Amen, Brother. Who moved the damn CTRL key from where it belongs? Good call.
Yeah I know there's keyboards out there like the Happy Hacker and such that put it back where it belongs, but why the heck did CTRL move in the first place? Sigh...
I am being pedantic, accident investigators are too.
You actually jettison the Shuttle itself so to speak.
Remember, even though the flight controls aren't super-effective at low speeds, they are effective, and the main SSME's are on gimbals... it's easy for the Shuttle to escape the path of the SRB's in an over the back maneuver, and the scenarios include safe shutdown of the SSME's and jettison of the external tank assembly. The plans are public, read 'em. They even include probabilities. People with lots of education on how to assess risk have already done it.
The original design that wasn't funded had the same engines with different sized bells on a FLYABLE and LANDABLE booster system, but that was deemed too expensive, so the SSB's were used instead at a somewhat notably higher risk, yes.
As far as the hauling capabilites: The "bring back" capability is used for a number of things -- example... the Shuttle will be carrying back all of ISS's trash instead of ejecting it in a Soyuz and burning it in the atmosphere.
Other examples, external pallets of experiments strapped to the outside of the ISS can be taken up, experiments powered up, run, and then the pallet can be returned -- never having to transfer the objects on the pallet inside the ISS or deal with the logistical headaches of tracking all of it.
There's plenty of uses. You're only thinking about returning complete orbiting platforms, think in terms of things that can be attached and removed from the outside of something like ISS or a large solar array truss for power and then returned, for experiments and/or commercial use.
As long as the [insert whatever here] doesn't need to be in geostationary orbit, the STS a good way to get it up and back.
The sad part is - there will always be naysayers. It takes more courage and effort to proudly say the Shuttle can be one part of the puzzle of how to explore space, it doesn't have to be the ONLY way to do it.
More importantly, our nation's priorities are so screwed up we can barely see the forest for the trees.
We'll send soldiers into harm's way on a politician's whim and the whole country will shout "support our troops", while driving gas-guzzling SUV's...
But when it comes to "support our astronauts" people get strangely critical of NASA. I truly believe it's a short-lived example of groupthink, driven by a media struggling to find "meaning" in what explorers just do by nature.
NASA does things NO ONE else does, and we're not proud of them as a Nation -- that's utterly sad, and shows a mentality of a Nation that no longer embraces our risk-takers and true leaders doing things no one else ever dared.
Instead we all drive our huge SUV's on city streets so we can feel "safe" and expect our explorers never to take "unnecessary" risks.
"Hey Columbus... you can't go, you might sail off the edge of the Earth, man."
What are we all afraid of? That astronauts might die? Plenty of Russian astronauts have died -- we don't see their people fretting and wringing their hands over it... they know that the Cosmonauts took risks and that risks mean a higher per-capita accident rate. GEICO and AFLAC ain't there outside the ISS with you when your tether breaks and you have to use your emergency pack to get back on board.
Shuttle is the ONLY aircraft that can explore many boundary layer phenomena and flies higher and faster than anything ever built by man -- and yet we "general public" types seem to think the people on board don't already know they're doing one of the most risky jobs on the planet -- and damn it, we as a society somehow need to be outraged for them and their families when they suffer a loss!
What cowardice. What armchair-quarterbacking!
They know the risks, and they also all PERSONALLY know the sense of loss of GOOD FRIENDS in their exploration endeavours, and yet they choose to go.
It's not just the SUV's. It's the powerplants, and the drivetrains, and the safety equipment, and just about everything else in a car.
They got complacent. I bought a VW with a diesel engine and get 45-50 MPG highway, that also handles like it's on rails at 100 MPH, and corners like a much more expensive sports car, and friends and co-workers gape in wonder...
People get complacent too, and don't search for alternatives in areas of their lives that give them trouble.
The strongest Unions are in work roles where the job takes many years to learn to do correctly and the employee is already valuable simply because they know how to do a very specialized job.
IT won't ever unionize because at least at the lower tiers, anyone can learn to do most of our jobs.
The only thing keeping many people away from my job is me telling them stories of late night maintenance windows done while they sleep and the every so often poor planning by middle managers who are in many ways even more replaceable by "anyone" as I am in a technical worker role.
We know a little, and with a few years under our belts, we have some experience others simply can't get.
Most managers literally know nothing that wasn't already taught to the graduates of any business school.
The trick is, if you have to work for a boss, and you happen to stumble into one that is actually using their skills to get obstacles out of your way and is making your life better in some way -- get behind 'em and push... they'll take you for a better overall experience than the dime-a-dozen bozos that make up the majority of their peers.
We noticed you left out: "If you do this this time, I'll spend my weekend working on next year's budget to make sure we're staffed appropriately for the work at hand."
I ever hear a boss say that, I'll follow him into hell.
Actually this is untested in this case, and I agree with many here that think it will fall in a courtroom.
However, I am bound to maintain any contractual agreements I have with my employer when off-the-clock, like NDA's. Additionally since the company I work for is a public Corporation, I can not legally discuss certain business transactions or other "insider" information, lest Uncle Sam pay the company and myself a visit to discuss SEC laws.
So there's definitely legal precedent FOR companies in this case -- they could simply require you to sign a contract (most companies do) stating that you will abide by this same rule and it would be more binding than this ill-conceived law.
It's difficult to become financially independent, but your "pay the mortgage" boss can be countered with "sell the house". Not that you own it anyway, if you're paying a mortgage on it.
If the average American "owns" a house only 7 years, they never really own much of anything, if you look at an amortization table for a 15 or 30 year home loan.
Appreciation sometimes makes the rent a little cheaper, and depreciation makes it a little more expensive, but ultimately you're just borrowing the house from the financial institution.
The only financial good that many people could use when "owning" vs. renting is by living there until it's paid off (rare), or by leveraging the fact that there are lots of financial institutions willing to loan you money against the appreciation, if any. Using that leverage wisely can result in assets that make you money, but 2nd mortgages are rarely used for such purposes.
I liked your summary comment. Risk is inherent in the endeavour.
Basically all these whiners who don't want to cheer on people willing to take risks makes me sick.
Everyone wants the whole world "safe" nowadays.
Why are the millions crowding the stands at NASCAR events (just one example, not picking on NASCAR at all - I enjoy auto racing) to watch their favorite driver with the idea in the back of their minds that they might see a crash at any time, the same ones bitching that the Shuttle's "not safe".
Get over it. Let NASA continue to do what they do best... doing things NO ONE ELSE has done. And learn to be proud of them again. They do stuff the rest of the world can only dream of. Let 'em do it. They know the risks.
Most people are being manipulated by the media into a "safety first" frenzy when it comes to NASA, which is ultimately -- retarded.
I'm not sure where to place the blame for this, but it likely stems from the inability of parents to teach (and those same parents backing the schools up) their children that life isn't always fair and risks are part of the process of living.
The fact that NASA does things no one else can do is motivating and inspiring to some of us, but I'm worried that the general public isn't motivated or inspired by much other than "reality TV" these days.
The Shuttle program is one of the most amazing engineering feats of all-time. Yes, they'll have setbacks INCLUDING losing people. And yes, they should be applauded that they pick up and continue. I bet EVERY astronaut on the mission flying today knew one of the Columbia crew members personally as friends. THEY KNOW WHAT THE RISKS ARE - They don't need the media, the "general public", or the Congress questioning their methods. Unless they have no human feelings at all, the day their friends died they knew they had to do better.
None of the Shuttle astronauts died in space. All were accidents within Earth's atmosphere. Technically they were all ballistic aviation accidents, not space accidents.
The shuttle has a large number of abort options while the SRB's are burning, including jettisoning them.
A number of radio calls are made during the climb to orbit, including "negative return" meaning the Shuttle has gained too much altitude and distance downrange to return safely to KSC, and others that give the crew indications about how many engines are required to make a safe Atlantic crossing to an emergency field in Spain.
If you can't think of a number of very good reasons to want to bring large payloads back from orbit, you're not very creative, nor have much imagination.
In other words, you're a naysayer like many right now, and that's popular, but you have very little fact behind your assertions.
Not to mention our own inability to read and understand simple articles and do a little research of our own before posting "Emergency Emergency" on the front page of Slashdot.
There's no "emergency" on board the Shuttle, as anyone who's been reading the articles and watching NASA TV can tell by a little educated reasoning of their own after reviewing the facts.
We're a nation full of idiots who like to get all fired up about the really little stupid shit, and ignore huge problems.
In the grand scheme of things, if another Shuttle blew up, every single astronaut on board and their families would say they understood the risks and they were WORTH it.
Let's all think about something more useful to talk about that might help the country as a whole, rather than worry about people who are taking risks they have calculated to the n-th degree already.
I think you're missing the point - there are hams out there that don't act like those. You're not going to find them until you get involved and look for them.
Hint: Easiest way to find really smart people in Ham radio? Pick any band there are NO commercial radios available for them at any ham radio store, and figure out how to build/modify a radio to get on them. You'll find them there. Only once in a great while do they wander aimlessly onto the local 2M repeater.
Using code isn't what it's about, if you had a desire to work HF, you'd be done and past it already. You don't, but you'll take it if it's given to you as a freebie.
I like ludicrous speed on my repeater controller's ID's. Then I know I won't get calls from anyone who hasn't been around the block a few times claiming the repeater is doing something it can't possibly do... like we get from the club repeaters that have Voice ID's.
And voice ID's can be highly annoying. One club around here has their controller set to say this when the repeater's quiet in that lovely annoying 80's computerized voice... halting and stilted...
"This is the Rocky Mountain Radio League's W0WYX repeater, located 25 miles southwest of Denver on Squaw Mountain, at an elevation of 11,440 feet. WU0N control operator."
I think W0WYX in Morse at 20 WPM would get the job done better.;-) But the folks that prgrammed that controller already know that talking repeaters are a pet peeve of mine. And the club I do work for has theirs babble on about the club name and club callsign also...
Slashdot Mirror
Amen, Brother. Who moved the damn CTRL key from where it belongs? Good call.
Yeah I know there's keyboards out there like the Happy Hacker and such that put it back where it belongs, but why the heck did CTRL move in the first place? Sigh...
I definitely miss it too.
P.S.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
- Albert Einstein
I am being pedantic, accident investigators are too.
You actually jettison the Shuttle itself so to speak.
Remember, even though the flight controls aren't super-effective at low speeds, they are effective, and the main SSME's are on gimbals... it's easy for the Shuttle to escape the path of the SRB's in an over the back maneuver, and the scenarios include safe shutdown of the SSME's and jettison of the external tank assembly. The plans are public, read 'em. They even include probabilities. People with lots of education on how to assess risk have already done it.
The original design that wasn't funded had the same engines with different sized bells on a FLYABLE and LANDABLE booster system, but that was deemed too expensive, so the SSB's were used instead at a somewhat notably higher risk, yes.
http://www.enginehistory.org/SSME/
As far as the hauling capabilites: The "bring back" capability is used for a number of things -- example... the Shuttle will be carrying back all of ISS's trash instead of ejecting it in a Soyuz and burning it in the atmosphere.
Other examples, external pallets of experiments strapped to the outside of the ISS can be taken up, experiments powered up, run, and then the pallet can be returned -- never having to transfer the objects on the pallet inside the ISS or deal with the logistical headaches of tracking all of it.
There's plenty of uses. You're only thinking about returning complete orbiting platforms, think in terms of things that can be attached and removed from the outside of something like ISS or a large solar array truss for power and then returned, for experiments and/or commercial use.
As long as the [insert whatever here] doesn't need to be in geostationary orbit, the STS a good way to get it up and back.
The sad part is - there will always be naysayers. It takes more courage and effort to proudly say the Shuttle can be one part of the puzzle of how to explore space, it doesn't have to be the ONLY way to do it.
More importantly, our nation's priorities are so screwed up we can barely see the forest for the trees.
We'll send soldiers into harm's way on a politician's whim and the whole country will shout "support our troops", while driving gas-guzzling SUV's...
But when it comes to "support our astronauts" people get strangely critical of NASA. I truly believe it's a short-lived example of groupthink, driven by a media struggling to find "meaning" in what explorers just do by nature.
NASA does things NO ONE else does, and we're not proud of them as a Nation -- that's utterly sad, and shows a mentality of a Nation that no longer embraces our risk-takers and true leaders doing things no one else ever dared.
Instead we all drive our huge SUV's on city streets so we can feel "safe" and expect our explorers never to take "unnecessary" risks.
"Hey Columbus... you can't go, you might sail off the edge of the Earth, man."
What are we all afraid of? That astronauts might die? Plenty of Russian astronauts have died -- we don't see their people fretting and wringing their hands over it... they know that the Cosmonauts took risks and that risks mean a higher per-capita accident rate. GEICO and AFLAC ain't there outside the ISS with you when your tether breaks and you have to use your emergency pack to get back on board.
Shuttle is the ONLY aircraft that can explore many boundary layer phenomena and flies higher and faster than anything ever built by man -- and yet we "general public" types seem to think the people on board don't already know they're doing one of the most risky jobs on the planet -- and damn it, we as a society somehow need to be outraged for them and their families when they suffer a loss!
What cowardice. What armchair-quarterbacking!
They know the risks, and they also all PERSONALLY know the sense of loss of GOOD FRIENDS in their exploration endeavours, and yet they choose to go.
They
It's not just the SUV's. It's the powerplants, and the drivetrains, and the safety equipment, and just about everything else in a car.
They got complacent. I bought a VW with a diesel engine and get 45-50 MPG highway, that also handles like it's on rails at 100 MPH, and corners like a much more expensive sports car, and friends and co-workers gape in wonder...
People get complacent too, and don't search for alternatives in areas of their lives that give them trouble.
The strongest Unions are in work roles where the job takes many years to learn to do correctly and the employee is already valuable simply because they know how to do a very specialized job.
IT won't ever unionize because at least at the lower tiers, anyone can learn to do most of our jobs.
The only thing keeping many people away from my job is me telling them stories of late night maintenance windows done while they sleep and the every so often poor planning by middle managers who are in many ways even more replaceable by "anyone" as I am in a technical worker role.
We know a little, and with a few years under our belts, we have some experience others simply can't get.
Most managers literally know nothing that wasn't already taught to the graduates of any business school.
The trick is, if you have to work for a boss, and you happen to stumble into one that is actually using their skills to get obstacles out of your way and is making your life better in some way -- get behind 'em and push... they'll take you for a better overall experience than the dime-a-dozen bozos that make up the majority of their peers.
We noticed you left out: "If you do this this time, I'll spend my weekend working on next year's budget to make sure we're staffed appropriately for the work at hand."
I ever hear a boss say that, I'll follow him into hell.
Actually this is untested in this case, and I agree with many here that think it will fall in a courtroom.
However, I am bound to maintain any contractual agreements I have with my employer when off-the-clock, like NDA's. Additionally since the company I work for is a public Corporation, I can not legally discuss certain business transactions or other "insider" information, lest Uncle Sam pay the company and myself a visit to discuss SEC laws.
So there's definitely legal precedent FOR companies in this case -- they could simply require you to sign a contract (most companies do) stating that you will abide by this same rule and it would be more binding than this ill-conceived law.
It's difficult to become financially independent, but your "pay the mortgage" boss can be countered with "sell the house". Not that you own it anyway, if you're paying a mortgage on it.
If the average American "owns" a house only 7 years, they never really own much of anything, if you look at an amortization table for a 15 or 30 year home loan.
Appreciation sometimes makes the rent a little cheaper, and depreciation makes it a little more expensive, but ultimately you're just borrowing the house from the financial institution.
The only financial good that many people could use when "owning" vs. renting is by living there until it's paid off (rare), or by leveraging the fact that there are lots of financial institutions willing to loan you money against the appreciation, if any. Using that leverage wisely can result in assets that make you money, but 2nd mortgages are rarely used for such purposes.
Check your state laws. You may be mildly surprised.
My state actually has been slowly cracking down on "mandatory overtime" as people report it.
However, you may also find yourself sitting on a curb wondering what happened when the next guy in line takes your job.
It's all in how you play it out.
Have fun.
I liked your summary comment. Risk is inherent in the endeavour.
Basically all these whiners who don't want to cheer on people willing to take risks makes me sick.
Everyone wants the whole world "safe" nowadays.
Why are the millions crowding the stands at NASCAR events (just one example, not picking on NASCAR at all - I enjoy auto racing) to watch their favorite driver with the idea in the back of their minds that they might see a crash at any time, the same ones bitching that the Shuttle's "not safe".
Get over it. Let NASA continue to do what they do best... doing things NO ONE ELSE has done. And learn to be proud of them again. They do stuff the rest of the world can only dream of. Let 'em do it. They know the risks.
Most people are being manipulated by the media into a "safety first" frenzy when it comes to NASA, which is ultimately -- retarded.
I'm not sure where to place the blame for this, but it likely stems from the inability of parents to teach (and those same parents backing the schools up) their children that life isn't always fair and risks are part of the process of living.
The fact that NASA does things no one else can do is motivating and inspiring to some of us, but I'm worried that the general public isn't motivated or inspired by much other than "reality TV" these days.
The Shuttle program is one of the most amazing engineering feats of all-time. Yes, they'll have setbacks INCLUDING losing people. And yes, they should be applauded that they pick up and continue. I bet EVERY astronaut on the mission flying today knew one of the Columbia crew members personally as friends. THEY KNOW WHAT THE RISKS ARE - They don't need the media, the "general public", or the Congress questioning their methods. Unless they have no human feelings at all, the day their friends died they knew they had to do better.
None of the Shuttle astronauts died in space. All were accidents within Earth's atmosphere. Technically they were all ballistic aviation accidents, not space accidents.
The shuttle has a large number of abort options while the SRB's are burning, including jettisoning them.
A number of radio calls are made during the climb to orbit, including "negative return" meaning the Shuttle has gained too much altitude and distance downrange to return safely to KSC, and others that give the crew indications about how many engines are required to make a safe Atlantic crossing to an emergency field in Spain.
If you can't think of a number of very good reasons to want to bring large payloads back from orbit, you're not very creative, nor have much imagination.
In other words, you're a naysayer like many right now, and that's popular, but you have very little fact behind your assertions.
Cisco already filed and Mike already settled out of court.
Not to mention our own inability to read and understand simple articles and do a little research of our own before posting "Emergency Emergency" on the front page of Slashdot.
There's no "emergency" on board the Shuttle, as anyone who's been reading the articles and watching NASA TV can tell by a little educated reasoning of their own after reviewing the facts.
We're a nation full of idiots who like to get all fired up about the really little stupid shit, and ignore huge problems.
In the grand scheme of things, if another Shuttle blew up, every single astronaut on board and their families would say they understood the risks and they were WORTH it.
Let's all think about something more useful to talk about that might help the country as a whole, rather than worry about people who are taking risks they have calculated to the n-th degree already.
Yes.
Real-world performance includes formal names of things. Even the Leno test used the word "Geico", the name of an insurance company.
Cool. I'll check out your link.
The way I read it, you can do it if the emission type is published.
Sounds like the whole rest of the IT services/hardware world. Join the club.
Unplug it.
Four words:
Call Forwarding
Voice Mail
Take it or leave it. Your call.
I think you're missing the point - there are hams out there that don't act like those. You're not going to find them until you get involved and look for them.
Hint: Easiest way to find really smart people in Ham radio? Pick any band there are NO commercial radios available for them at any ham radio store, and figure out how to build/modify a radio to get on them. You'll find them there. Only once in a great while do they wander aimlessly onto the local 2M repeater.
Using code isn't what it's about, if you had a desire to work HF, you'd be done and past it already. You don't, but you'll take it if it's given to you as a freebie.
I like ludicrous speed on my repeater controller's ID's. Then I know I won't get calls from anyone who hasn't been around the block a few times claiming the repeater is doing something it can't possibly do... like we get from the club repeaters that have Voice ID's.
;-) But the folks that prgrammed that controller already know that talking repeaters are a pet peeve of mine. And the club I do work for has theirs babble on about the club name and club callsign also...
And voice ID's can be highly annoying. One club around here has their controller set to say this when the repeater's quiet in that lovely annoying 80's computerized voice... halting and stilted...
"This is the Rocky Mountain Radio League's W0WYX repeater, located 25 miles southwest of Denver on Squaw Mountain, at an elevation of 11,440 feet. WU0N control operator."
I think W0WYX in Morse at 20 WPM would get the job done better.
Let's see... by your logic because they lost the SMS test, the test should be changed to a typist test?
Still doesn't negate the fact that SMS lost and is slower.
Bad logic, grasshopper.
Bring it on. The Morse operators in question were operating around 11 WPM, it's reported. Both were capable of going much much faster.
We'll make sure to have them throw in some word that's not in your phone's dictionary too, mmm kay?