Make a modular system that includes both a "unit" of fuel and the engine. Strap as many modules on the back of a crew/payload compartment as you need to accomplish the delta-Vs for the mission. Depending on mission, set up the used modules to burn up the atmosphere/hit the moon/end up some place where they don't become problematic space junk (i.e., don't quite use all of the fuel). Crew/payload compartment stays in orbit and gets re-used. Hire commercial space travel company to get people or equipment to/from the crew/payload compartment when parked in LEO (yeah, I know they only do sub-orbital/ballistic now) . Only use heavy lift rockets (or some future, better technology) to lift the fuel modules.
Engineering exercise to determine whether to include the engine with the fuel module and make it disposable too or have a "permanent" engine. My guess is disposable engines will work better since the lifetime and duty cycle are well defined. Using lots of standard fuel modules means they can be mass produced with economies of scale so they're relatively cheap. All other components are reusable.
Imperial units are convenient. Not convenient to convert between but convenient within their domain. Inches are handy for measuring small lengths; feet and yards for somewhat longer lengths and miles are good for large distances. Same for cups, quarts and gallons; ounces, pounds and tons, etc.
I don't want 250ml of coffee; I want a cup of coffee. I don't want half a litre of beer; I want a pint of beer (the Brits were smart about not forcing this one).
Imperial units evolved to their current values because the quantities worked out well for the things people needed to measure. Recipes make a great example. Lots of recipes call for odd quantities of various ingredients when given in metric but the same recipe is straight forward in Imperial units like fractions or multiples of cups and teaspoons, tablespoons, ounces, etc. The result of the recipe (using either units) works out to a nice serving of whatever. The required Imperial units are easy but the metric units aren't to achieve that result.
Metric is great for conversion between units but I don't usually need to scale up a recipe by a factor of ten or one hundred.
Is there a corresponding site for those of us who wish to donate to a fund that will buy the bullets that the firing squad will use when they take the traitorous little bastard out and shoot him? And, if so, does the site accept PayPal?
I build my own desktops and servers. Laptops I buy from a reputable national manufacturer which means getting a boat load of crapware. I fire up the system to make sure it "works" with the pre-installed crapware and Windoze and then repartition the hard drive with Linux getting the bulk of the space and Windoze relegated to what amounts to a maintenance partition. While I could shrink the windoze partition and then remove the crapware, I just blow it away and do a clean install. I end up with a nice clean system running Linux with a dual boot to windoze if some pathetic piece of windows software won't run under wine.
Quoting PJ, "What an amazing coincidence. Two researchers take Microsoft money, no strings attached, mind you, and then after much study just happen to come to the same conclusions as Microsoft's talking points."
I worked at a couple of different start-ups beginning around the Y2K scare. Had lots of stock options. Never saw a penny in additional income. Lost about $1,500 in exercised options in one place I worked that never made it to being a publicly traded company.
It's not unreasonable to put in 45 hour weeks when you work in software. You can even expect some 50+ hour weeks. The ONLY reason you should work these kinds of hours is some sort of realistic expectation that you will somehow be compensated for the additional hours. If you work in a big, established company, that could mean promotions or, at least, raises. If you work in a start-up, some sort of equity is appropriate. If the equity isn't there or there isn't a realistic business plan to make it happen, start looking and then get out. Fast.
1) The Pentagon and/or State Department CANNOT redact material such as this without giving tacit approval to it's release. J.A.'s offer is really hollow when you understand that it was made knowing that it was impossible for the U.S. government to take him up on the offer. Ditto for any news media making the same offer.
2) Guerrilla wars all always messy. Insurgents don't wear uniforms and there are no "front lines." Insurgents seek to blend into the population and count on that tactic resulting in innocent civilian casualties that will sway the population to their side. Of course, B.M., J.A. and their apologists ignore this and place the blame for any civilian casualties on the U.S. military or other coalition forces. We accidentally kill civilians and it's a huge wrong; the Taliban or Al-qaeda kill civilians and neither bat an eye. It's still our fault for even being there. Sounds like the idiot at The Daily Mash fits into the same mind set.
Wars are messy. Sometimes the wrong people are on the receiving end. Sometimes that means dead civilians and sometimes that means a "friendly fire" incident. Shit happens. Compared to previous wars the current actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are surgically precise. It's sad that the wrong people are sometimes killed but put a little blame on the other guys for making that part of their tactics.
What seems to have come out since B.M. exposed this material is that there were a handful of questionable events and that the great majority of the activities he exposed in the operational reports were simply people doing their best in the fog of war to defeat the Islamists. Sometimes people make mistakes and sometimes it is in the interest of all concerned to not disclose those mistakes.
His exposure of the diplomatic cables was highly destructive and will cause significant impact to relations between several countries, not just between the U.S. and other countries. It is absolutely critical to the functioning of the diplomatic system that the participants be able to exchange information and opinions with candor. B.M.'s stunt means this traffic will be much more circumspect with countries acting unilaterally rather than risk publication.
B.M. has made the world LESS safe. He has made it LESS likely that other countries will work with the U.S. to find solutions to issues. He has endangered the lives of U.S. troops and those of our allies. It is very likely that his disclosures have cost the lives of those friendly to us. All because he took it upon himself from his lofty position as a PFC to deem that certain acts documented in what he leaked were inappropriate. Hardly the acts of a patriot.
I think you will find that the unauthorised disclosure of classified information does not constitute free speech as protected by the first amendment. He can say whatever he wants about the government so long as he doesn't disclose classified information. He agreed that, as a condition of getting access to such data, he would not disclose such data and that unauthorised disclosure could result in criminal prosecution.
Nice try but what B.M. did is NOT protected by the first amendment. Julian Assange may be able to use the first amendment as a defence if he were ever to be prosecuted for publishing this material. I'm guessing that the government wouldn't attempt to prosecute him for publishing it just that reason. They may come up with something like "unauthorised possession of classified material" instead. I have no idea if there is such a law but the government can be very clever when it comes to finding something to pin on someone they don't like.
My guess is that, before this thing wraps up, there will be multiple incidents such as the Taliban killing Afghan villagers who are friendly to us that can be traced to information disclosed by B.M. You will note that the section of the Constitution that describes treason does not mention that "the enemy" must be another country and that there be a declaration of war. Thus, him providing information that eventually reaches and helps "enemy combatants" (I think that's the term that's also used for the folks down at Gitmo) would constitute providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy.
The Constitution does not specify that "the enemy" must be a country nor that there be a declaration of war. It does include giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy as an act of treason. An aggressive prosecutor could put forward the position that each unauthorised publication of the cables and communications constitutes an act of treason for which there are literally millions of witnesses.
As to who is or isn't a traitor, besides being a judgement of history, that initially comes down to who wins; at least initially. As an example, we consider the people who attempted to blow up Hitler in the July 20th bomb plot to be righteous even though they were committing treason. On the other hand, most people in the U.S. consider John Wilkes Booth to be a traitor. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors.
I'm guessing that diplomacy will return to essentially exactly what it was before Wikileaks released the U.S. diplomatic cables. There will be changes in the U.S. to restrict access that will hopefully not harm our ability to "put the pieces together" and thwart terrorists and other people who wish to harm the U.S. Other countries may follow suit to avoid a similar disclosure. If there isn't a significant, successful terrorist act or diplomatic rift, B.M. will probably become just another footnote of history. At best, he'll be lumped with all of the other misguided idealists who took it upon themselves to change the world betraying their country.
The goofy thing to me is that a large number of the cables have revealed that the U.S. is "taking the heat" for things that other countries either don't have the technical capability or political chops to carry out (air strikes in Yemen, bugging narcotics traffickers in South America, several middle east countries wanting us to "take out" Iran, etc.). It seems that a lot of the world is quite happy hiding behind us while maintaining "plausible deniability."
I would argue that that is another reason for not switching from English but not why English is the language of commercial aviation.
Most commercial aviation was established after WWII when the U.S. and the English were the only countries that had the financial ability to bring it into being. Most of the rest of the world was either in ruins, didn't have the economic strength or found commercial aviation to be politically unacceptable (e.g., the Soviet Union).
The U.S. spoke English and the English spoke English. Just about any international flight was either BOAC or Pan Am. Chances are that the local staff was trained by either the U.S. or the Brits. Ergo, everyone spoke English.
But if the same Spanish or French pilot flies to say Germany or Poland, they speak English to the controller. I'd also guess that the initial contact in either Spain or France is in English and only switches to the native language by mutual agreement between the pilot and the controller.
Once you go international, the language for commercial aviation is English.
Along with all the high-minded gobbledy-gook about journalistic responsibility everyone seems to be forgetting the principle of a "scoop." Wired has what no one else has. That's a journalist's dream. Get used to it.
I'd rather see him tried under Article III; Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution for committing treason. Once he's convicted the traitorous little bastard should be taken out and shot.
The traitorous bastard should be given a fair and speedy trial and then taken out and shot.
It should be noted that treason is the one crime specifically called out in the U.S. Constitution and it carries the death penalty. By the Constitution's definition that means taking him out and shooting him is not cruel nor unreasonable.
There might be more data in Chinese, but English will still be the standard of international communication.
A fairly good counter example to the article is commercial aviation. English continues to be the language used for commercial aviation even as the portion of the aviation pie "owned" by English speaking countries has become smaller. That is, ALL of the air traffic controllers and commercial pilots communicate with each other in English. The reasons are really simple: that's the way it has always been done and it works. I'm guessing the Internet and international business will follow suit.
When my brother was on the USS America (1973) they had a few waves break over the flight deck during a cruise that took the ship north of the Arctic circle. He took some really spectacular pictures so not just "a story." The America was only a tad smaller than the Nimitz and Ford. They wouldn't have been there if they didn't think they could operate aircraft.
Quite some time ago OSHA required that all construction equipment (and commercial vehicles) emit a warning sound when backing up. Their assumption was that the operator couldn't see very well when backing up and this would warn people to be aware of a machine moving in reverse. Now when you walk past a reasonably large and busy construction site, all you hear is is a cacophony of beeps, clanks, bells and other assorted warning noises. The result is that the warning noises serve little or no useful purpose since it's impossible to distinguish which of several different machines might be backing up toward someone who isn't aware of it.
Any sort of continuous noise from electric cars would have the same result in a busy traffic situation. If there isn't much traffic, a noise maker might help. A better solution was suggested by someone else, above, of using a transponder and receiver or something similar. This would be a better solution for the hearing impaired while the rest of us just need to get used to the idea that electric cars are really quiet. In the mean time, Darwin gets a chance to get a few of the clueless out of the gene pool.
If they have zero chance against us on the battle field, they'll shift the focus of their attacks. Namely, more terrorist attacks. IEDs, roadside bombs and attacks on American civilians.
LK
OK. By that same logic we should put some easy targets out there for the bad guys to shoot, maim, murder, slice up and generally do bad things to. Are you volunteering for said role?
You can't negotiate with a rabid dog. You put the rabid dog down and vaccinate the other dogs that aren't infected. Same with terrorists and jihadists. Put 'em down and work on "converting" those that aren't rabid.
If M$ is true to form, you can expect WP7 phones to synchronise better with Outlook and the user's desktop IE. Things will just work better between the WP7 and Windoze 7 on the desktop. Exchanging pictures, music, videos, etc. will all just work right with WP7 phones and other phones will either not get it right or it won't work at all. Things like DRM sharing will work between WP7 phones and the user's desktop but won't work for anyone else's phone.
This is the same strategy M$ used to drive out the competitors to M$ office. One way of offering a better product is to sabotage your competitor's products. This is one thing that M$ does well.
That's kind of my thought. Plus, Vandenberg AFB has all the telemetry acquisition facilities to monitor the launch.
After my post I realised an even more likely explanation is something like what you described that we at least used to do with Minuteman ICBMs and a launch crew. Vandenberg has a complete Minuteman launch control facility (LCF) where they would put the crew just like they were on alert and have them go through the whole process of firing the missile. I'm thinking the Navy may have had a Trident boomer go through the same process. It was routine enough that nobody bothered to tell the spokesdweeb.
Slashdot Mirror
Make a modular system that includes both a "unit" of fuel and the engine. Strap as many modules on the back of a crew/payload compartment as you need to accomplish the delta-Vs for the mission. Depending on mission, set up the used modules to burn up the atmosphere/hit the moon/end up some place where they don't become problematic space junk (i.e., don't quite use all of the fuel). Crew/payload compartment stays in orbit and gets re-used. Hire commercial space travel company to get people or equipment to/from the crew/payload compartment when parked in LEO (yeah, I know they only do sub-orbital/ballistic now) . Only use heavy lift rockets (or some future, better technology) to lift the fuel modules.
Engineering exercise to determine whether to include the engine with the fuel module and make it disposable too or have a "permanent" engine. My guess is disposable engines will work better since the lifetime and duty cycle are well defined. Using lots of standard fuel modules means they can be mass produced with economies of scale so they're relatively cheap. All other components are reusable.
Cheers,
Dave
Imperial units are convenient. Not convenient to convert between but convenient within their domain. Inches are handy for measuring small lengths; feet and yards for somewhat longer lengths and miles are good for large distances. Same for cups, quarts and gallons; ounces, pounds and tons, etc.
I don't want 250ml of coffee; I want a cup of coffee. I don't want half a litre of beer; I want a pint of beer (the Brits were smart about not forcing this one).
Imperial units evolved to their current values because the quantities worked out well for the things people needed to measure. Recipes make a great example. Lots of recipes call for odd quantities of various ingredients when given in metric but the same recipe is straight forward in Imperial units like fractions or multiples of cups and teaspoons, tablespoons, ounces, etc. The result of the recipe (using either units) works out to a nice serving of whatever. The required Imperial units are easy but the metric units aren't to achieve that result.
Metric is great for conversion between units but I don't usually need to scale up a recipe by a factor of ten or one hundred.
Cheers,
Dave
Time to burn some karma!!!
Is there a corresponding site for those of us who wish to donate to a fund that will buy the bullets that the firing squad will use when they take the traitorous little bastard out and shoot him? And, if so, does the site accept PayPal?
Cheers,
Dave
I build my own desktops and servers. Laptops I buy from a reputable national manufacturer which means getting a boat load of crapware. I fire up the system to make sure it "works" with the pre-installed crapware and Windoze and then repartition the hard drive with Linux getting the bulk of the space and Windoze relegated to what amounts to a maintenance partition. While I could shrink the windoze partition and then remove the crapware, I just blow it away and do a clean install. I end up with a nice clean system running Linux with a dual boot to windoze if some pathetic piece of windows software won't run under wine.
Cheers,
Dave
How about actually making a movie based on Neuromancer (like the original Matrix was supposed to be) instead of yet another bad sequel to Matrix?
Cheers,
Dave
Quoting PJ, "What an amazing coincidence. Two researchers take Microsoft money, no strings attached, mind you, and then after much study just happen to come to the same conclusions as Microsoft's talking points."
Cheers,
Dave
I worked at a couple of different start-ups beginning around the Y2K scare. Had lots of stock options. Never saw a penny in additional income. Lost about $1,500 in exercised options in one place I worked that never made it to being a publicly traded company.
It's not unreasonable to put in 45 hour weeks when you work in software. You can even expect some 50+ hour weeks. The ONLY reason you should work these kinds of hours is some sort of realistic expectation that you will somehow be compensated for the additional hours. If you work in a big, established company, that could mean promotions or, at least, raises. If you work in a start-up, some sort of equity is appropriate. If the equity isn't there or there isn't a realistic business plan to make it happen, start looking and then get out. Fast.
Cheers,
Dave
Random responses:
1) The Pentagon and/or State Department CANNOT redact material such as this without giving tacit approval to it's release. J.A.'s offer is really hollow when you understand that it was made knowing that it was impossible for the U.S. government to take him up on the offer. Ditto for any news media making the same offer.
2) Guerrilla wars all always messy. Insurgents don't wear uniforms and there are no "front lines." Insurgents seek to blend into the population and count on that tactic resulting in innocent civilian casualties that will sway the population to their side. Of course, B.M., J.A. and their apologists ignore this and place the blame for any civilian casualties on the U.S. military or other coalition forces. We accidentally kill civilians and it's a huge wrong; the Taliban or Al-qaeda kill civilians and neither bat an eye. It's still our fault for even being there. Sounds like the idiot at The Daily Mash fits into the same mind set.
Wars are messy. Sometimes the wrong people are on the receiving end. Sometimes that means dead civilians and sometimes that means a "friendly fire" incident. Shit happens. Compared to previous wars the current actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are surgically precise. It's sad that the wrong people are sometimes killed but put a little blame on the other guys for making that part of their tactics.
Cheers,
Dave
What seems to have come out since B.M. exposed this material is that there were a handful of questionable events and that the great majority of the activities he exposed in the operational reports were simply people doing their best in the fog of war to defeat the Islamists. Sometimes people make mistakes and sometimes it is in the interest of all concerned to not disclose those mistakes.
His exposure of the diplomatic cables was highly destructive and will cause significant impact to relations between several countries, not just between the U.S. and other countries. It is absolutely critical to the functioning of the diplomatic system that the participants be able to exchange information and opinions with candor. B.M.'s stunt means this traffic will be much more circumspect with countries acting unilaterally rather than risk publication.
B.M. has made the world LESS safe. He has made it LESS likely that other countries will work with the U.S. to find solutions to issues. He has endangered the lives of U.S. troops and those of our allies. It is very likely that his disclosures have cost the lives of those friendly to us. All because he took it upon himself from his lofty position as a PFC to deem that certain acts documented in what he leaked were inappropriate. Hardly the acts of a patriot.
Cheers,
Dave
I think you will find that the unauthorised disclosure of classified information does not constitute free speech as protected by the first amendment. He can say whatever he wants about the government so long as he doesn't disclose classified information. He agreed that, as a condition of getting access to such data, he would not disclose such data and that unauthorised disclosure could result in criminal prosecution.
Nice try but what B.M. did is NOT protected by the first amendment. Julian Assange may be able to use the first amendment as a defence if he were ever to be prosecuted for publishing this material. I'm guessing that the government wouldn't attempt to prosecute him for publishing it just that reason. They may come up with something like "unauthorised possession of classified material" instead. I have no idea if there is such a law but the government can be very clever when it comes to finding something to pin on someone they don't like.
Cheers,
Dave
My guess is that, before this thing wraps up, there will be multiple incidents such as the Taliban killing Afghan villagers who are friendly to us that can be traced to information disclosed by B.M. You will note that the section of the Constitution that describes treason does not mention that "the enemy" must be another country and that there be a declaration of war. Thus, him providing information that eventually reaches and helps "enemy combatants" (I think that's the term that's also used for the folks down at Gitmo) would constitute providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy.
Again, shoot the traitorous bastard.
Cheers,
Dave
The plumber quit. He said something about, "Who is John Galt?" when he quit.
Cheers,
Dave
The Constitution does not specify that "the enemy" must be a country nor that there be a declaration of war. It does include giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy as an act of treason. An aggressive prosecutor could put forward the position that each unauthorised publication of the cables and communications constitutes an act of treason for which there are literally millions of witnesses.
As to who is or isn't a traitor, besides being a judgement of history, that initially comes down to who wins; at least initially. As an example, we consider the people who attempted to blow up Hitler in the July 20th bomb plot to be righteous even though they were committing treason. On the other hand, most people in the U.S. consider John Wilkes Booth to be a traitor. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors.
I'm guessing that diplomacy will return to essentially exactly what it was before Wikileaks released the U.S. diplomatic cables. There will be changes in the U.S. to restrict access that will hopefully not harm our ability to "put the pieces together" and thwart terrorists and other people who wish to harm the U.S. Other countries may follow suit to avoid a similar disclosure. If there isn't a significant, successful terrorist act or diplomatic rift, B.M. will probably become just another footnote of history. At best, he'll be lumped with all of the other misguided idealists who took it upon themselves to change the world betraying their country.
The goofy thing to me is that a large number of the cables have revealed that the U.S. is "taking the heat" for things that other countries either don't have the technical capability or political chops to carry out (air strikes in Yemen, bugging narcotics traffickers in South America, several middle east countries wanting us to "take out" Iran, etc.). It seems that a lot of the world is quite happy hiding behind us while maintaining "plausible deniability."
Cheers,
Dave
I would argue that that is another reason for not switching from English but not why English is the language of commercial aviation.
Most commercial aviation was established after WWII when the U.S. and the English were the only countries that had the financial ability to bring it into being. Most of the rest of the world was either in ruins, didn't have the economic strength or found commercial aviation to be politically unacceptable (e.g., the Soviet Union).
The U.S. spoke English and the English spoke English. Just about any international flight was either BOAC or Pan Am. Chances are that the local staff was trained by either the U.S. or the Brits. Ergo, everyone spoke English.
Cheers,
Dave
But if the same Spanish or French pilot flies to say Germany or Poland, they speak English to the controller. I'd also guess that the initial contact in either Spain or France is in English and only switches to the native language by mutual agreement between the pilot and the controller.
Once you go international, the language for commercial aviation is English.
Cheers,
Dave
Along with all the high-minded gobbledy-gook about journalistic responsibility everyone seems to be forgetting the principle of a "scoop." Wired has what no one else has. That's a journalist's dream. Get used to it.
Cheers,
Dave
I'd rather see him tried under Article III; Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution for committing treason. Once he's convicted the traitorous little bastard should be taken out and shot.
Cheers,
Dave
The traitorous bastard should be given a fair and speedy trial and then taken out and shot.
It should be noted that treason is the one crime specifically called out in the U.S. Constitution and it carries the death penalty. By the Constitution's definition that means taking him out and shooting him is not cruel nor unreasonable.
Cheers,
Dave
There might be more data in Chinese, but English will still be the standard of international communication.
A fairly good counter example to the article is commercial aviation. English continues to be the language used for commercial aviation even as the portion of the aviation pie "owned" by English speaking countries has become smaller. That is, ALL of the air traffic controllers and commercial pilots communicate with each other in English. The reasons are really simple: that's the way it has always been done and it works. I'm guessing the Internet and international business will follow suit.
Cheers,
Dave
When my brother was on the USS America (1973) they had a few waves break over the flight deck during a cruise that took the ship north of the Arctic circle. He took some really spectacular pictures so not just "a story." The America was only a tad smaller than the Nimitz and Ford. They wouldn't have been there if they didn't think they could operate aircraft.
Cheers,
Dave
Quite some time ago OSHA required that all construction equipment (and commercial vehicles) emit a warning sound when backing up. Their assumption was that the operator couldn't see very well when backing up and this would warn people to be aware of a machine moving in reverse. Now when you walk past a reasonably large and busy construction site, all you hear is is a cacophony of beeps, clanks, bells and other assorted warning noises. The result is that the warning noises serve little or no useful purpose since it's impossible to distinguish which of several different machines might be backing up toward someone who isn't aware of it.
Any sort of continuous noise from electric cars would have the same result in a busy traffic situation. If there isn't much traffic, a noise maker might help. A better solution was suggested by someone else, above, of using a transponder and receiver or something similar. This would be a better solution for the hearing impaired while the rest of us just need to get used to the idea that electric cars are really quiet. In the mean time, Darwin gets a chance to get a few of the clueless out of the gene pool.
Cheers,
Dave
If they have zero chance against us on the battle field, they'll shift the focus of their attacks. Namely, more terrorist attacks. IEDs, roadside bombs and attacks on American civilians.
LK
OK. By that same logic we should put some easy targets out there for the bad guys to shoot, maim, murder, slice up and generally do bad things to. Are you volunteering for said role?
You can't negotiate with a rabid dog. You put the rabid dog down and vaccinate the other dogs that aren't infected. Same with terrorists and jihadists. Put 'em down and work on "converting" those that aren't rabid.
Cheers,
Dave
You better bring something that no one else has.
If M$ is true to form, you can expect WP7 phones to synchronise better with Outlook and the user's desktop IE. Things will just work better between the WP7 and Windoze 7 on the desktop. Exchanging pictures, music, videos, etc. will all just work right with WP7 phones and other phones will either not get it right or it won't work at all. Things like DRM sharing will work between WP7 phones and the user's desktop but won't work for anyone else's phone.
This is the same strategy M$ used to drive out the competitors to M$ office. One way of offering a better product is to sabotage your competitor's products. This is one thing that M$ does well.
Cheers,
Dave
That's kind of my thought. Plus, Vandenberg AFB has all the telemetry acquisition facilities to monitor the launch.
After my post I realised an even more likely explanation is something like what you described that we at least used to do with Minuteman ICBMs and a launch crew. Vandenberg has a complete Minuteman launch control facility (LCF) where they would put the crew just like they were on alert and have them go through the whole process of firing the missile. I'm thinking the Navy may have had a Trident boomer go through the same process. It was routine enough that nobody bothered to tell the spokesdweeb.
Cheers,
Dave
Anybody know where this thing came down? ...
My bet is Kwajalein. The Navy spokesdweeb wasn't cleared to know about the launch.
Cheers,
Dave