Ok. I'll admit that the whole Pluto/Charon/KBO area is a hot button with me and I got a bit carried away. I just don't understand why it's so difficult for them to find support KBO missions. According to NASA's website, New Horizons PKB is still in the initial design phase. The same place it's been for years now.
My point is that if you're going out that far at least make every effort to collect as much data as you can. Either mission requires a launcher, spacecraft bus, comms, power. They could have just bolted the extra science onto the one that has been "in development" for Pluto/Charon/KBO for years now.
NASA is all about engineers, not scientists. Therefore you get "Let's build a big space station. We'll figure out what to do with it later"; "Instead of sending people to fix HST, let's build a cool robot instead"; or "Let's build a long-duration probe and tell people it's to map the heliopause." If you want to know about radiation that affects Earth then WHY do you need to go so far away from it? Because you want to build a spacecraft that will last 50 years.
If NASA is so upset about not having any money, WHY are they wasting it on things like this?
Why do we need this? Someone please explain it to me. None of the Pioneer or Voyager probes have yet to reach the heliopause and they were launched in the 1970s. So we should expect to see results in sixty years? How about doing some USEFUL exploring like investigating Pluto/Charon and KBOs?
No, they put a CD with a lot of people's names on it. Maybe I wasn't so bright adding my daughter's name to the list. The cometites might get pissed and blame it on her.
The word amateur has come to mean a person who is not as skillful as a professional. The root derivation is the latin "amator" or lover. The true meaning is someone who does something for love, not money. I can't think of a higher honor to pay to someone than to say that they do something well because they love it, not because they're getting paid to do it.
Paper models, or card models, started at about the same time as origami but isn't as well known now. They were quite popular in the 20's and 30's and during the war when plastic was scarce.
Card models have made a comeback due to computers and the internet. It is now possible to download a model and print as many copies as you like. Very handy for mistakes. Just print a new part.
Most people think of card models as the simple "place tab 'a' into slot 'b'" kind of thing that you find on a cereal box. The models currently available are extremely realistic and detailed. It's amazing what you can do with a sheet of paper.
There are also quite a few sites that you can get models for free, maiking it an inexpensive hobby. Just scissors, glue, paper and ink.
isn't an uncommon thing really. I can't find the article now, but I read something about Cassini (the probe to Saturn) a couple of years ago that said that the flight software for the orbital mission wasn't even written yet.
I wish that my computers contained a backup copy of the baseline OS somewhere. There have been a few times that I wished I could just flush them quickly. Yeah, I know. Quit using Windows, right? I will when I can get games I like on *nix.
I keep seeing so many "Soyuz/Russian/Soviet spacecraft are so much better than anything built by the US" entries here. Maybe it would help if we posted a few hard numbers.
There have been eight accidents involving Soyuz spacecraft. Two resulted in fatalites.
Soyuz 1 - Parachute failure - One fatality
Soyuz 5 - Module separation failure on reentry - spacecraft nearly lost due to orbital module not detaching before reentry. Module detached due to atmospheric heating before spacecraft cabin burned through.
Soyuz 11 - Atmosphere leak during reentry - 3 fatalities.
Soyuz 18-1 - Stage separation failure resulting in boost-phase abort and 20.6+ g return.
Soyuz 23 - Electronics failure caused mission abort. Spacecraft landed in a lake and the crew nearly froze to death before the spacecraft could be pulled out.
Soyuz 33 - Engine failure. Reentry initiated by reserve engine. Ballistic trajectory resulted in 10g overload.
Soyuz T-10-1 - Launch vehicle blew up on the pad. Crew saved by abort system.
Soyuz TMA-1 - Guidance system failure on reentry caused a ballistic trajectory. Crew experienced 10g and landed 460km off target.
Hardly a sterling performance. Everyone has problems.
Both of these previous comments are basically correct. There are five GPCs (General Purpose Computers) in the original configuration of the STS. I've heard them compared to a 286 before. During a mission, three run the primary flight software, one is a hot spare and one has the BFS (Backup Flight System) loaded. The BFS is a no-frills ascent/descent/abort program.
During normal operations, the three primary computers perform their calculations and compare the results. If one of the computers disagrees, it is taken offline and the hot spare is brought online. The crew receives a master caution alarm and the commander is tasked to handle the problem since the GPC panel is over his head. If a second failure occurs then the system dumps to the BFS and you start looking at abort situations. They computed the probability of a double failure at four in a billion. However, YMMV.
I read an article about the the flight software. The reliability they achieve is phenomenal. Orders of magnitude over what any of us will ever see unfortunately.
Hmm... let's see. There was the USS John F. Kennedy (cv-67). What about the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)? Or maybe the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42)?
Maybe you just don't know what the f**k you're talking about?
1) Considering that I've never killed anyone (not yet anyway), nor wasted my life, I don't think that your assessment is correct. We are all biased in some way. This includes you.
2) I'd like to see you justify the comment that America is based on fear. I know a few that are and this isn't one of them. As far as grouping people, you've already got me grouped with biased murderers.
"the US uses force to get what it wants...". Ok, explain all the conflicts going on in the world today. Or is it all my fault?
Just the fact that you can make that last quote shows the superiority of the western ideas.
You have to wonder about the amount of TV some people watch. You may think you know something about weapons systems, but let me tell you, you don't know SQUAT about how modern warships are constructed.
I'll admit I've never heard of this "wonder weapon" you're talking about, but I do know that you need a platform to launch it from. AFAIK, terrorists are a bit short on submarines, especially ones outfitted with the latest and greatest technology. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they've aquired an ex-Soviet Kilo from Subs R Us, got it into a shipyard for refit with your super-torp, trained a crew and THEN managed to get it into proximity with a CVBG (carrier battle group).
Aside from the escorts you can see, there are the ones you can't. Usually an improved 688-class attack sub. You wouldn't even know she was there until she shot you in the ass with one of her slow, yet effective Mark-48 ADCAP torps.
Ok. They can't shoot at you until you shoot at them. So you get one free shot. Unless that one shot has a nuclear warhead your chances of doing anything more than putting a hole in the ship are exactly ZERO. Yes, some people might be killed, yes you'll do damage, but that ship will be around. Maybe instead of reading science fiction, you should read about double bottoms, kevlar armor (yes on ships too), and compartmentation. Jane's Fighting Ships is a good place to start.
I can understand why you posted this anonymously. If I had said anything so incredibly stupid, I wouldn't want anyone else to know it was me either.
OK, I've read all the sarcastic/scathing/vitriolic typical/. comments here. Some people seem very caught up in their own self-importance, others just in ignorance. I'm sure this post will fall to the bottom of the heap. That's not really my concern.
Having spent four years aboard another carrier (USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71) and being a member of the commissioning crew, I thought I'd interject some of my own self-importance/ignorance here.
The ocean is wide. Ours is an island nation even though it doesn't appear to be. This fact has kept us insulated from two world wars and many other conflicts. Having borders that are largely water requires us to have a naval presence to protect/defend those borders.
Bullies. Whether any of us like it or not and whether it is logical or not, people use force to get what they want in this world. Unfortunately, it seems to be in our base nature. Logic, compassion, and reason don't have any bearing on it. The only way to prevent being overrun by bullies is to be strong yourself. Having 4.5 acres of sovereign US territory that you can move anywher on the ocean allows you to keep those bullies at bay. Whether the politicians are capapble of using that force in a way we all agree with is a matter of much disagreement. Being able to place a force in the vicinity of an ally quickly is also a tangible show of support in a tense situation.
Technology changes. The basic design for the Forrestal-class aircraft carrier was laid down in the mid 50's. Experience since then has shown that conventionally-powered aircraft carriers are hard-pressed to perform operations that are relatively simple for their nuclear-powered counterparts. There's simply not enough steam produced by the boilers to drive the ship and operate the catapults. In addition, fuel-storage requirements of the carrier mean that there is less fuel aboard for aircraft operations and to support other ships in the battle group. This makes the CVN not only more capable but more self-sufficient.
If you don't use it, you lose it. The skills necessary to produce a 100,000 ton 1100ft long, 300 ft wide, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier don't really transfer well to civil shipbuilding. Continuous building projects not only provide new, improved ships, but keep the skills necessary to produce them alive.
Salt water is a bitch. Rust starts the moment you lay down the keel to the day the last chunk of scrap goes off to make more razor blades. Naval hardware gets put to hard use through its lifetime.
Pride. An aircraft carrier is something to see. It's hard to believe that something that big can move at all. Even after having lived on one for four years, I'm still in awe.
Ok.. enough said. Getting down off soapbox.
Considering the fact that they're using a knock-off of Russian technology and still haven't had a manned launch in the twenty-five year existence of their manned space program, I'd say that calling this a "race" is almost as much of a joke as calling what they're doing a "space program". Imagine this: It's 1920. The country of Florin announces that it is going to produce a manned aircraft. By 1945 they have made several unmanned test flights of an aircraft based on a Curtiss biplane. The King of Florin announces that they're going to start a commecial air service to rival anyone elses. Would you really take them seriously? I wouldn't!
Slashdot Mirror
verify me.
Ok. I'll admit that the whole Pluto/Charon/KBO area is a hot button with me and I got a bit carried away. I just don't understand why it's so difficult for them to find support KBO missions. According to NASA's website, New Horizons PKB is still in the initial design phase. The same place it's been for years now.
Well DUH! Of course it's a remote sensing mission. I didn't notice it mentioning a crew.
My point is that if you're going out that far at least make every effort to collect as much data as you can. Either mission requires a launcher, spacecraft bus, comms, power. They could have just bolted the extra science onto the one that has been "in development" for Pluto/Charon/KBO for years now.
NASA is all about engineers, not scientists. Therefore you get "Let's build a big space station. We'll figure out what to do with it later"; "Instead of sending people to fix HST, let's build a cool robot instead"; or "Let's build a long-duration probe and tell people it's to map the heliopause." If you want to know about radiation that affects Earth then WHY do you need to go so far away from it? Because you want to build a spacecraft that will last 50 years.
If NASA is so upset about not having any money, WHY are they wasting it on things like this?
Why do we need this? Someone please explain it to me. None of the Pioneer or Voyager probes have yet to reach the heliopause and they were launched in the 1970s. So we should expect to see results in sixty years? How about doing some USEFUL exploring like investigating Pluto/Charon and KBOs?
under the couch cushions? I'm always finding stuff there.
No, they put a CD with a lot of people's names on it. Maybe I wasn't so bright adding my daughter's name to the list. The cometites might get pissed and blame it on her.
The word amateur has come to mean a person who is not as skillful as a professional. The root derivation is the latin "amator" or lover. The true meaning is someone who does something for love, not money. I can't think of a higher honor to pay to someone than to say that they do something well because they love it, not because they're getting paid to do it.
Paper models, or card models, started at about the same time as origami but isn't as well known now. They were quite popular in the 20's and 30's and during the war when plastic was scarce.
Card models have made a comeback due to computers and the internet. It is now possible to download a model and print as many copies as you like. Very handy for mistakes. Just print a new part.
Most people think of card models as the simple "place tab 'a' into slot 'b'" kind of thing that you find on a cereal box. The models currently available are extremely realistic and detailed. It's amazing what you can do with a sheet of paper.
There are also quite a few sites that you can get models for free, maiking it an inexpensive hobby. Just scissors, glue, paper and ink.
Two actually.
Soyuz 1 in 1967 and Soyuz 11 in 1971.
isn't an uncommon thing really. I can't find the article now, but I read something about Cassini (the probe to Saturn) a couple of years ago that said that the flight software for the orbital mission wasn't even written yet.
I wish that my computers contained a backup copy of the baseline OS somewhere. There have been a few times that I wished I could just flush them quickly. Yeah, I know. Quit using Windows, right? I will when I can get games I like on *nix.
I keep seeing so many "Soyuz/Russian/Soviet spacecraft are so much better than anything built by the US" entries here. Maybe it would help if we posted a few hard numbers.
There have been eight accidents involving Soyuz spacecraft. Two resulted in fatalites.
Soyuz 1 - Parachute failure - One fatality
Soyuz 5 - Module separation failure on reentry - spacecraft nearly lost due to orbital module not detaching before reentry. Module detached due to atmospheric heating before spacecraft cabin burned through.
Soyuz 11 - Atmosphere leak during reentry - 3 fatalities.
Soyuz 18-1 - Stage separation failure resulting in boost-phase abort and 20.6+ g return.
Soyuz 23 - Electronics failure caused mission abort. Spacecraft landed in a lake and the crew nearly froze to death before the spacecraft could be pulled out.
Soyuz 33 - Engine failure. Reentry initiated by reserve engine. Ballistic trajectory resulted in 10g overload.
Soyuz T-10-1 - Launch vehicle blew up on the pad. Crew saved by abort system.
Soyuz TMA-1 - Guidance system failure on reentry caused a ballistic trajectory. Crew experienced 10g and landed 460km off target.
Hardly a sterling performance. Everyone has problems.
Obviously you have never heard of something called "wit". People often employ it for humorous purposes.
and I can't spell today either.
with my digital camera on a trip. They went nuts taking pictures. Don't these people know ANYTHING abut digital photograpy?
Not Uranus? Ok... so it was lame. It's Friday and I'm bored.
Both of these previous comments are basically correct. There are five GPCs (General Purpose Computers) in the original configuration of the STS. I've heard them compared to a 286 before. During a mission, three run the primary flight software, one is a hot spare and one has the BFS (Backup Flight System) loaded. The BFS is a no-frills ascent/descent/abort program.
During normal operations, the three primary computers perform their calculations and compare the results. If one of the computers disagrees, it is taken offline and the hot spare is brought online. The crew receives a master caution alarm and the commander is tasked to handle the problem since the GPC panel is over his head. If a second failure occurs then the system dumps to the BFS and you start looking at abort situations. They computed the probability of a double failure at four in a billion. However, YMMV.
If you want to know the whole story on the computers go to Computers in Spaceflight Chapter 4.
I read an article about the the flight software. The reliability they achieve is phenomenal. Orders of magnitude over what any of us will ever see unfortunately.
Good point. But even with a full salvo it would be tough to sink one of those things.
Hmm... let's see. There was the USS John F. Kennedy (cv-67). What about the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)? Or maybe the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42)?
Maybe you just don't know what the f**k you're talking about?
You might read up on the Aleutians campaign and the Japanese raids on Darwin.
Maybe you've never heard of a little incident called World War Two?
In response to your comments:
1) Considering that I've never killed anyone (not yet anyway), nor wasted my life, I don't think that your assessment is correct. We are all biased in some way. This includes you.
2) I'd like to see you justify the comment that America is based on fear. I know a few that are and this isn't one of them. As far as grouping people, you've already got me grouped with biased murderers.
"the US uses force to get what it wants...". Ok, explain all the conflicts going on in the world today. Or is it all my fault?
Just the fact that you can make that last quote shows the superiority of the western ideas.
You have to wonder about the amount of TV some people watch. You may think you know something about weapons systems, but let me tell you, you don't know SQUAT about how modern warships are constructed.
I'll admit I've never heard of this "wonder weapon" you're talking about, but I do know that you need a platform to launch it from. AFAIK, terrorists are a bit short on submarines, especially ones outfitted with the latest and greatest technology. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they've aquired an ex-Soviet Kilo from Subs R Us, got it into a shipyard for refit with your super-torp, trained a crew and THEN managed to get it into proximity with a CVBG (carrier battle group).
Aside from the escorts you can see, there are the ones you can't. Usually an improved 688-class attack sub. You wouldn't even know she was there until she shot you in the ass with one of her slow, yet effective Mark-48 ADCAP torps.
Ok. They can't shoot at you until you shoot at them. So you get one free shot. Unless that one shot has a nuclear warhead your chances of doing anything more than putting a hole in the ship are exactly ZERO. Yes, some people might be killed, yes you'll do damage, but that ship will be around. Maybe instead of reading science fiction, you should read about double bottoms, kevlar armor (yes on ships too), and compartmentation. Jane's Fighting Ships is a good place to start.
I can understand why you posted this anonymously. If I had said anything so incredibly stupid, I wouldn't want anyone else to know it was me either.
OK, I've read all the sarcastic/scathing/vitriolic typical /. comments here. Some people seem very caught up in their own self-importance, others just in ignorance. I'm sure this post will fall to the bottom of the heap. That's not really my concern.
Having spent four years aboard another carrier (USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71) and being a member of the commissioning crew, I thought I'd interject some of my own self-importance/ignorance here.
The ocean is wide. Ours is an island nation even though it doesn't appear to be. This fact has kept us insulated from two world wars and many other conflicts. Having borders that are largely water requires us to have a naval presence to protect/defend those borders.
Bullies. Whether any of us like it or not and whether it is logical or not, people use force to get what they want in this world. Unfortunately, it seems to be in our base nature. Logic, compassion, and reason don't have any bearing on it. The only way to prevent being overrun by bullies is to be strong yourself. Having 4.5 acres of sovereign US territory that you can move anywher on the ocean allows you to keep those bullies at bay. Whether the politicians are capapble of using that force in a way we all agree with is a matter of much disagreement. Being able to place a force in the vicinity of an ally quickly is also a tangible show of support in a tense situation.
Technology changes. The basic design for the Forrestal-class aircraft carrier was laid down in the mid 50's. Experience since then has shown that conventionally-powered aircraft carriers are hard-pressed to perform operations that are relatively simple for their nuclear-powered counterparts. There's simply not enough steam produced by the boilers to drive the ship and operate the catapults. In addition, fuel-storage requirements of the carrier mean that there is less fuel aboard for aircraft operations and to support other ships in the battle group. This makes the CVN not only more capable but more self-sufficient.
If you don't use it, you lose it. The skills necessary to produce a 100,000 ton 1100ft long, 300 ft wide, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier don't really transfer well to civil shipbuilding. Continuous building projects not only provide new, improved ships, but keep the skills necessary to produce them alive.
Salt water is a bitch. Rust starts the moment you lay down the keel to the day the last chunk of scrap goes off to make more razor blades. Naval hardware gets put to hard use through its lifetime.
Pride. An aircraft carrier is something to see. It's hard to believe that something that big can move at all. Even after having lived on one for four years, I'm still in awe.
Ok.. enough said. Getting down off soapbox.
Considering the fact that they're using a knock-off of Russian technology and still haven't had a manned launch in the twenty-five year existence of their manned space program, I'd say that calling this a "race" is almost as much of a joke as calling what they're doing a "space program". Imagine this: It's 1920. The country of Florin announces that it is going to produce a manned aircraft. By 1945 they have made several unmanned test flights of an aircraft based on a Curtiss biplane. The King of Florin announces that they're going to start a commecial air service to rival anyone elses. Would you really take them seriously? I wouldn't!