But CNN correspondents breathlessly ask Astronaut after Astronaut in "exclusive" interviews, taking up precious air time, "Considering the dangers, should we really keep putting men up into outer space?" Call me an Old Fossil, but I was there. Not once did Walter Cronkite ask the Apollo Astronauts this question.
You may have been there - but you sure weren't paying attention. That question was asked repeatedly.
Everyone here on Slashdot uses a computer for something. And I'll bet over 90% of slashdotters are using microcomputers to get on line. Microcomputers were developed based on needs by NASA to have computers that were light enough to be on a spacecraft because you couldn't fit a room-sized mainframe on an Apollo spacecraft or on the Lunar Excursion Module.
Wrong. The Apollo and LEM guidance computers were based on the Polaris (SLBM) guidance computers - and were built with space qualified IC chips originally developed for the USAF and the USN for ballistic missiles.
Microprocessors, the necessary precursor to microcomputers, wouldn't be developed for another decade - and when they were, they were developed by a commercial company for hand calculators.
The last Apollo spacecraft was designed around 1967
Wrong again - the basic design for Apollo was frozen in 1963 and did not undergo significant modification thereafter.
Next exhibit - the space shuttle. The amount of useful things it could do were severely gimped because the Air Force wanted a low-orbit heavy lifter
Wrong. The Shuttle was already growing into a low orbit heavy lifter because Congress didn't fund a separate heavy lifter in order to provide destinations for the Shuttle.
whereas most science payloads were smaller and would have benefited from being in higher orbits (so they can point AWAY from the Earth instead of towards it)
ROTFLMAO. You can point away from Earth from *any* altitude - go out in the street and look up, and you're looking away from Earth *right at ground level*.
Not to rain on this parade, but Russia figured most of these lessons out a long time ago with the Mir/Soyuz.
The problem is, Russia figured them out by figuring the most difficult and complex way that a space station shouldn't be built.
And what's the point of learning the lessons in V3.0 if you don't build a V4?
The ISS doesn't provide any really new experience in long term space survival, though it does provide some engineering challenges that Mir did not.
Actually, ISS is providing tons of new information on long term space survival - mostly because the Russian programs provided essentially none. The Soviets were notorious for the lack of... well, pretty much everything concerning actually documenting the lessons learned. Their medical studies were badly performed and incomplete, their are essentially no engineering reports, etc... etc... Most of what was 'learned' from MIR is actually a product of NASA, especially during the Shuttle/MIR program.
Um, you mean the technologies that were basically all figured out with MIR?
Um, actually, no. MIR is a very different beast from ISS. Among other things, MIR wasn't modular, it was hacked together. Nor could any of MIR's major systems be replaced, while most of ISS's (at least on the US side) are in cabinets that can be swapped out.
Etc... etc...
MIR is a shining example of how *not* to design a space station.
There used to be things like pension plans and long term job security.
In some fantasy past where the grass was always green, the sun always shining, men were men and women were women. (And small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri were small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri.)
Seriously, those weren't exactly common unless you worked for a truly large company or had a union job or both. Almost nothing has changed. (Beyond a growing sense of entitlement among the workers.)
No, you are wrong on this. A true (simple) solid rocket CANNOT be shut down once lit. Shut-off requires removing the oxidizer, which in case of a true solid rocket is embedded within the material.
No, *you* are wrong. Worse yet, when told you're wrong, you just parrot what you've heard before and make nonsensical claims and erect strawmen to 'prove' yourself correct.
The fact is that unconfined, all modern solid fuel does is essentially smolder - they require high pressure to actually burn. Vent the casing, and thrust drops rapidly to nearly zero. Thats is all that's needed.
When you say "Shutting off solids in flight has been pretty much routinely done since the late 1950's." are you sure you're not mixing it up with liquid fueled rockets such as the X-1 and X-15 used? Or referring to hybrid rockets?
SUBROC, ASROC, Polaris A-1, Polaris A-2, Poseidon, Minuteman I, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper... I imagine you've heard of at least some of these. If not, a few moments with Google will enlighten you.
A simple solid rocket is, well, simple, powerful and cheap, which is why NASA selected that method for the SRBs for the Space Shuttle. They can release those from the main fuel tank early if required (SRB separation).
NASA selected solids because they seemed to be simple, powerful, and cheap. But in reality, they could only get one of those - and they chose powerful. SRB's aren't simple (mostly because of the need to be re-usable, but there is some significant complexity due to the need to segment them) and they aren't cheap (ditto). Nor can the be separated prior to burnout, once lit - that's all she wrote. NASA considered using thrust termination on the SRB's, but rejected it for various reasons.
The media around the world is laughing at the USA right now, go and do an internet search to see the kind of reactions that are being published.
Given the ignorance of the media, I'm not surprised. If they'd actually do their jobs, they'd find that in many countries around the world - the kids and their parents would also be responsible. But anti USA sentiment is a cheap way to garner readers, and 'journalists' are just as lazy as their readers.
It was an accident. Accidents happen. If someone dies, that's awful, but it's still an accident.
Just because it was an accident doesn't mean that there isn't someone responsible for causing the accident.
If you start to sue any child that somehow harmed someone else, parents would have to start leashing their kids as soon as they leave the house (and use a short leash). For some reason that's not the society I'd want to live in.
I wouldn't much care to live in your world, where people don't have to answer for their actions, either.
If the goal of the legal system is to make as much money as possible out of it, then yes, it is a logical decision. Also, it's exactly what's wrong with the system.
If the goal was to make as much money as possible, you'd have a point. Since that isn't the goal, you're just blowing smoke.
Yet another is that this motor type can be shut off before the burn is complete (unlike the SpaceShuttle side boosters
Note that while Shuttle SRB's cannot be shut off, this was a design decision made by NASA - not a universal property of solid fuel motors. Shutting off solids in flight has been pretty much routinely done since the late 1950's.
GeoCities was to the Internet what free blog hosting sites are now: a place to put your stories, photos, etc without paying anything. If Information Wants To Be Free, then Geocities was an important part of making this happen.
But Geocities was the Vox Populi - and as such, Slashdot's default position is to hate and denigrate it. (See also; Facebook, Twitter.)
So, um, does this all really matter? In practice, that is.
Directly in your day-to-day life? Not so much. Indirectly? Overwhelmingly so.
That computer you're sitting at? The materials in it are specified by weight. The same for the concrete in the bridge you drove over on your way home. And the metals in the car you drove across that bridge. Etc... Etc... (You can't specify by volume as volume changes with temperature and density, except for a vanishingly small fraction of a percent variation caused by gravity, weight is invariant.)
For the pedants whose cursor is even now hovering over the 'reply' button: Yes, I know there's a difference between weight and mass - but for most normal purposes, like building a bridge, they can be treated as interchangeable. Don't get picky just to karmawhore.
If counting and weighing photons were so easy... you'd have a point. But it isn't. Pretty much every proposal for replacing the kilogram standard so far has either ended up in a circular definition, or required us to do something we don't actually know how to do.
It clearly states this is an international effort, and the objection is not the the unit 'kilogram' but rather to using a decaying (however slowly) object as the reference mass.
Nor is it new(s) particularly. That the physical standard 'drifts' has been known for some time - and researchers all over the world have been studying potential replacements, with the long term goal of getting rid of the last physical standard and replacing it with something natural and universal. (In the way that the meter bar has been replaced by a number of wavelengths of a specific frequency of light.)
The only real 'news' in the article is to be found near the bottom - where we're informed the US plans to formally propose a replacement standard.
Facebook made over the years which automatically opted me in to having information publicly available that I had explicitly expressed a desire to keep private in the past.
It's been said before, but it bears saying again since it doesn't seem to have sunk in: if you don't want people to know about it, don't post it on the internet. Seriously. Don't blame Facebook because you can't keep your hands off your keyboard.
Hang on, what happened to the Geek's warcry of "Information wants to be free"?
So the big problem here is that if you have ever been an idiot or done something you'd rather forget then either you or one of your friends will purposely or accidentally post it on the internet in a way that can be linked back to you.
But that's no different from real life, if while drunk I told my best friend's wife I thought she was hot then that will stay with me for the rest of my life too.
That's the core of average Slashdotter's mindset - they don't believe that their actions should have consequences. They believe they should be able to do whatever they like, to whoever they like, whenever they like. They only rights that matter are *theirs*.
If so, then the distinction between an operational flaw and a design flaw is a distinction without a difference. Or at least one without significance.
Um, no. It's the difference between using a screwdriver to drive a screw - or to stab someone. It's a huge difference.
If a system designed to prevent something from happening can be easily subverted when implemented as designed then it has a huge design flaw.
Um, no. The system was designed to have a combination stored in it, and then have that combination entered in order to generate the launch signal. The system worked precisely as designed. If what you say is true, then there is almost no such thing as a secure lockout device - because keys can always be left in locks, terminals left logged in, etc... etc... (Or less kindly, you're either discussing a fantasy world disconnected from the real world of engineering and security - or you're smarter than thousands of engineers and security professionals across decades. I know which way I'd bet.)
It assumed (and required) that basic security practices would be followed (unique combinations).
Duh. And guess what - security procedures are *operations*, not *designs*. If you can't tell the difference, you just prove my point.
Seriously - because the claim quoted above is not supported in either of the linked articles. In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw. (A difference roughly as subtle as a baseball bat upside the head - and that the writers are unaware of this is a sure and certain sign they aren't qualified to write on the topic.)
The writer of the article cited above further compounds his error by using a situation from over three decades ago as 'proof' that a problem exists today - a situation which his own quote shows to no longer exist.
Then the solution is to make desks out of whatever they made them from in the 60's/70's... because the school desks I used back then were well nigh indestructible.
So one broken LCC can trigger a byzantine fault, a DoS of the entire system, and which LCC is causing the problem can't be identified without shutting them all down.... nice
Well, not a DoS of the entire system - just of the just for the missiles attached to that squadron. I suspect this is a side effect of the security and control system, which lets any LCC control the squadron but allows one LCC to veto the launch.
I'm just glad the missiles are apparently intelligent enough to respond with error codes, and the system failure didn't lead to an arming sequence and launch at whatever direction they were pointed...
Why the hell would you expect the missiles to respond by arming and launching in the first place? (Other than massive paranoia and/or abysmal ignorance?*) This may come as a bit of surprise to you, but the designers have actually thought about the consequences of faults and designed the system so that it is hard to enable and launch, and easy to disable and lockdown.
*Or at a minimum, terminal cluelessness of the differences between fiction and reality.
Slashdot Mirror
You may have been there - but you sure weren't paying attention. That question was asked repeatedly.
Wrong. The Apollo and LEM guidance computers were based on the Polaris (SLBM) guidance computers - and were built with space qualified IC chips originally developed for the USAF and the USN for ballistic missiles.
Microprocessors, the necessary precursor to microcomputers, wouldn't be developed for another decade - and when they were, they were developed by a commercial company for hand calculators.
Wrong again - the basic design for Apollo was frozen in 1963 and did not undergo significant modification thereafter.
Wrong. The Shuttle was already growing into a low orbit heavy lifter because Congress didn't fund a separate heavy lifter in order to provide destinations for the Shuttle.
ROTFLMAO. You can point away from Earth from *any* altitude - go out in the street and look up, and you're looking away from Earth *right at ground level*.
The problem is, Russia figured them out by figuring the most difficult and complex way that a space station shouldn't be built.
And what's the point of learning the lessons in V3.0 if you don't build a V4?
Actually, ISS is providing tons of new information on long term space survival - mostly because the Russian programs provided essentially none. The Soviets were notorious for the lack of... well, pretty much everything concerning actually documenting the lessons learned. Their medical studies were badly performed and incomplete, their are essentially no engineering reports, etc... etc... Most of what was 'learned' from MIR is actually a product of NASA, especially during the Shuttle/MIR program.
Um, actually, no. MIR is a very different beast from ISS. Among other things, MIR wasn't modular, it was hacked together. Nor could any of MIR's major systems be replaced, while most of ISS's (at least on the US side) are in cabinets that can be swapped out.
Etc... etc...
MIR is a shining example of how *not* to design a space station.
And you're either a starry eyed idealist or an idealist.
In some fantasy past where the grass was always green, the sun always shining, men were men and women were women. (And small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri were small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri.)
Seriously, those weren't exactly common unless you worked for a truly large company or had a union job or both. Almost nothing has changed. (Beyond a growing sense of entitlement among the workers.)
I have, it's called a "teletype console", and it's old, old tech. It's a cool hack, but it's nothing new.
No, *you* are wrong. Worse yet, when told you're wrong, you just parrot what you've heard before and make nonsensical claims and erect strawmen to 'prove' yourself correct.
The fact is that unconfined, all modern solid fuel does is essentially smolder - they require high pressure to actually burn. Vent the casing, and thrust drops rapidly to nearly zero. Thats is all that's needed.
SUBROC, ASROC, Polaris A-1, Polaris A-2, Poseidon, Minuteman I, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper... I imagine you've heard of at least some of these. If not, a few moments with Google will enlighten you.
NASA selected solids because they seemed to be simple, powerful, and cheap. But in reality, they could only get one of those - and they chose powerful. SRB's aren't simple (mostly because of the need to be re-usable, but there is some significant complexity due to the need to segment them) and they aren't cheap (ditto). Nor can the be separated prior to burnout, once lit - that's all she wrote. NASA considered using thrust termination on the SRB's, but rejected it for various reasons.
Given the ignorance of the media, I'm not surprised. If they'd actually do their jobs, they'd find that in many countries around the world - the kids and their parents would also be responsible. But anti USA sentiment is a cheap way to garner readers, and 'journalists' are just as lazy as their readers.
Just because it was an accident doesn't mean that there isn't someone responsible for causing the accident.
I wouldn't much care to live in your world, where people don't have to answer for their actions, either.
If the goal was to make as much money as possible, you'd have a point. Since that isn't the goal, you're just blowing smoke.
I shouldn't have to point this out - but since you make it necessary: "South Korea" != "Seoul" in the same that "California" != "Los Angeles".
Note that while Shuttle SRB's cannot be shut off, this was a design decision made by NASA - not a universal property of solid fuel motors. Shutting off solids in flight has been pretty much routinely done since the late 1950's.
But Geocities was the Vox Populi - and as such, Slashdot's default position is to hate and denigrate it. (See also; Facebook, Twitter.)
Directly in your day-to-day life? Not so much. Indirectly? Overwhelmingly so.
That computer you're sitting at? The materials in it are specified by weight. The same for the concrete in the bridge you drove over on your way home. And the metals in the car you drove across that bridge. Etc... Etc... (You can't specify by volume as volume changes with temperature and density, except for a vanishingly small fraction of a percent variation caused by gravity, weight is invariant.)
For the pedants whose cursor is even now hovering over the 'reply' button: Yes, I know there's a difference between weight and mass - but for most normal purposes, like building a bridge, they can be treated as interchangeable. Don't get picky just to karmawhore.
If counting and weighing photons were so easy... you'd have a point. But it isn't. Pretty much every proposal for replacing the kilogram standard so far has either ended up in a circular definition, or required us to do something we don't actually know how to do.
Nor is it new(s) particularly. That the physical standard 'drifts' has been known for some time - and researchers all over the world have been studying potential replacements, with the long term goal of getting rid of the last physical standard and replacing it with something natural and universal. (In the way that the meter bar has been replaced by a number of wavelengths of a specific frequency of light.)
The only real 'news' in the article is to be found near the bottom - where we're informed the US plans to formally propose a replacement standard.
It's been said before, but it bears saying again since it doesn't seem to have sunk in: if you don't want people to know about it, don't post it on the internet. Seriously. Don't blame Facebook because you can't keep your hands off your keyboard.
That's the core of average Slashdotter's mindset - they don't believe that their actions should have consequences. They believe they should be able to do whatever they like, to whoever they like, whenever they like. They only rights that matter are *theirs*.
Um, no. It's the difference between using a screwdriver to drive a screw - or to stab someone. It's a huge difference.
Um, no. The system was designed to have a combination stored in it, and then have that combination entered in order to generate the launch signal. The system worked precisely as designed. If what you say is true, then there is almost no such thing as a secure lockout device - because keys can always be left in locks, terminals left logged in, etc... etc... (Or less kindly, you're either discussing a fantasy world disconnected from the real world of engineering and security - or you're smarter than thousands of engineers and security professionals across decades. I know which way I'd bet.)
Duh. And guess what - security procedures are *operations*, not *designs*. If you can't tell the difference, you just prove my point.
From the summary: The history of nuclear command and control systems has too many examples of risky designs that favor the ability to launch over the danger of an accidental one.
[[Citation Needed]]
Seriously - because the claim quoted above is not supported in either of the linked articles. In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw. (A difference roughly as subtle as a baseball bat upside the head - and that the writers are unaware of this is a sure and certain sign they aren't qualified to write on the topic.)
The writer of the article cited above further compounds his error by using a situation from over three decades ago as 'proof' that a problem exists today - a situation which his own quote shows to no longer exist.
Then the solution is to make desks out of whatever they made them from in the 60's/70's... because the school desks I used back then were well nigh indestructible.
You can't do visible light microscopy on most film images either, even back then. That requires large formats and/or extremely specialized film.
Almost certainly, yes. Nuclear ICBM's are simply too useful a tool of statecraft.
Well, not a DoS of the entire system - just of the just for the missiles attached to that squadron. I suspect this is a side effect of the security and control system, which lets any LCC control the squadron but allows one LCC to veto the launch.
Why the hell would you expect the missiles to respond by arming and launching in the first place? (Other than massive paranoia and/or abysmal ignorance?*) This may come as a bit of surprise to you, but the designers have actually thought about the consequences of faults and designed the system so that it is hard to enable and launch, and easy to disable and lockdown.
*Or at a minimum, terminal cluelessness of the differences between fiction and reality.
No, it's kinda the point of the whole article we're discussing here.