase, but we actually do have hardware that has flown... in fact, it's flown several thousand hours already attached to a Cessna 310.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, NASA's ROI is pretty good at about $7 returned for every $1 spent. They also develop a lot of technology that doesn't have a financial ROI, but rather a simple non-tangible benefit to society as a whole. For example, they developed the CCD imager for use in the Hubble Telescope. That technology is now widely used in inexpensive digital cameras but is more importantly also used in medical imagers for detecting breast cancer. It has eliminated something like a half a million unneeded biopsies which not only save that cost, but also the pain from the procedure itself.
Bill
Hitler's Idea? Bullcrap. Henry Ford produced the first "car for the people" with the introduction of the Model T. Porsche simply wanted to do for Germany what the Ford did for the US. Hitler had the same ambition, so they produced the VW.
Bill
We've done a lot of studies with the human eye's ability to perceive change. And you are correct that they don't run at a certain clock speed, however, they can not discern anything above an average of 20 to 24 frame per second.
We actually found a few things quite interesting, that in some instances the eye can actually miss a change if it happens too quickly. LED taillights on cars were a problem when they were first being developed because they were turning on too quickly. Some drivers missed that they actually activated. Slowing down the light to simulate the "heat up" of an incandesant bulb fixed it. Then we played around with speeding it back up to the fastest detectable speed. They now appear to turn on instantly, but in reality, they're not, there is a small build up.
Bill
I built a scanning laser projector that can easily update 60 times per second. It wasn't using MEMS either, which are smaller and much faster, but it was using Galvos.
Considering your eyes work at around 24 frames per second, I'd say it was acceptable. (TV and Computer monitors run at 60fps as well.)
Now that I think about it, DLP Televisions are using MEMS devices with an array of mirrors that move just as fast... and I've never heard complaints about their refresh rate.
Bill
So, plugging in a full size USB Keyboard won't work?
Bill
That is correct. The bank site doesn't have to have any malicious code on it. The hacker would "inject" the malicious code in it via the weakness. More than likely, there would be a malicious site involved, just to send the data to, but it is not necessary.
For example, PayPal was the target of an attack like this and the user was sent to PayPals site... the certificate even checked out, but the injection attack still allowed the data to be stolen none the less. And that wasn't even using Flash.
Bill
Therein lies the problem. You assume that it requires you to do that. Simple XSS hacks take you to a page where you login. Advanced (read real) XSS hacks take you to pages where you have already logged in. Say, for example, an e-mail system. They do it using a hidden iFrame, so you never even see it. Then the script can "browse" the site looking for key bits of information and will then pass it on to a malicious site via a hidden post. You will never even be aware that the hack has taken place.
A lot of times hacks like this simply crack open the door to other hacks. But, each one gives the hacker more and more information... closer and closer to the secrets.
Don't underestimate these "simple" type of attacks. They can be and are a lot more dangerous than you think.
Bill
"Stay Tuned" What the hell do they think we've been doing for the past [X number] of of years!
Bill
No, silly, you're just looking at cached data! It is a browser they're talking about, you know!
Bill
Right... whenever you have more than one country who thinks they are a superpower, you have a good chance that there will be a war.
A good country that want's to remain around needs to have a strong defense. Just because the current battlefield isn't so obvious doesn't mean the next one won't be.
Bill
TFA, this plane is a light sport airplane. By definition, it then has a maximum gross weight of 1,320 lbs.
The engine is a 100hp Rotax engine. This is a common aviation engine (mostly in light sports, but also in some "larger" aircraft, like the Diamond Katana which actaully used an 80 hp version of the engine.)
It is more than capable of getting a 1,320 lb plane into the air and flying at over 100mph (or even 100kts = 115mph.) The Diamond Katana had a gross weight of 1600 lbs if I remember correctly. My little old Cessna 150 had a 1600 lb gross weight and it used an antique Continental O-200 engine... which was 200 cubic inches and 100 hp (on a good day... when it was new... on a test stand... with the correct temp... if you were lucky!)
Bill
Actually, you're incorrect. It is perfectly legal to own a US Figther Jet. Getting a hold of them is the trick. Actually anything prior to the F-14 is pretty easy to get, aircraft since then is a lot harder, because most of them are still in service and the government hasn't released them. Owning a jet simply takes one step... having the government officially "demilitarize" it. Once that is done, they can be sold to private individuals. Demilitarizing them simply ensures that no advanced equipment works, like Weapons, Radar, Radar Jamming equipment, etc. They don't want it to fall into the wrong hands. (Think about the F-14s and Iran.)
In fact, owning Soviet based aircraft is legal as well, you just can't import it, just like you said, because of it's classification as a weapon. The ATF doesn't like it. If someone was able to produce a copy of the MiG from the ground up in the US then it would be perfectly legal to own and fly it under the Experimental Aircraft category.
Bill
Bill
Yes, "It" would be funny if "it was" gramatically correct. ;-)
English is my second language... C being my first!
Bill
Bill
Pffft! Pilots are taught to fly without instruments. When I was learning (oh so many years ago) my instructor intentionally blanked out my instruments to make sure I knew the feel of the plane... and not to rely on what the instruments were telling me.
Now, during IFR, you need it, but VFR... not a bit. You can easily feel how the landing is going, without the need of an airspeed indicator. And yes... I did learn in a 150... 1969 150J to be exact. Which I still own to this day. There were several occasions in my past where I've taken off only to realize that the pitot tube cover was still on... landing wasn't an issue - who looks at airspeed when they're landing anyway?
In addition to the airspeed indicator, you also have a backup to it... a stall warning indicator or buzzer. Just keep it from not buzzing and you're ok. If you start to approach stall, the plane will also "tell" you buy the lack of control or a slight buffeting in the controls. If you encounter it, just push the nose slightly over and it will go away.
Bill
Two Cameras... or Four. Stereoscopic vision can easily distinguish fingers from the background. Four cameras would help it even better, which would allow for more random placement of the fingers (or hands.)
The field of view for the cameras can easily be widened with a simple fish eye lens.
Bill
Actually, there is a big difference between the two. The Apple device simply implements the touch surface on the back of the computer. The Microsoft device does it on both sides AND, most importantly, has the ability to track the location of the fingers on the back and display them on the front, so the user get's good feedback as to where his fingers are actually in relation to the device.
The Apple device doesn't do anything like that.
Bill
Whew... I guess it's a good thing my Beechcraft Skipper doesn't have lights, brakes, wheels, pneumatic tires and... oh, wait a minute... it has all of those features!
Hmmm... I guess I could shed some additional weight from my plane if I removed all that unneeded stuff, huh?
Bill
Geesh... any good Feringi would know that!
1.) Quote Star Trek Episode
2.) Reverse Polarity of Electron Beam
3.) ???
4.) Profit!
Isn't that one of the Laws of Acquisition?
Bill
Actually, the cell walls are destroyed by the crystalization of water, not the expansion of it. The crystalization causes the water to "cut" through the walls like a knife... from the outside in... not from the inside out via expansion. There is also other chemical breakdowns that occur during freezing that cause even more damage. But, in either case, the density of the water isn't a factor.
Bill
Sounds like the old saying about giving the kid a fish or teaching a kid to fish? Hmmm. I'd rather give the kid the tools they'll need to suceed/survive then just give them the food themselves.
IMO, these computers are the tools they will need to understand and work with the rest of the world. Maybe even give them directions on where to go and get food. (Hmmm... what a concept... food doesn't grow at my house either, but I do know how to go get it.)
Bill
The United States did that a while back with a Soviet Mig 15 that was flown from North Korea and landed in South Korea. After careful study at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, we "offered" it back to it's "rightful owners."
For some reason, no one accepted it and it is now on permenant display at the United States Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio.
Bill
Both of his proposed designs (M200 and M400) use 8 engines. All of the planes you mentioned in your list use a single engine to fly, except the F-15 which uses two for shear power. The F-15 can actually fly with one quite adequetly, but a Soviet/Russian desgined Sukhoi or Mig fighter could then easily catch it. Even the Harrier and F35 use single engines.
Also, I have no plans at this time to produce or sell my design, nor have I ever stated a desire too. It's simply an excercise in engineering. You will notice that I have not provided any design info or links to my research company. I also do not consider Moeller to be a competitor in any way. Aside from the fact that I do not think he will actually produce a viable machine, I also feel our target markets are entirely different. I'm trying to develop a simple reference design for the last 5 mile problem. His design is to solve an end to end congestion problem. I think my research is closer to what can be done Today. I do not doubt that as some point in the future a design concept similar to the Skycar will be mass produced, but from my research and others, I do not see the technology or the market conditions being feasable for it now or in the near future.
Your comment about the noise shows your lack of understanding. The noise level his engines produce is in the area of 135-140 db... which is significantly higher than a normal airplane flying in and out of an airport (which is usually around 100 db during takeoff.) My comment about his design was that he is an engineer who specialized in making motorcycle engines quiet, yet he can't seem to quiet down his rotary engines in the Skycar.
Lastly, I'm still trying to understand your Helicopter comment. Everything I said applies equally well to them as well. They have single points of failures, but they are mitigated by design. If a helicopter looses an engine, it can still autorotate down. If a plane looses it's engine, it still is a glider. If a Moeller Skycar looses an engine, or two (which is more likely) what is the backup mode? If a bird is sucked into a nacelle and the impeller is damaged, it looses effectiveness and there is no backup. In a design like his, it is imperative that all engines produce a thrust that is stable and predictable. If one is failing, how do you compensate? Sure your computers can "detect" it is not running optimally and reduce the others, but if it is beyond about 70%, it will no longer produce lift and completely fail to maintain enough vertical thrust to fly safely. He's reciently added a parachute system, but in every single instance if them firing to date, the plane is basically junked. When you pull that handle, the insurance company owns the remains of that plane. His will be no different. If I have a simple failure, should it cost me the entire plane? My Cessna threw a cylinder about 15 years ago. I landed the plane (albiet on a country road) but within a two weeks it was back in the air.
I haven't even begun to talk about the FAA Certification requriements he's going to have to tackle. His design has fundamental problems that is basically going to make FAR Part 23 nearly impossible to fly. Besides that, what issues is he going to have deal with with the pilot themselves. Just off the top of my head, I can see that every person who flys one of his will have to have a high performance, multi-engine and complex endorcements on their pilots license (granted, the're all pretty easy, but you still have to do it.) I could go on and on, but I'm sure my point is proven.
Bill
I haven't seen a single person claim that it doesn't fly. It does. However, there are very real impracticalities in his designs. Take for example the engines. It takes 8 of them to get it to hover 10 feet. Sorry, but in the real world, 8 engines means 8 points of failure. What about noise. As I pointed out in my other post, those engines are loud... very, very loud. Moller created his fortune by selling mufflers... yet he can't seem to even figure that one out. Think about that for a minute. Also, this is a guy who has been making the same claims for 40 years. 40 years! $200 million in development and he still has these basic problems. To me, it seems that he is going down the wrong path and just refuses to change course.
There are othe great examples of flying cars out there... and some even made it to market, but only one is really a contender today - and that's the MIT Terrafeuga. They're tackling the problem from an entirely different point of view. They've also solved a lot of the challenges that have plagued others. However, their system will require an entirely new type of aircraft, which naturally will be expensive when compared to a car, but just a little high compared to a comparable aircraft. ~$150k
I, myself, have a different take on it. I'm working on a design where we can keep the plane a plane and the ground vehicle a ground vehicle. Yet they mate carrier style. It's less effecient, but both vehicles are more effecient and effective at being their own vehicle type. The trick is how to get them to mate and perform effeciently as a unit. Really, I'm trying to solve the last 5 mile problem. I can fly anywhere, but getting to my final destination is the key. My proposed system can also be fitted to existing aircraft without the need for major modifications - which is much more likely to be accepted in the market.
It's a lower priority than my laser heads up display, so it's still in the development phase, but we actually do have hardware that has flown... in fact, it's flown several thousand hours already attached to a Cessna 310.
Bill