Respectfully, that's like insisting the earth really is flat and was only created 10,000 years ago.
If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored.
No, you are not being censored in any sense of the word - because your not being told you can no longer cover certain topics nor are your videos being removed.
I suppose it depends on your definition of censorship
The standard one, used and agreed upon by rational people for decades - not the self entitled, self indulgent, self centered one you've created of whole cloth. Whether you like it or not, words mean things. Freedom of speech does not mean you're entitled to a paycheck.
Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor; Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism; Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language; Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items; Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown."
Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube?
No. Not even remotely.
What's going to be left if these creators move away or stop creating new stuff?
Everything that isn't what's listed above. Music videos, science videos. Game replays. AMV's. Etc... etc... etc... Probably 95% of what's there now.
if they're just testing the engines why did it need the payload in place ?
My guess is that de-erecting the bird and returning to the hanger to install the payload breaks the very interfaces that are part of the static test in the first place. Which (likely) negates the reason for performing the static test. (Not that I understand or even know SpaceX's reasons - nobody else does them routinely, only SpaceX.)
The Hyundai Genesis is reborn as the Genesis G80 and the Equus sheds its horsey homage to become the G90, which guarantees that I won't remember the new names. I'll just call the G90 the Model-Formerly-Known-as-Equus.
Ah yes - the new standard in "journalism". "I'm an ignorant jackass and don't like what someone had done - and my personal tastes rule!"
The G90 apparently has 10 more units of something over the G80. Perhaps it is 10 percent better. Ten percent bigger? Ten grand more expensive?
Look jackass, companies have been using alphanumeric model indicators just about forever. Nobody but you seems to be confused by them, go away and get the fuck over yourself.
It's a damn shame they didn't do it with the shuttle external fuel tanks. Those things were huge. How many would we have in use now if that was part of the design?
They didn't do it because the ET would have become the cargo - the Orbiter itself couldn't carry much beyond it's crew. On top of that, the altitude they would have been delivered to would have required regular reboosts. (Any tank launched before the turn of the century and not reboosted would be gone by now.) On top of *that* it required a number of dedicated Shuttle flights to lift all the stuff needed to outfit the interior.
In the end, using external tanks was very, very expensive for very little functionality.
Shuttle ETs never got up to a stable orbit. It would have been possible to use the OMS to take them up there, but then the Shuttle would have had basically no payload capacity on that mission.
And even then, the tanks would be low enough to require regular reboosts. Without reboosts, any tanks launched before around the turn of the century would already have re-entered.
From the interview: "The reason that Skylab wasn't build like this is kind of a strange story: [NASA] had fewer Saturn IBs than they had Saturn Vs, so von Braun just decided to use a Saturn V and fly up a "dry" lab, with all of the equipment aboard it already."
Um, not quite. When a 'spare' Saturn V became available (because a lunar mission was cancelled), they swapped from a IB 'wet' lab to a V 'dry' lab because the 'wet' labs were very expensive for their very low capability. The expense came from needing to have considerable amounts of structure and infrastructure designed to survive inside the cryogenic conditions inside the tank, from redesigning the tanks to serve a dual role, and then re-certifying the whole deal for flight. The low capability came from the requirement that everything that couldn't survive a bath in deep cryogens having to be manhandled into place via the very narrow docking hatch. While a dry lab was more expensive than a wet one - the leap in capability was far greater than the leap in cost.
That's also why NASA built their ISS modules with the large CBM hatches - manhandling large amount of stuff through tiny hatches (like those the Ixion will use) simply isn't very efficient. (And that's without considering the headaches that splitting all your equipment down into tiny chunks brings. Not just handling - but installation and integration too.) All of the ISS cargo craft that NASA is responsible for uses CBM, as does the Japanese HTV.
"In the commercial sector, it's getting interesting, because people are taking more risks. Not unnecessary risks, but acceptable risks to reduce costs."
Moving your man hours (outfitting the module) from expensive ones on the ground to hellishly expensive ones on orbit is not a recipe for cutting costs. Especially since you still have to pay for the launch of the module (Centaur) *and* the launch of the stuff to go inside it. (You can't piggyback because no Centaurs are headed anywhere near the ISS.) Even in lower inclination orbits, the mission module, the rendezvous systems, and outfitting the Centaur to survive years on orbit are all going to cost money and cut into it's payload - which will make piggybacking unattractive to Centaur's usual customers.
"We want to keep hardware costs as low as possible: it's not about building something on the ground that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do that when you have perfectly good hardware going to space, paid for already?"
You don't have perfectly good hardware going to space already. You have a vehicle designed for a completely different purpose and completely lacking the "stuff" customers will pay you for going to orbit.
Or, in short, nothing in the article or interview leaves me with a warm fuzzy that they've solved any of the well known problems with 'wet' systems.
The system itself worked correctly, as the containment system properly contained the leak.
o.0 A huge chunk of the storage facility is contaminated because a supposedly stable drum exploded - no, the system emphatically did not work correctly. It was never supposed to blow up in the first place.
Probably get modded down. Don't give a fuck. I think this shit will/has been pushed out the door too early because money. Wait til it kills someone else.
Don't worry, the Tesla and Musk apologists will find a way to explain it away. Flat earthers and bible thumpers have nothing on them when it comes to selective reality.
And there you have it. Immediately upon any new like this, some slashdotter comes on and tries to derail the idea with their personal situation.
And there you have it - some asshole getting bent out of shape because a perfectly reasonable question was asked about something that millions of Americans deal with annually.
APAS (what you call the Russian docking system) is just a docking system - it mechanically attaches two units. NDS (the new system) in addition to the mechanical attachment includes power, data, and communications interfaces.
And it's not like all docking and berthing ports on ISS are APAS - there's also CBM. Which is used for the MPLM cargo containers, the Japanese HTV vehichles, the Cygnus cargo vehicles, and the Dragon cargo vehicles.
One would need to examine the guy's actual politics before clutching pearls about targeting a "pro-democracy" activist as described by The Guardian.
If one is not too lazy to google, one discovers that Fiji was under a military goverment (rather than a democratically elected one) in 2012. Fullman is implicated in a number of rather unsavory acts, but it's difficult to determine if he really was associated with violence in support of restoring democratic governance or if that's just the dictatorship trying to discredit the opposition.
Who could have imagined that because off the shelf analogue radio controls were so crappy in the 1970s and a series of accidental meetings, it was easier to hire him to steer the inside of the R2D2 Prop.
Practically anyone who knew anything of the technology of the time would have easily imagined that somebody small would be hired to play R2D2. Just a few years before Silent Running had been filmed, using amputees to play the 'droids - something widely known at the time. Nor was using physically small people particularly new - Hollywood has been doing it for decades.
I was 15 when Star Wars was released, and wasn't at all surprised to learn that there was a real actor inside R2D2.
The Internet was ours then, or at least it was the playground where we were top dog.
The latter is spot on - someone else's property, someone else's equipment, paid for with someone else's money. You just played king of the hill on it and imagined yourselves rulers of all you surveyed.
That playground has grown to encompass the entire world, but our role in it hasn't grown with it, and we became largely irrelevant.
Your role hasn't expanded because you never had a role. You're asking for the equivalent of a management role at Exxon because some franchisee opened a gas station in what used to be the woods you played in as a kid.
Well, back in the 1700's when you retired things were no doubt different. Here in the 21st century we have better than a century's experience operating complex mechanical and electrical systems are sea. We have over half a century's experience operating and maintaining things like drilling platforms, etc...
Rest well gramps, the younger generation has it well under control.
Were the airlines really in that tough a shape for that long of a period of time?
If they have only recently returned to profitability and actually experienced extended times of economic uncertainty, how do you explain Boeing outperforming the S&P 500 and gaining 8000% in value since 1978?
You do understand that Boeing is not an airline? As always, the money isn't in panning for gold - it's in selling the pans. Not to mention drawing a straight line between 1978 and 2017 misses some deep valleys in between. Not to mention Boeing does a lot more than just commercial airliners.
And airports and crowds? Airports I've flown through for 20 years are only bigger and busier than they ever were. I don't remember a time when I thought the airport was too big or empty, either, it's been steady if not increasingly busier and more crowded. Airports all seem to expand, not contract.
It's quite possible for volume to go up and margin to go down, or even go negative at times. Aircraft cab cost more than budgeted. Fuel prices can go up more than predicted. Cutting margin to the bone to compete on popular routes can turn a cash cow into hamburger. Etc... etc...
"Most airlines were on the verge of going out of business for many years, so investment of any kind had to have short pay-back periods,"
You really only see this type of thinking in the West. Most sensible companies know that when times are good, you build a war chest, when they are bad you invest the war chest to grow your business and be competitive.
You really only see this kind of simpleminded thinking in people who don't know what they're talking about - but who can repeat something they read somewhere like a parrot.
The problem wasn't that times were bad. You can always say times are bad. The problem was that they didn't make the best of things when times were good, and therefore deserve the cluster fuck situation they are in now.
The problem is, times have never really been good for the airlines for any extended period. An airline is a capital intensive business, and runs on paper thin margins. Historically, as soon as they get their head above water, they get pushed under again. The shift to jets in the 50's, the fuel shocks and deregulation in the 70's, recession in the early 80's, another recession in the early 90's, a race to the bottom in fares sparked by the rise of internet ticketing, the post 9/11 drop in business, the Great Recession of 2007... (just to hit the high spots) There's a reason why practically every major airline has ended up bankruptcy court at least once.
If you want to get children interested in computers and computer science, especially as a prelude to increasing their education in the same... I can't think of a more back-asswards way to go about it than sentencing them to a computer history museum. As interesting as the topic is to the geek and nerd, it's dull and boring and almost completely irrelevant to the call-to-action you linked to.
Don't confuse what you want to see with what is actually needed. A computer education center, which is what you're looking for, will have perforce have a historical component - but it's overall focus with quite different.
All that being said, I'd run not walk from that building... it's forty odd years old, located in a stressful climate (humidity, rain, and near salt water) - and reading between the lines of the news articles, suffering from failed systems as well as probably at least a decade of deferred maintenance.
Slashdot Mirror
Respectfully, that's like insisting the earth really is flat and was only created 10,000 years ago.
No, you are not being censored in any sense of the word - because your not being told you can no longer cover certain topics nor are your videos being removed.
The standard one, used and agreed upon by rational people for decades - not the self entitled, self indulgent, self centered one you've created of whole cloth. Whether you like it or not, words mean things. Freedom of speech does not mean you're entitled to a paycheck.
No. Not even remotely.
Everything that isn't what's listed above. Music videos, science videos. Game replays. AMV's. Etc... etc... etc... Probably 95% of what's there now.
My guess is that de-erecting the bird and returning to the hanger to install the payload breaks the very interfaces that are part of the static test in the first place. Which (likely) negates the reason for performing the static test. (Not that I understand or even know SpaceX's reasons - nobody else does them routinely, only SpaceX.)
o.0
Even if the failure was in the pad equipment, said equipment is also SpaceX's and part of the overall Falcon 9 system.
Armchair engineers commonly think of the rocket as a stand-alone thing, but it's not really - its just the most visible part of a larger system.
Neither do the fanboys here for that matter. But it is interesting you only mention the "haters".
Ah yes - the new standard in "journalism". "I'm an ignorant jackass and don't like what someone had done - and my personal tastes rule!"
Look jackass, companies have been using alphanumeric model indicators just about forever. Nobody but you seems to be confused by them, go away and get the fuck over yourself.
They didn't do it because the ET would have become the cargo - the Orbiter itself couldn't carry much beyond it's crew. On top of that, the altitude they would have been delivered to would have required regular reboosts. (Any tank launched before the turn of the century and not reboosted would be gone by now.) On top of *that* it required a number of dedicated Shuttle flights to lift all the stuff needed to outfit the interior.
In the end, using external tanks was very, very expensive for very little functionality.
And even then, the tanks would be low enough to require regular reboosts. Without reboosts, any tanks launched before around the turn of the century would already have re-entered.
From the interview: "The reason that Skylab wasn't build like this is kind of a strange story: [NASA] had fewer Saturn IBs than they had Saturn Vs, so von Braun just decided to use a Saturn V and fly up a "dry" lab, with all of the equipment aboard it already."
Um, not quite. When a 'spare' Saturn V became available (because a lunar mission was cancelled), they swapped from a IB 'wet' lab to a V 'dry' lab because the 'wet' labs were very expensive for their very low capability. The expense came from needing to have considerable amounts of structure and infrastructure designed to survive inside the cryogenic conditions inside the tank, from redesigning the tanks to serve a dual role, and then re-certifying the whole deal for flight. The low capability came from the requirement that everything that couldn't survive a bath in deep cryogens having to be manhandled into place via the very narrow docking hatch. While a dry lab was more expensive than a wet one - the leap in capability was far greater than the leap in cost.
That's also why NASA built their ISS modules with the large CBM hatches - manhandling large amount of stuff through tiny hatches (like those the Ixion will use) simply isn't very efficient. (And that's without considering the headaches that splitting all your equipment down into tiny chunks brings. Not just handling - but installation and integration too.) All of the ISS cargo craft that NASA is responsible for uses CBM, as does the Japanese HTV.
"In the commercial sector, it's getting interesting, because people are taking more risks. Not unnecessary risks, but acceptable risks to reduce costs."
Moving your man hours (outfitting the module) from expensive ones on the ground to hellishly expensive ones on orbit is not a recipe for cutting costs. Especially since you still have to pay for the launch of the module (Centaur) *and* the launch of the stuff to go inside it. (You can't piggyback because no Centaurs are headed anywhere near the ISS.) Even in lower inclination orbits, the mission module, the rendezvous systems, and outfitting the Centaur to survive years on orbit are all going to cost money and cut into it's payload - which will make piggybacking unattractive to Centaur's usual customers.
"We want to keep hardware costs as low as possible: it's not about building something on the ground that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do that when you have perfectly good hardware going to space, paid for already?"
You don't have perfectly good hardware going to space already. You have a vehicle designed for a completely different purpose and completely lacking the "stuff" customers will pay you for going to orbit.
Or, in short, nothing in the article or interview leaves me with a warm fuzzy that they've solved any of the well known problems with 'wet' systems.
o.0 A huge chunk of the storage facility is contaminated because a supposedly stable drum exploded - no, the system emphatically did not work correctly. It was never supposed to blow up in the first place.
But. This. Is. Slashdot.
Where we don't really have any clue about how business works, but that doesn't stop us from ranting and raving and bitching anyhow.
The truth doesn't sound edgy enough and doesn't contain any buzzwords.
Don't worry, the Tesla and Musk apologists will find a way to explain it away. Flat earthers and bible thumpers have nothing on them when it comes to selective reality.
And there you have it - some asshole getting bent out of shape because a perfectly reasonable question was asked about something that millions of Americans deal with annually.
APAS (what you call the Russian docking system) is just a docking system - it mechanically attaches two units. NDS (the new system) in addition to the mechanical attachment includes power, data, and communications interfaces.
And it's not like all docking and berthing ports on ISS are APAS - there's also CBM. Which is used for the MPLM cargo containers, the Japanese HTV vehichles, the Cygnus cargo vehicles, and the Dragon cargo vehicles.
I'd need a refueling station every day - otherwise I wouldn't have a full tank every morning. Duh.
If one is not too lazy to google, one discovers that Fiji was under a military goverment (rather than a democratically elected one) in 2012. Fullman is implicated in a number of rather unsavory acts, but it's difficult to determine if he really was associated with violence in support of restoring democratic governance or if that's just the dictatorship trying to discredit the opposition.
Practically anyone who knew anything of the technology of the time would have easily imagined that somebody small would be hired to play R2D2. Just a few years before Silent Running had been filmed, using amputees to play the 'droids - something widely known at the time. Nor was using physically small people particularly new - Hollywood has been doing it for decades.
I was 15 when Star Wars was released, and wasn't at all surprised to learn that there was a real actor inside R2D2.
The latter is spot on - someone else's property, someone else's equipment, paid for with someone else's money. You just played king of the hill on it and imagined yourselves rulers of all you surveyed.
Your role hasn't expanded because you never had a role. You're asking for the equivalent of a management role at Exxon because some franchisee opened a gas station in what used to be the woods you played in as a kid.
Well, back in the 1700's when you retired things were no doubt different. Here in the 21st century we have better than a century's experience operating complex mechanical and electrical systems are sea. We have over half a century's experience operating and maintaining things like drilling platforms, etc...
Rest well gramps, the younger generation has it well under control.
You do understand that Boeing is not an airline? As always, the money isn't in panning for gold - it's in selling the pans. Not to mention drawing a straight line between 1978 and 2017 misses some deep valleys in between. Not to mention Boeing does a lot more than just commercial airliners.
It's quite possible for volume to go up and margin to go down, or even go negative at times. Aircraft cab cost more than budgeted. Fuel prices can go up more than predicted. Cutting margin to the bone to compete on popular routes can turn a cash cow into hamburger. Etc... etc...
You really only see this kind of simpleminded thinking in people who don't know what they're talking about - but who can repeat something they read somewhere like a parrot.
The problem is, times have never really been good for the airlines for any extended period. An airline is a capital intensive business, and runs on paper thin margins. Historically, as soon as they get their head above water, they get pushed under again. The shift to jets in the 50's, the fuel shocks and deregulation in the 70's, recession in the early 80's, another recession in the early 90's, a race to the bottom in fares sparked by the rise of internet ticketing, the post 9/11 drop in business, the Great Recession of 2007... (just to hit the high spots) There's a reason why practically every major airline has ended up bankruptcy court at least once.
Yes, it means they'll have to come up with their own designs rather than using someone else's. If this is a hardship, tough titty. I have no sympathy.
Try reading what I wrote moron. I didn't say it was necessary to get all kids interested, nor did I say anything about mainstream appeal.
And yes, this is Slashdot, where reading comprehension is a must. Go away until you've acquired some.
If you want to get children interested in computers and computer science, especially as a prelude to increasing their education in the same... I can't think of a more back-asswards way to go about it than sentencing them to a computer history museum. As interesting as the topic is to the geek and nerd, it's dull and boring and almost completely irrelevant to the call-to-action you linked to.
Don't confuse what you want to see with what is actually needed. A computer education center, which is what you're looking for, will have perforce have a historical component - but it's overall focus with quite different.
All that being said, I'd run not walk from that building... it's forty odd years old, located in a stressful climate (humidity, rain, and near salt water) - and reading between the lines of the news articles, suffering from failed systems as well as probably at least a decade of deferred maintenance.