I have to agree about Rocha. I think this guy will beat himself up the rest of his life from every interview I hear. It's a shame because he is the kind of engineer NASA needs more of. I am glad people are listening to him now and acknowledging his good work, unfortunately no one listened to him when it really mattered.
The part in the story about him being in the control room during re-entry and watching the cascade of left-wing failures breaks your heart. He knew what was happening and why it was happening. I can't think of a sadder story for a guy who helped build Columbia. He was IN that wing 20 years ago checking wires.
I am also of the impression that the management's philosophy that "nothing could be done" even if they found damage was a significant matter. Sacrifice the Astronauts if the thermal protection is FUBAR seemed to be the credo. Unfortunately this was a bunch of ex-engineers thinking this way. I can't imagine an engineer getting so lazy that they simply refuse to entertain rescue. That is so damn coldblooded. Dittemore repeated that a lot right afterward, and it sent a chill down my spine every time. Apollo 13 engineers must have been screaming from their retirement communities.
I read the entire Columbia report, and this article. Although I don't think we should always look for a person to blame after an accident, this was such a case of gross mismanagement that I really hope both Ham and Schomberg get at least a few months in "Club Fed" for their actions. Ham had future launch dates taking priority over her current mission. She quashed three requests for imaging personally, primarily because it would be the admittance of a problem that would throw the next mission off schedule. Schomberg on the other hand was just a poor engineer. He spouted off all week that he was the "EXPERT". Without doing a single calculation or having a shred of evidence, he just knew the Shuttle was safe regardless of what others said because he was the "expert". Sounds more like a petulant child to me.
It's not the type of speech so much as the location. Just as a salesman is not allowed to force his way into your house to sell you something (his rights end at the threshold and a no-trespassing sign makes it end at the sidewalk) businesses should not be allowed to enter your home via electronic means without solicitation. It is something that has not been put before the Supremes yet, but I would favor them clarifying it. I see no way they could allow the telemarketer something they already say a Fuller Brush man can not do. You can post no-trespassing/no-soliciting signs on your property, the do-not-call is nothing more than an electronic version.
Oh, and television/pop-ups are entirely different. At some level they are solicited. You understand that to get cheap television programming you must accept commercials. You accept that to reach informative web content, you must deal with pop-ups. In this case, you are getting no value for the priveledge of your time other than the sales speech itself. THAT is the line that any competent lawyer should be able to define.
This is not a constitutional issue. The ruling will be overturned. If for some reason it manages to pass the appeals process, there is a good chance that congress will simply make it a law. The 1st Amendment protects your right to speak freely to others in public places. It protects your right to speak out against the government with the spoken or printed word. It does not empower you to threaten or harass others. It does not allow you to enter a person's private property (either on foot or over electronic line) to sell your wares. That is commerce, not speech. There are enough rulings on this to be sure that do-not-call will eventually go through.
Images of grannie putting on her bling bling and listening to gangsta rap are dancing in my head. Thanks for the laugh RIAA! Could we nominate them for the Darwin awards for shooting themselves in the foot...repeatedly?
Microbloat is going to add more bloated, lame, trouble-making software to their kernel. Let them. The tighter Gov Tarkin makes his grip, the more users will slip through his fingers.
The fact that they can get 300 miles out of a charge is more impressive than the fact that it accelerates like a ferrari. The real impressive new piece of tech on the car is their regenerative braking, which turns off to avoid skidding. This is a well thought out EV. My only wish is that they made one more in my price range.
I say we let the press make the articles MORE sensational. Quite frankly, if some Enquirer or World Weekly News reader is incapable of grasping the odds when they are posted right in the article, let them riot. Perhaps a few of them will die in the ensuing chaos and keep Darwin happy. Our gene pool is becoming clogged at the filter.
Space is more than 6 miles up. Space is minimum 60 miles up, and orbital velocity usually requires a minimum of 250 miles up and 18000mph. You can orbit lower, but there is still enough atmosphere to make you burn up a whole lot of fuel to maintain that speed.
While a rocket takes it's propellant with it and can accelerate along it's entire course, a rail-fired vehicle will require that it has the velocity for orbit + at the moment it leaves the rails/muzzle. Even if you had a 30 mile long cannon, you are essentially looking at a muzzle velocity of 25k mph. To achieve that in 30 miles, you are looking at about 18g's minimum. That is about twice what the human body can handle for a sustained period, and a little too close to the maximum the body can handle for even a moment (50g's).
Assume you handle G forces, you still would need to create a vehicle that can handle the incredible heat of flying through the thick lower atmosphere at a temperture much higher than the current shuttle encounters. Remember if you launch on a 30 mile verticle rail, you will exit at 25k mph, and into VERY think atmosphere. It would make current shuttle reentry heat (which is encountered at a very thin 200k feet) look like a walk in the park.
I agree completely! We got this C206 with a $40,000 custom avionics package. The first time I got in it I asked the same exact question and got a blank stare from our A&E. They are eventually going to change the system so there is some independence within the system. I shudder at the thought of using the whiskey and TC.:)
Yes, the gyro is spun by a vacume pump, but the spin-speed on this system is controlled by an computer linked to the autopilot. That's the problem, aircraft have become so complex and robust that almost every system has some vulnerability to RF transmissions. During landing, the marker-beacon system is an RF system. I have heard at least two instances where cell emissions in the aircraft have screwed with ILS beacon notification. That is something I never want to see.
"Then again, I have every right not to fly, which I exercise regularly, but then there's one more person not paying your airline."
If you don't fly, then why should I worry about your concerns? You're not paying me. My job, and that of every pilot is to get their passengers SAFELY to their destination. If you can't LIVE without turning on your laptop during takeoff, I am sure 122 other passengers will be more than willing to throw you off the plane for me.:)
I have no problem with you wanting to see scientific evidence. Until that time, you certainly won't mind if I continue to ask you to keep your devices off during takeoff and landings? You see, I want you to still be alive to see the results of that scientific research, and until I see evidence exonerating your devices, I would prefer you keep them off so I have one less thing to worry about while getting you to your destination.:)
I agree that it's sketchy. The problem is variation. I have sat in the cockpit of a Cessna 206 with GPS and had my friend try out his new headset with cellphone attachment. The magnetic compass wasn't affected, but the gyro and autopilot both started turning the plane about 3 degrees from the set course. This shouldn't have happened, but it did. I have used my own phone a few times with no affect on the insturments at all.
The problem is that with thousands of different phones from Nokia, Motorola, et al, and with the varying emissions from hundreds of different laptops, it is impossible to determine what is the single causal item in the cabin. For now, I just have everyone in the cabin turn off their goodies whenever I'm landing for safety, especially if it's an ILS approach!
I can't understand the sentiment we are seeing from a few that say LET ME USE my device until you can find conclusive evidence that MY device is causing the problem. Frankly, I want to land alive, and I don't have time to chack every device. Until a better solution is found, I will continue to ban all devices in my cabin at least.
The problem isn't with the aircraft designers. They are designing a complex system to safely transport people. They do shield everything in the sircraft. The problem is with poorly designed personal electronics designed by yahoos who think emissions are just some lame FCC rule they barely think about. The "fix" will not be from Boeing and Airbus. It's going to come from the FAA and FCC combined. They'll tighten up the restrictions on stray emissions, and then they'll probably make a list of devices that can not be allowed. The aircraft people make a very good product. If anything needs to be "fixed" it's the poorly designed products from the personal electronics industry. You can add 2 tons of useless shielding to an aircraft (which still won't quiet all the noise) or you can add a few ounces to each device. I'm in favor of the latter.
"and even the cockpit systems themselves don't cause interference to the cockpit systems?"
The avionics do cause problems. The interference they cause is calibrated at the factory, and adjusted for. Even Cessna's have a calibration code pasted to the bottom of their magnetic compass letting pilots know what adjustments need to be made when the avionics are on. These are shielded devices, certified for FAA use, and they still cause problems. Imagine how your 29.95 CD player that barely passes FCC regulations is going to affect an aircraft trying to navigate to a point 500 miles away. 1 degree of interference can cause a 50-100 mile deviation.
I'm a private pilot, and even on small planes we can have this problem. The problem does exist. It's not some pilot conspiracy to stop you from playing your Game Boy. Navigation is performed with the aid of a gyroscope and magnetic compass and VOR stations.(GPS is a few years away from becoming a standard). Any number of electronic devices can affect this system. In-cabin devices can have much more affect on these systems then outside incluences simply because you're basically travelling within an aluminum faraday cage. A microwave signal from a cellphone will bounce around inside the cockpit a lot more than if it is outside.
It is particularly crucial that these devices are off during landings. Landing is by far the most dificult portion of flying. On commercial planes, they are often making their approaches in IFR (Insturment) conditions. It takes very little to make approach devices go haywire. You don't want this happening when the visibility is 500ft and you are trying to touch down 30 tons of aircraft in fog. It hasn't happened yet, but sooner or later some aircraft is going to crash on landing because some schmoe couldn't wait till he got down safely to call and tell folks he is going to be late for his meeting. In 99 out of 100 cases there may be no effect on the plane, but it only takes one crucial event to destroy an aircraft. Try to remember that.
The centripetal force is enough to keep it up there. A counter-weight on the far end dictates how much you can lift. The earth is spinning at a very fast speed. Once you put an object outside the atmosphere, it should stay in one place and be relatively stable. There will be some vibration and movement, but nothing a light set of thrusters at the top can't handle. You are right of course, if you try to pull up a weight that is heavier than the CP and the counterweight, it will pull it down.
"what makes you think a catastrophic asteroid collision is any more likely in the next 50 years than in the last 50, the 50 before that, etc, etc?"
Because if you actually read instead of just watching the science channel you would know thay the sky survey for 1km+ objects will be completed by 2008-2009. In addition, the survey for objects down to 200 meters will be completed by 2026. So within 50 years (it will take time to make all projections accurate) we will know when, and how many (if any) earth-crossing rocks are heading for us. They may not strike us in 50 years, but we will have detected them by then.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree about Rocha. I think this guy will beat himself up the rest of his life from every interview I hear. It's a shame because he is the kind of engineer NASA needs more of. I am glad people are listening to him now and acknowledging his good work, unfortunately no one listened to him when it really mattered.
The part in the story about him being in the control room during re-entry and watching the cascade of left-wing failures breaks your heart. He knew what was happening and why it was happening. I can't think of a sadder story for a guy who helped build Columbia. He was IN that wing 20 years ago checking wires.
I am also of the impression that the management's philosophy that "nothing could be done" even if they found damage was a significant matter. Sacrifice the Astronauts if the thermal protection is FUBAR seemed to be the credo. Unfortunately this was a bunch of ex-engineers thinking this way. I can't imagine an engineer getting so lazy that they simply refuse to entertain rescue. That is so damn coldblooded. Dittemore repeated that a lot right afterward, and it sent a chill down my spine every time. Apollo 13 engineers must have been screaming from their retirement communities.
I read the entire Columbia report, and this article. Although I don't think we should always look for a person to blame after an accident, this was such a case of gross mismanagement that I really hope both Ham and Schomberg get at least a few months in "Club Fed" for their actions. Ham had future launch dates taking priority over her current mission. She quashed three requests for imaging personally, primarily because it would be the admittance of a problem that would throw the next mission off schedule. Schomberg on the other hand was just a poor engineer. He spouted off all week that he was the "EXPERT". Without doing a single calculation or having a shred of evidence, he just knew the Shuttle was safe regardless of what others said because he was the "expert". Sounds more like a petulant child to me.
They're launching on an Arian 5. I give them 3 to 1 odds it's vaporized before it gets past 200k feet in altitude.
Why is commercial speech fundamentally different?
It's not the type of speech so much as the location. Just as a salesman is not allowed to force his way into your house to sell you something (his rights end at the threshold and a no-trespassing sign makes it end at the sidewalk) businesses should not be allowed to enter your home via electronic means without solicitation. It is something that has not been put before the Supremes yet, but I would favor them clarifying it. I see no way they could allow the telemarketer something they already say a Fuller Brush man can not do. You can post no-trespassing/no-soliciting signs on your property, the do-not-call is nothing more than an electronic version.
Oh, and television/pop-ups are entirely different. At some level they are solicited. You understand that to get cheap television programming you must accept commercials. You accept that to reach informative web content, you must deal with pop-ups. In this case, you are getting no value for the priveledge of your time other than the sales speech itself. THAT is the line that any competent lawyer should be able to define.
This is not a constitutional issue. The ruling will be overturned. If for some reason it manages to pass the appeals process, there is a good chance that congress will simply make it a law. The 1st Amendment protects your right to speak freely to others in public places. It protects your right to speak out against the government with the spoken or printed word. It does not empower you to threaten or harass others. It does not allow you to enter a person's private property (either on foot or over electronic line) to sell your wares. That is commerce, not speech. There are enough rulings on this to be sure that do-not-call will eventually go through.
Images of grannie putting on her bling bling and listening to gangsta rap are dancing in my head. Thanks for the laugh RIAA! Could we nominate them for the Darwin awards for shooting themselves in the foot...repeatedly?
Now that you've told us where QM is, we'll never know how fast it's progressing.
42!....:)
All I can think to say is wow! This is pretty awesome when you consider the ramifications. QM just took an interesting step forward.
Microbloat is going to add more bloated, lame, trouble-making software to their kernel. Let them. The tighter Gov Tarkin makes his grip, the more users will slip through his fingers.
The fact that they can get 300 miles out of a charge is more impressive than the fact that it accelerates like a ferrari. The real impressive new piece of tech on the car is their regenerative braking, which turns off to avoid skidding. This is a well thought out EV. My only wish is that they made one more in my price range.
Put that profit to good use Red Hat.
Anyone else find it humorous that Red Hat takes in more anually ($122m) than SCO ($68m)?
Give me an exploit and some time and I will empty your bank account :)
Functionality aside, it's not a "desktop" unless I can choose to change the graphics adapter and have a few slots for additional cards.
I say we let the press make the articles MORE sensational. Quite frankly, if some Enquirer or World Weekly News reader is incapable of grasping the odds when they are posted right in the article, let them riot. Perhaps a few of them will die in the ensuing chaos and keep Darwin happy. Our gene pool is becoming clogged at the filter.
Space is more than 6 miles up. Space is minimum 60 miles up, and orbital velocity usually requires a minimum of 250 miles up and 18000mph. You can orbit lower, but there is still enough atmosphere to make you burn up a whole lot of fuel to maintain that speed.
While a rocket takes it's propellant with it and can accelerate along it's entire course, a rail-fired vehicle will require that it has the velocity for orbit + at the moment it leaves the rails/muzzle. Even if you had a 30 mile long cannon, you are essentially looking at a muzzle velocity of 25k mph. To achieve that in 30 miles, you are looking at about 18g's minimum. That is about twice what the human body can handle for a sustained period, and a little too close to the maximum the body can handle for even a moment (50g's).
Assume you handle G forces, you still would need to create a vehicle that can handle the incredible heat of flying through the thick lower atmosphere at a temperture much higher than the current shuttle encounters. Remember if you launch on a 30 mile verticle rail, you will exit at 25k mph, and into VERY think atmosphere. It would make current shuttle reentry heat (which is encountered at a very thin 200k feet) look like a walk in the park.
I agree completely! We got this C206 with a $40,000 custom avionics package. The first time I got in it I asked the same exact question and got a blank stare from our A&E. They are eventually going to change the system so there is some independence within the system. I shudder at the thought of using the whiskey and TC. :)
Yes, the gyro is spun by a vacume pump, but the spin-speed on this system is controlled by an computer linked to the autopilot. That's the problem, aircraft have become so complex and robust that almost every system has some vulnerability to RF transmissions. During landing, the marker-beacon system is an RF system. I have heard at least two instances where cell emissions in the aircraft have screwed with ILS beacon notification. That is something I never want to see.
"Then again, I have every right not to fly, which I exercise regularly, but then there's one more person not paying your airline."
:)
If you don't fly, then why should I worry about your concerns? You're not paying me. My job, and that of every pilot is to get their passengers SAFELY to their destination. If you can't LIVE without turning on your laptop during takeoff, I am sure 122 other passengers will be more than willing to throw you off the plane for me.
I have no problem with you wanting to see scientific evidence. Until that time, you certainly won't mind if I continue to ask you to keep your devices off during takeoff and landings? You see, I want you to still be alive to see the results of that scientific research, and until I see evidence exonerating your devices, I would prefer you keep them off so I have one less thing to worry about while getting you to your destination. :)
I agree that it's sketchy. The problem is variation. I have sat in the cockpit of a Cessna 206 with GPS and had my friend try out his new headset with cellphone attachment. The magnetic compass wasn't affected, but the gyro and autopilot both started turning the plane about 3 degrees from the set course. This shouldn't have happened, but it did. I have used my own phone a few times with no affect on the insturments at all.
The problem is that with thousands of different phones from Nokia, Motorola, et al, and with the varying emissions from hundreds of different laptops, it is impossible to determine what is the single causal item in the cabin. For now, I just have everyone in the cabin turn off their goodies whenever I'm landing for safety, especially if it's an ILS approach!
I can't understand the sentiment we are seeing from a few that say LET ME USE my device until you can find conclusive evidence that MY device is causing the problem. Frankly, I want to land alive, and I don't have time to chack every device. Until a better solution is found, I will continue to ban all devices in my cabin at least.
The problem isn't with the aircraft designers. They are designing a complex system to safely transport people. They do shield everything in the sircraft. The problem is with poorly designed personal electronics designed by yahoos who think emissions are just some lame FCC rule they barely think about. The "fix" will not be from Boeing and Airbus. It's going to come from the FAA and FCC combined. They'll tighten up the restrictions on stray emissions, and then they'll probably make a list of devices that can not be allowed. The aircraft people make a very good product. If anything needs to be "fixed" it's the poorly designed products from the personal electronics industry. You can add 2 tons of useless shielding to an aircraft (which still won't quiet all the noise) or you can add a few ounces to each device. I'm in favor of the latter.
"and even the cockpit systems themselves don't cause interference to the cockpit systems?"
The avionics do cause problems. The interference they cause is calibrated at the factory, and adjusted for. Even Cessna's have a calibration code pasted to the bottom of their magnetic compass letting pilots know what adjustments need to be made when the avionics are on. These are shielded devices, certified for FAA use, and they still cause problems. Imagine how your 29.95 CD player that barely passes FCC regulations is going to affect an aircraft trying to navigate to a point 500 miles away. 1 degree of interference can cause a 50-100 mile deviation.
I'm a private pilot, and even on small planes we can have this problem. The problem does exist. It's not some pilot conspiracy to stop you from playing your Game Boy. Navigation is performed with the aid of a gyroscope and magnetic compass and VOR stations.(GPS is a few years away from becoming a standard). Any number of electronic devices can affect this system. In-cabin devices can have much more affect on these systems then outside incluences simply because you're basically travelling within an aluminum faraday cage. A microwave signal from a cellphone will bounce around inside the cockpit a lot more than if it is outside.
It is particularly crucial that these devices are off during landings. Landing is by far the most dificult portion of flying. On commercial planes, they are often making their approaches in IFR (Insturment) conditions. It takes very little to make approach devices go haywire. You don't want this happening when the visibility is 500ft and you are trying to touch down 30 tons of aircraft in fog. It hasn't happened yet, but sooner or later some aircraft is going to crash on landing because some schmoe couldn't wait till he got down safely to call and tell folks he is going to be late for his meeting. In 99 out of 100 cases there may be no effect on the plane, but it only takes one crucial event to destroy an aircraft. Try to remember that.
The centripetal force is enough to keep it up there. A counter-weight on the far end dictates how much you can lift. The earth is spinning at a very fast speed. Once you put an object outside the atmosphere, it should stay in one place and be relatively stable. There will be some vibration and movement, but nothing a light set of thrusters at the top can't handle. You are right of course, if you try to pull up a weight that is heavier than the CP and the counterweight, it will pull it down.
"what makes you think a catastrophic asteroid collision is any more likely in the next 50 years than in the last 50, the 50 before that, etc, etc?"
Because if you actually read instead of just watching the science channel you would know thay the sky survey for 1km+ objects will be completed by 2008-2009. In addition, the survey for objects down to 200 meters will be completed by 2026. So within 50 years (it will take time to make all projections accurate) we will know when, and how many (if any) earth-crossing rocks are heading for us. They may not strike us in 50 years, but we will have detected them by then.