They also said that the order of the sensors failing was no indication that the wing was destroyed from back to front. Keep in mind, the sensors were reading "off-scale low", ie no connection. If the temp sensors went offline due to destruction of the sensors themselves, one might expect them to read abnormally high values just before dropping offline. Most likely, the damage was happening at a wiring harness elsewhere.
The wiring of the sensors is very complex, including multiplexors as well as cable bundles. No doubt they have engineers attempting to reconcile the failures with the wiring diagrams.
And for people following at home, that should read "Russia hasn't had the money to fund flying any of the stolen American technology, including the shuttle tech they stole from the US."
Soyuz is all Russian technology. For a long time it was the US playing "catch up" with the Russians. Even though Barun looks similar to the US shuttle it is not a clone.
Now I don't recall off the top of my head if any probes before Voyager used RTGs,
Pioneer's 10 and 11 also used RTGs. As did the Viking landers. The orbiters used solar arrays, but given the weather on Mars solar power was not a reliable source of power on the surface.
Given the low light intensity in the outer solar system, and the weight involved in fuel cells or (laugh) batteries, I suspect RTGs, or something similar, will continue to be used for power.
Fuel cells would be just as much a joke. You'd need to stop cryonic fuels from boiling for years and deal with the water produced.
There was no radioactive material on board. There will never, ever be any radioactive material launched into space, for very good reason.
Plenty of radioactive material has been launched into space. Including the Pioneer and Voyager probes as well as the Viking landers. Solar panels arn't much use for powering anything intended to go outside the orbit of Mars.
When looking out the radioactive waste problem, launching it into space was immediately ruled out due to the risk that it could be released into the atmosphere.
Radioactive waste is a mixture of all sorts of things. RTGs use a single isotope.
If you were taking a strong radioactive source into space, wouldn't you have to shield it in lead?
The most likely source would be an RTG. Which generates alpha particles, it dosn't take much to stop an alpha particle. You only need lead for gamma and neutron sources.
CBS is reporting on TV that one of the last bits of telemetry to come in was a change in tire pressure. Anyone care to speculate what could have changed that?
This could well be perfectly normal, simply due to the landing gear bays heating up somewhat in reentry. The telemetry data recorded is far more comprehensive than that fed to a regular flight data recorder.
OK, I can see something go wrong during takeoff when you have thousands of pounds of rocket fuel strapped to your back. But landing? At landing the shuttle is a glorified glider.
It's the only glider which flys at supersonic speed and hits the atmosphere fast enough to generate plasma.
Then again, maybe this will cause the next generation of space shuttles to be built on an accelerated pace, and there won't be anymore flights of the current model.
How long is it likely to take to build a new model of shuttle? Including design, building, unmanned flight testing, flights by test pilots, etc.
My understanding is that the space station requires re-supply by the shuttle. After the Challenger explosion, shuttles didn't fly for another two years. Clearly the people on the space station require at the very least rescue if not re-supply.
The have a Soyuz capsule they can use to return to Earth. Also the station can be supply by Progress capsules.
They always lose contact on reentry to the atmosphere. The heat generated makes radio communication with the earth impossible.
But you wouldn't lose radar contact. The same plasma which blocks radio communication has a very large RCS (Radar Cross Section, not Reaction Control System).
They claim that some insulation fell from the shuttle when they launched.
Actually it fell from the extrnal tank, apparently hitting the port wing as it fell. Most likely investigators are going to be closely examinig the footage from the launch.
Survival is possible... space shuttle was relatively slow, already mostly throught the atmosphere the crew may have been able to bail out, and they do have parachutes.
Only compared with its orbital speed. Still many times the flat out speed of any other aircraft. You cannot simply bail out of something travelling at hypersonic speed. The only possible escape would be something like the F-111 capsule, which is not fitted to the Shuttle.
Remember, the Soyuz is not just an emergency capsule, it's a full-blown launcher system. Most supply and crew change missions to the ISS are flown with Soyuzes, so technically the shuttle is not an irreplaceable part of the ISS program.
Also Soyuz appears to be a lot safer launch system than the Shuttle. AFAIK only 4 people have died on Soyuz, even though it's been in operation longer than the Shuttle.
However, Russia's financially strapped space program has been hard pressed to produce even the current number of spacecraft (the "escape capsule" Soyuz is swapped for a new one every 6 months), so whether they alone can keep going is doubtful.
Maybe the ISS needs an international space agency to operate it.
I agree that there is a distinction to be made between devices such as MovieMask which filter on the fly and CleanFlick, but in the end it is still the consumer that is choosing to view an edited movie. The difference is how fine grained the control is, not the concept itself.
Actually the difference is that "CleanFlicks" have a business model which cannot operate without their infringing copyright. They take someone elses work, alter it then distribute the result to third parties.
Which is among other things that I do not have the right to make additional copies (copyright, remember?)
Actually you do have the right to make additional copies of a book, you do not need to get permission from the copyright holder to read it (at a fee per eye) you do not have to pay an additional fee to read it aloud nor can a copyright holder tell you how you can and cannot store information in your brain. This is what would happen were the same kind of "logic", which has been applied to other kinds of media, to be applied to books.
An copyright is just that: an exclusive right to copy . The owner of a copyright has the right to prohibit others from distributing copies of the copyrighted work.Nothing in a copyright, however, gives the holder the right to impose restrictions on how the purchaser uses it in private.
Thing is that lawyers representing certain copyright holders have attempted to redefine both "distribution" and "copying". Hence you have such ideas as a single corporation needing multiple copies of software and permission from the copyright holder being required to run software.
The GPL deals only with copying and redistribution of the GPL'd code. It says nothing about private use of the code, just as copyright law says nothing about private use of the copyrighted work.
IIRC the GPL explicitally states that it dosn't cover "private use", which includes such use by a corporation.
Finally, reduced manpower is a great goal, but generally is highly driven by putting in machinery which requires fewer operators. Communications systems are not really any manpower saver. And, as noted by others, you need twice as many people on a ship as it takes to operate all machinery: remember you have to run the ship 24x7, so you need at least two shifts (there's a little overlap, but 2x is a good rule of thumb), and you better have some extras for damage control and casualty replacement.
You also need people to look after these shifts, cooks, doctors, command officers, etc.
So, you'll get manpower savings by automatic ammunition loading systems, better fire-supression, more efficient engines, better EW weapon systems,
You still need people on board who can fix these systems and to be able to handle the situation of automatics not working when they are needed.
The main problem with NT isn't that it's commercial or that it sucks technically, the main problem is that it's through-and-through proprietary--it's a single-vendor solution.
A good part of the problem is that Microsoft likes people to "upgrade" quite frequently. By the time any of their software made it through testing they'd probably refuse to support it anyway.
Since nobody has mentioned any positives yet, why has this been implemented at all? Is it the convienience? Are destroyers buried under a deluge of wires? How does this improve your survivability / effectiveness?
Mineral insulated cable will work until it melts. A radio repeater will be useless when the first component fails, including things like backup batteries.
First of all, as a Marine that has spent time aboard ships, this seems absolutely ridiculous. They Navy hates automation beyond email. Second of all, this is just asking to get hacked. 802.11b can be received for kilometers.
Another possibility is jamming, it's even been known for warship radars and satcomms to jam their own systems.
Being on the ocean, one big reflective antenna, you could probably extend this distance to miles with a decent antenna, obviously with great latency, but it would work.
Latency isn't an issue if the aim is to guide a missile. Is this fancy radio network still going to work when the ship has a big hole in the side and is most likely on fire too...
Slashdot Mirror
They also said that the order of the sensors failing was no indication that the wing was destroyed from back to front. Keep in mind, the sensors were reading "off-scale low", ie no connection. If the temp sensors went offline due to destruction of the sensors themselves, one might expect them to read abnormally high values just before dropping offline. Most likely, the damage was happening at a wiring harness elsewhere.
The wiring of the sensors is very complex, including multiplexors as well as cable bundles. No doubt they have engineers attempting to reconcile the failures with the wiring diagrams.
And for people following at home, that should read "Russia hasn't had the money to fund flying any of the stolen American technology, including the shuttle tech they stole from the US."
Soyuz is all Russian technology. For a long time it was the US playing "catch up" with the Russians. Even though Barun looks similar to the US shuttle it is not a clone.
Now I don't recall off the top of my head if any probes before Voyager used RTGs,
Pioneer's 10 and 11 also used RTGs. As did the Viking landers. The orbiters used solar arrays, but given the weather on Mars solar power was not a reliable source of power on the surface.
Given the low light intensity in the outer solar system, and the weight involved in fuel cells or (laugh) batteries, I suspect RTGs, or something similar, will continue to be used for power.
Fuel cells would be just as much a joke. You'd need to stop cryonic fuels from boiling for years and deal with the water produced.
There was no radioactive material on board. There will never, ever be any radioactive material launched into space, for very good reason.
Plenty of radioactive material has been launched into space. Including the Pioneer and Voyager probes as well as the Viking landers. Solar panels arn't much use for powering anything intended to go outside the orbit of Mars.
When looking out the radioactive waste problem, launching it into space was immediately ruled out due to the risk that it could be released into the atmosphere.
Radioactive waste is a mixture of all sorts of things. RTGs use a single isotope.
If you were taking a strong radioactive source into space, wouldn't you have to shield it in lead?
The most likely source would be an RTG. Which generates alpha particles, it dosn't take much to stop an alpha particle. You only need lead for gamma and neutron sources.
CBS is reporting on TV that one of the last bits of telemetry to come in was a change in tire pressure. Anyone care to speculate what could have changed that?
This could well be perfectly normal, simply due to the landing gear bays heating up somewhat in reentry.
The telemetry data recorded is far more comprehensive than that fed to a regular flight data recorder.
OK, I can see something go wrong during takeoff when you have thousands of pounds of rocket fuel strapped to your back. But landing? At landing the shuttle is a glorified glider.
It's the only glider which flys at supersonic speed and hits the atmosphere fast enough to generate plasma.
Then again, maybe this will cause the next generation of space shuttles to be built on an accelerated pace, and there won't be anymore flights of the current model.
How long is it likely to take to build a new model of shuttle? Including design, building, unmanned flight testing, flights by test pilots, etc.
My understanding is that the space station requires re-supply by the shuttle. After the Challenger explosion, shuttles didn't fly for another two years. Clearly the people on the space station require at the very least rescue if not re-supply.
The have a Soyuz capsule they can use to return to Earth. Also the station can be supply by Progress capsules.
They always lose contact on reentry to the atmosphere. The heat generated makes radio communication with the earth impossible.
But you wouldn't lose radar contact. The same plasma which blocks radio communication has a very large RCS (Radar Cross Section, not Reaction Control System).
Can parachuting from 40 miles high (65 km) really be feasible?
You'd need a preasure suit with a self contained air supply for starters.
They claim that some insulation fell from the shuttle when they launched.
Actually it fell from the extrnal tank, apparently hitting the port wing as it fell. Most likely investigators are going to be closely examinig the footage from the launch.
Survival is possible... space shuttle was relatively slow, already mostly throught the atmosphere the crew may have been able to bail out, and they do have parachutes.
Only compared with its orbital speed. Still many times the flat out speed of any other aircraft. You cannot simply bail out of something travelling at hypersonic speed. The only possible escape would be something like the F-111 capsule, which is not fitted to the Shuttle.
But they use thruster rockets right down to the point they drop subsonic, and these thrusters use hypergolic (self igniting) fuels.
This sounds suprising, considering that the shuttle has a full set of flight controls.
I think we need to replace the shuttle system. It's 30 year old technology.
Soyuz is even older...
Remember, the Soyuz is not just an emergency capsule, it's a full-blown launcher system. Most supply and crew change missions to the ISS are flown with Soyuzes, so technically the shuttle is not an irreplaceable part of the ISS program.
Also Soyuz appears to be a lot safer launch system than the Shuttle. AFAIK only 4 people have died on Soyuz, even though it's been in operation longer than the Shuttle.
However, Russia's financially strapped space program has been hard pressed to produce even the current number of spacecraft (the "escape capsule" Soyuz is swapped for a new one every 6 months), so whether they alone can keep going is doubtful.
Maybe the ISS needs an international space agency to operate it.
I agree that there is a distinction to be made between devices such as MovieMask which filter on the fly and CleanFlick, but in the end it is still the consumer that is choosing to view an edited movie. The difference is how fine grained the control is, not the concept itself.
Actually the difference is that "CleanFlicks" have a business model which cannot operate without their infringing copyright. They take someone elses work, alter it then distribute the result to third parties.
Look it up. It's a copyright violation to show a movie to a large group without the creator's permission.
A large group of what, exactly? You can have a huge group of humans, which is at the same time at most one "person".
Copyright only comes into play once you want to distribute the work. Showing it to an audience at a university counts as distribution.
Though a corporation showing it to some of its parts should not be considered distribution. Assuming the copy was obtained by the corporation.
Which is among other things that I do not have the right to make additional copies (copyright, remember?)
Actually you do have the right to make additional copies of a book, you do not need to get permission from the copyright holder to read it (at a fee per eye) you do not have to pay an additional fee to read it aloud nor can a copyright holder tell you how you can and cannot store information in your brain.
This is what would happen were the same kind of "logic", which has been applied to other kinds of media, to be applied to books.
An copyright is just that: an exclusive right to copy . The owner of a copyright has the right to prohibit others from distributing copies of the copyrighted work.Nothing in a copyright, however, gives the holder the right to impose restrictions on how the purchaser uses it in private.
Thing is that lawyers representing certain copyright holders have attempted to redefine both "distribution" and "copying". Hence you have such ideas as a single corporation needing multiple copies of software and permission from the copyright holder being required to run software.
The GPL deals only with copying and redistribution of the GPL'd code. It says nothing about private use of the code, just as copyright law says nothing about private use of the copyrighted work.
IIRC the GPL explicitally states that it dosn't cover "private use", which includes such use by a corporation.
How about the TV, or even worse, the "airline edit". Movies shown on airlines are really chewed up, expurgated and shown on shitty little screens.
AFAIK airlines don't tend to apply DoGs or talk over even show adverts over the credits. TV broadcasts quite often do these kind of things.
Finally, reduced manpower is a great goal, but generally is highly driven by putting in machinery which requires fewer operators. Communications systems are not really any manpower saver. And, as noted by others, you need twice as many people on a ship as it takes to operate all machinery: remember you have to run the ship 24x7, so you need at least two shifts (there's a little overlap, but 2x is a good rule of thumb), and you better have some extras for damage control and casualty replacement.
You also need people to look after these shifts, cooks, doctors, command officers, etc.
So, you'll get manpower savings by automatic ammunition loading systems, better fire-supression, more efficient engines, better EW weapon systems,
You still need people on board who can fix these systems and to be able to handle the situation of automatics not working when they are needed.
The main problem with NT isn't that it's commercial or that it sucks technically, the main problem is that it's through-and-through proprietary--it's a single-vendor solution.
A good part of the problem is that Microsoft likes people to "upgrade" quite frequently. By the time any of their software made it through testing they'd probably refuse to support it anyway.
Since nobody has mentioned any positives yet, why has this been implemented at all? Is it the convienience? Are destroyers buried under a deluge of wires? How does this improve your survivability / effectiveness?
Mineral insulated cable will work until it melts. A radio repeater will be useless when the first component fails, including things like backup batteries.
First of all, as a Marine that has spent time aboard ships, this seems absolutely ridiculous. They Navy hates automation beyond email. Second of all, this is just asking to get hacked. 802.11b can be received for kilometers.
Another possibility is jamming, it's even been known for warship radars and satcomms to jam their own systems.
Being on the ocean, one big reflective antenna, you could probably extend this distance to miles with a decent antenna, obviously with great latency, but it would work.
Latency isn't an issue if the aim is to guide a missile. Is this fancy radio network still going to work when the ship has a big hole in the side and is most likely on fire too...