Nope, as Joe Friday says "just the facts". The problem is, the facts aren't really known by many - including the poster to whom I responded. (Most of the 'facts' known by the general public, which includes slashdotters, are a mixture of urban legends, propaganda, and outright nonsense.)
Anyway, he seemed fair and balanced and based off all the things that are known about the shuttle.
If by "fair and balanced" you mean "repeats urban legends and alarmist nonsense", sure. To take just one example, he claims that the failure of "just one component" leads to "compromise of the equipment" and "almost certain doom for the crew" - which is utter and complete bullshit given the high level of redundancy among Shuttle components and systems. Etc... Etc...
Interesting that Soyuz, while viewed as being simpler and safer than the Shuttle has about the same safety record (2 fatal flights in ~100).
Sure, if you, in a simpleminded fashion, consider only fatalities. When you consider the overall safety and reliability statistics - Shuttle comes out far ahead. Consider that Soyuz has had two LOV accidents to the Shuttle's none. Consider that Soyuz has had at least 4 LOM incidents, to the Shuttle's one partial LOM incident. (And that one was later reflown - something not possible with Soyuz.) Etc... Etc..
It's also well known that the Shuttle is much more reliable mechanically, because the contingency options (aborts) are much poorer for that system.
That's a case of one of those things that is "well known" that isn't actually true... The Shuttle actually has more abort modes than Soyuz, which has only two. (Launch escape and abort to orbit.) All of the Shuttle abort modes save one leave you with an intact vehicle (I.E. the ability to refly the mission), while neither of Soyuz's does. While Shuttle's abort modes do have some holes - overall Shuttle only seems poorer in options than Soyuz. It actually requires fewer modes because of higher reliability.
This capability was first discussed back in the 70's and 80's and was theorized about back in the 60's, considerably predating your "anecdote". This is news, no matter what the 'pace of technology'* is, because they haven't quite managed to make it work yet.
* Largely a meaningless set of buzzwords. Even in computers not every portion of the field progresses at the same pace.
There's an alternative to waiting 5 years after the final shuttle launch - check out http://www.directlauncher.com/ It'd be ready 2 years after the final shuttle launch and it would cost a heck of a lot less than Ares...
It's very easy to make a paper rocket cheaper, faster, and better than another paper rocket - let alone cheaper, faster, and better than a real rocket. The real challenge is building a real rocket that matches the performance, cost, and schedule of the paper one.
Give me Russian-built aerospace hardware any day. Their stuff is built brick-shithouse tough. Re-entry without the heatshield?
They didn't re-enter without the heatshield. They started re-entry improperly oriented and properly oriented the craft at virtually the last possible instant. That isn't tough, that's damn lucky.
How much does a Soyuz laucnh cost compared to a shuttle launch?
Soyuz is much cheaper than a Shuttle per launch. But considering it takes something like four Soyuz launches and four Progress launches to incompletely replace a single Shuttle mission to ISS, it shouldn't be surprising that it is cheaper - lower capability almost always implies lower costs. I say 'incompletely' because Soyuz/Progress cannot deliver station modules, cannot deliver external cargo, cannot deliver ISS racks, cannot return hardware... etc.. etc... All of which the Shuttle can do. (Not to mention that the CBM hatches available to Shuttle carried cargo containers are nearly four times as big as the APAS hatches used the Soyuz/Progress.)
the logical thing would seem to be to build simple, cheap, super-tough craft and just launch dozens of them rather than investing heavily in individual craft.
If only cheap and super-tough weren't mutually incompatible.
When we do launch more than one vehicle, it is months apart as in the case of the Mars rovers. Doesn't make much sense.
It makes perfect sense - because assembling and launching them in serial (as opposed to parallel) means you can apply lessons learned from assembling the first to assembling the second. You can 'promote' and 'demoted' hardware from one vehicle to the next to ease schedule pressure. Etc... Etc... Launching them at the same time means assembling them at the same time - and for one-off (or severely limited production) vehicles that means more expensive, more likely to fail, more likely to slip schedule, etc... etc... Without providing an iota more science return.
It will be interesting to see public outcry when one of the Russian craft craters with Americans onboard. This will inevitably happen, even if the Soyuz is safer than anything America has (which it probably is).
The safety differences between Soyuz and Shuttle are statistically insignificant. Unless you engage in shady practices like not counting Soyuz-1 and Soyuz-10 "because they were a long time ago", etc... By that that metric one should be able to discard Challenger as well - at which point Shuttle's safety is still equal to or better than any other booster excepting only Soyuz. Even so, the difference is still statistically insignificant because neither vehicle has a enough flights to create valid statistics.
Myself, I'm not surprised at the latest Soyuz incident. Soyuz has a long history of incidents and near accidents.
When they do, they get slammed for 'cultural imperialism' etc... etc... It sometimes seems the only for the US to not get slammed is to eternally pay Danegeld.
While this is cool, I really don't understand why DARPA is developing this. It doesn't seem to fill any current need.
DARPA isn't in the habit of developing weapons for yesterday's war, or even today's. Generally they are developing stuff for five, ten, or even twenty five years or more down the pike.
She was an old girlfriend I hadn't seen in months that I ran across in a bar. The police are NOT supposed to open closed doors, locked or not. "Looking around" IS a search and it is not permitted under the US Constitution. Or wouuldn't be if the Constitution still had any meaning at all.
No, under the law it is not a search. (As in, had they found something illegal, they could not enter it into evidence.) Nor under common sense is it a search. (Ever opened the door of your garage/shed and found someone the police were looking for pointing a gun at your face? I have. And had the damn fool checked that the gun he stole was loaded...)
Your reply "hanging out with people engaged in criminal activity" is profoundly anti-patriotic and pro-tyrrany. We are supposed to have the right of free assembly. You're not supposed to have to do a background check to see if some woman you drink with in a bar has a criminal record.
You still have the right of free assembly - you do not have the right to be free of the consequences of making a poor choice. You knew by your own statement that the women were engaged in a criminal activity - thus your comment about "requiring a background check" is more bullshit rhetoric.
You, sir, are the reason they're taking our rights away. You not only let them take away rights, you condone and even encourage it.
Had they taken any of my rights away, you'd have a point. But again, you consistently substitute rhetoric and attitude for common sense.
But, I remind myself that I spent ten years of my life under the sea so jackasses like yourself can hold whatever silly beliefs they want.
It may be urban legend, but I heard the military calls it "hundred mile per hour tape" because once in some godforsaken jungle somewhere a helicopter broke a rotor (gunshot or something) and the mechanic duct taped it together, telling the pilot to "keep it under a hundred miles an hour".
It's called "hundred mile an hour tape" because it will (according to legend) hold parts of aircraft on (like skin paneling) at speeds of up to a hundred miles an hours. (The submarine force sometimes calls it 'test depth tape' for the same reason.)
FWIW - no force on earth is going to hold on a broken rotor blade. That is, if the unbalance caused by the weight of the tape doesn't get to it first.
You have no fourth amendment rights while in your car either. Or as I found out on the day we pay tribute to the brave men an women who died in defense of our Constitutional rights, The cops will search your garage without a warrant too.
Except, you have no evidence they searched your garage. They may hove looked inside because it was unlocked, but that does not constitute a search.
Additionally, you are hanging out with people engaged in criminal activity - and you are surprised when the cops take an interest in you too?
This isn't a particularly new model, such a division has existed in many fields since around the beginnings of science. High Energy Physics is just the only field where one side of the divide felt it necessary to differentiate itself from the other. (Though sometimes, nowadays, geologists feel the same need - to differentiate between those who go into the field and those who never leave their lab bench or computer screen.)
Well, the F-22 does have air-to-ground capability - so it replaces the F-117 very nicely. (Not to mention the F-35.) The B-52 and B-2 are pretty much useless when it comes to reactive tactical strikes.
In a day and age where aircraft from the 1950's are still flying and in active service,
And those aircraft make up a fairly small proportion of the active fleet. The vast majority date from the 70's and 80's.
to see something like the F-117 come and go so quickly has to be a sign of major design limitations from the first day of use.
The F-117 has been in service twenty five years, a little below current averages but nothing surprising or remarkable. Given that it does have a variety of major limitations and was a 'niche market' (specialized function) aircraft, the real surprise is that it has lasted as long as it did.
the SR-71 was designed in the 60's, the stealth fighter was designed in the 70's, the F-22 started in the mid 80's, kinda makes you wonder what the hell they're working on now!
Try to imagine any other computing device surviving what I've described above.
I don't have to imagine it - I can order it off the shelf. The XO is far, far from the only extreme environment laptop available. In fact, if it is vulnerable as you make it out to be... it falls well short of the Toughbook and Rugged Notebook.
The XO laptop is the best available technology today
It's not like this is a newly discovered phenomenon. After all, there have been many unmanned moon landings and equipment has operated through the "magnetotail" many times. The USSR landed two lunar rovers, both of which worked for months. Lunokhod 1 was operational for 322 days, and Lunokhod 2 was operational for about four months. This was in the early 1970s.
Not to mention the ALSEP instrument packages left behind by the Apollo landing missions - many of them still operational in 1977 when the program was terminated. There have also been a half dozen or so lunar orbiting probes of various kinds.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.
Nope, as Joe Friday says "just the facts". The problem is, the facts aren't really known by many - including the poster to whom I responded. (Most of the 'facts' known by the general public, which includes slashdotters, are a mixture of urban legends, propaganda, and outright nonsense.)
If by "fair and balanced" you mean "repeats urban legends and alarmist nonsense", sure. To take just one example, he claims that the failure of "just one component" leads to "compromise of the equipment" and "almost certain doom for the crew" - which is utter and complete bullshit given the high level of redundancy among Shuttle components and systems. Etc... Etc...
Sure, if you, in a simpleminded fashion, consider only fatalities. When you consider the overall safety and reliability statistics - Shuttle comes out far ahead. Consider that Soyuz has had two LOV accidents to the Shuttle's none. Consider that Soyuz has had at least 4 LOM incidents, to the Shuttle's one partial LOM incident. (And that one was later reflown - something not possible with Soyuz.) Etc... Etc..
That's a case of one of those things that is "well known" that isn't actually true... The Shuttle actually has more abort modes than Soyuz, which has only two. (Launch escape and abort to orbit.) All of the Shuttle abort modes save one leave you with an intact vehicle (I.E. the ability to refly the mission), while neither of Soyuz's does. While Shuttle's abort modes do have some holes - overall Shuttle only seems poorer in options than Soyuz. It actually requires fewer modes because of higher reliability.
This capability was first discussed back in the 70's and 80's and was theorized about back in the 60's, considerably predating your "anecdote". This is news, no matter what the 'pace of technology'* is, because they haven't quite managed to make it work yet.
* Largely a meaningless set of buzzwords. Even in computers not every portion of the field progresses at the same pace.
That only indicates that you don't know what you are talking about either.
The answer to that is "both".
It's very easy to make a paper rocket cheaper, faster, and better than another paper rocket - let alone cheaper, faster, and better than a real rocket. The real challenge is building a real rocket that matches the performance, cost, and schedule of the paper one.
Ask Elon Musk.
Got anything other than Soyuz Fanboi/Shuttle Hater propaganda? Because you haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
They didn't re-enter without the heatshield. They started re-entry improperly oriented and properly oriented the craft at virtually the last possible instant. That isn't tough, that's damn lucky.
Soyuz is much cheaper than a Shuttle per launch. But considering it takes something like four Soyuz launches and four Progress launches to incompletely replace a single Shuttle mission to ISS, it shouldn't be surprising that it is cheaper - lower capability almost always implies lower costs. I say 'incompletely' because Soyuz/Progress cannot deliver station modules, cannot deliver external cargo, cannot deliver ISS racks, cannot return hardware... etc.. etc... All of which the Shuttle can do. (Not to mention that the CBM hatches available to Shuttle carried cargo containers are nearly four times as big as the APAS hatches used the Soyuz/Progress.)
If only cheap and super-tough weren't mutually incompatible.
It makes perfect sense - because assembling and launching them in serial (as opposed to parallel) means you can apply lessons learned from assembling the first to assembling the second. You can 'promote' and 'demoted' hardware from one vehicle to the next to ease schedule pressure. Etc... Etc... Launching them at the same time means assembling them at the same time - and for one-off (or severely limited production) vehicles that means more expensive, more likely to fail, more likely to slip schedule, etc... etc... Without providing an iota more science return.
The safety differences between Soyuz and Shuttle are statistically insignificant. Unless you engage in shady practices like not counting Soyuz-1 and Soyuz-10 "because they were a long time ago", etc... By that that metric one should be able to discard Challenger as well - at which point Shuttle's safety is still equal to or better than any other booster excepting only Soyuz. Even so, the difference is still statistically insignificant because neither vehicle has a enough flights to create valid statistics.
Myself, I'm not surprised at the latest Soyuz incident. Soyuz has a long history of incidents and near accidents.
I imagine you live in some fantasy world then if think that's even possible.
When they do, they get slammed for 'cultural imperialism' etc... etc... It sometimes seems the only for the US to not get slammed is to eternally pay Danegeld.
DARPA isn't in the habit of developing weapons for yesterday's war, or even today's. Generally they are developing stuff for five, ten, or even twenty five years or more down the pike.
Mostly because [common handheld civilian] GPS is accurate to around five meters now-a-days. Surveyor grade GPS is down to centimeters.
No, under the law it is not a search. (As in, had they found something illegal, they could not enter it into evidence.) Nor under common sense is it a search. (Ever opened the door of your garage/shed and found someone the police were looking for pointing a gun at your face? I have. And had the damn fool checked that the gun he stole was loaded...)
You still have the right of free assembly - you do not have the right to be free of the consequences of making a poor choice. You knew by your own statement that the women were engaged in a criminal activity - thus your comment about "requiring a background check" is more bullshit rhetoric.
Had they taken any of my rights away, you'd have a point. But again, you consistently substitute rhetoric and attitude for common sense.
But, I remind myself that I spent ten years of my life under the sea so jackasses like yourself can hold whatever silly beliefs they want.
It's called "hundred mile an hour tape" because it will (according to legend) hold parts of aircraft on (like skin paneling) at speeds of up to a hundred miles an hours. (The submarine force sometimes calls it 'test depth tape' for the same reason.)
FWIW - no force on earth is going to hold on a broken rotor blade. That is, if the unbalance caused by the weight of the tape doesn't get to it first.
Except, you have no evidence they searched your garage. They may hove looked inside because it was unlocked, but that does not constitute a search.
Additionally, you are hanging out with people engaged in criminal activity - and you are surprised when the cops take an interest in you too?
Your paranoia exceeds your common sense.
Slow news day on BoingBoing and/or Slashdot? This is a pretty well known piece of history.
Only the areas very close to shore will be mapped to that level of detail - so the odds are that nothing important or impressive will be found.
This isn't a particularly new model, such a division has existed in many fields since around the beginnings of science. High Energy Physics is just the only field where one side of the divide felt it necessary to differentiate itself from the other. (Though sometimes, nowadays, geologists feel the same need - to differentiate between those who go into the field and those who never leave their lab bench or computer screen.)
Well, the F-22 does have air-to-ground capability - so it replaces the F-117 very nicely. (Not to mention the F-35.) The B-52 and B-2 are pretty much useless when it comes to reactive tactical strikes.
The F-117 has been in service twenty five years, a little below current averages but nothing surprising or remarkable. Given that it does have a variety of major limitations and was a 'niche market' (specialized function) aircraft, the real surprise is that it has lasted as long as it did.
The F-35 Lightning II (née JSF).
Given that you can't buy an XO off the shelf...
I don't have to imagine it - I can order it off the shelf. The XO is far, far from the only extreme environment laptop available. In fact, if it is vulnerable as you make it out to be... it falls well short of the Toughbook and Rugged Notebook.
Oh? What MIL-SPECs has it been tested against?
Not to mention the ALSEP instrument packages left behind by the Apollo landing missions - many of them still operational in 1977 when the program was terminated. There have also been a half dozen or so lunar orbiting probes of various kinds.