Even better - since you now have a trashable and untrashable area, you can take occasional snapshots of the trashable area. That gaurantees that you can recover from anything, including user error (Oh, so pushing delete DELETES things? Nifty!)
As someone else pointed out, it is the turbo pumps - they are designed to spin as fast as possible, and then they remove all the metal strength that is not absolutely required.
If the pump starts sucking vaccuum, the power head is still putting the same energy into the pump, but now that energy is not being absorbed by the fuel pressure rise - so the energy goes into the pump structure itself. Right afterwards you get a lovely loud boom - best viewed from a distance!
By the way, ejecting at supersonic speeds (or more correctly, at speeds where the air pressure from the motion is about the same as sonic speeds at teh ground) is basically suicide. I read a report about a fighter pilot that had to eject above mach (because his plane was about to hit the ground above mach) - it read like this 'upon ejection, both legs were broken by the air pressure, his neck had a fracture and was pinned against the seat harness, arm broken, etc. He landed in the water and swam for a few minutes with borken legs and one broken arm - really an amazing survival story!
Just in case you really believe this, "teen pregnancies" include married 18-19 year olds. Now you can question the virtues of 18 year olds getting married, but that is not really your decision - its theirs. And if they are married, wouldn't pregnancy be expected?
Look into the real data - babies out of marriage. The US is very low. (Just to go to the extreme - Utah has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, because Mormon kids tend to wait until marriage for sex, so they marry younger. Utah also has one of the lowest unwed pregnancy rates. You may argue that 18 year olds getting married is evil in your perspective, but they are adults, aren't they?)
Statistics should be judged like any other communication medium - see what the guy is trying to convince you of, and look for holes in the data apropriately.
Well, you can argue about what is fair or not, granted. But given that the US had to attack a middle eastern government to show the others the terrorism is not a way to avoid blame for your actions, Iraq was a good choice. No one cares about Afganistan - I don't think anyone on Earth really thought they could stand up to the US. A lot of middle easterners thought that Iraq was impervious to the US, so taking it down caused a lot of change in middle eastern government. (As in, Iran used to say "They can't take Iraq, so if I am less irritating than Iraq I'm safe")
It is unfortunate that defying those in power is a "mortal sin," but that is politics. If you can create a stable system where that isn't true, I'll join you in a heartbeat - but until then I really recomend not anoying those in power. Even if they are "moral" and do not squish you for bugging them, when they have to choose between saving you and saving your neighbor, they will choose your neighbor...
So... US giving money is bad? Arab countries are worse off after receiving the $1.3B, because the $10B is somehow negative to them?
Your right, it is political - but the politics are based primarily on religion. How many Isrealies want to see Americans dead? How many Arabs want to see Americans dead? All I was saying is that there is a positive corellation between the "hate americans" population ratio and the amount of funding received. Is that really surprising?
For example, why does Egypt get so much aid? (Well, apart from the fact that they need it more than Jordan, for example). Compare them to Iran - really the only difference I know of is that Egyptians have a lower "lets kill americans" population percentage.
Why do people think that Americans should give support to people that hate them? Don't people understand that giving people charity and money tends to make them dependant on you (and therefore perversely hate you more)?
Really, I think if Iraq becomes a free country, so that Iraqis can become rich through trade with the US - the world will be a much better place in 20-40 years.
And what about the money Iraq was paying to the families of suicide bombers (apparently at least a factor in the decision to do it)?
They supported terror. They publicly defied the US. That made them the perfect target to cause a perception change in the middle east. Face it, before we attacked most of the middle east cheered when Americans were killed. Now the average middle easterner is worried about it. (Of course the terrorists haven't changed - they are a lost cause...)
I really think that in the long run, we have made the right decision. (And yes, in order to convince the US population to do it, truth was streched, deals were made, etc. And unfortunately, that is how our country works... they can't exactly go on the air and say "Well, when we killed 3 guys and put a wiretap on Saddaam's phone he kept calling bin Laden!" I think the documentaries on all this in 20-40 years after the secrets are no longer secrets should be very interesting...)
Yeah, they really are competitors - even if they are interelated, relatively friendly competitors.
For example, when OPEC raises prices, resellers pass that cost on to the consumer, right? But that leads to lower volumes, which means lower profits. When one persons profit maximization minimizes your profit, you are more or less competitors. (To put it another way: have you ever worked with or as an outsourcing company? Did you feel that your inerests were aligned with your "partner," or that they were a competitor?)
I agree that there were major problems in the middle east before 9/11 (and also today!), and my only comment is that there are current major problems in Africa, former Soviet countries, etc. We cannot solve all the worlds problems in a single day. (Though we are currently working towards solving the worlds problems, even the greedy capitalist pigs like me!)
The reason we didn't attack the Saudis was the same reason we will not attack Lebanon - the government in general is anti-terrorism, they just have some crazies in there. Attacking them moves power to the crazies, not away.
Um, can I also just point out that to a "bush...oil" person that the Saudi's would be competitors to a US company?
...our striking back at them is what gets them the continued support they need...
I disagree with this - I think that striking back at a sponsoring government has hurt them terribly. Yes, they now have lots of people willing to blow themselves up, but they now have no government contacts to provide passports, transportation, financing, etc. I believe that is why they have not been effective outside the middle east recently (I going out on a limb here and predicting that the London bombs were a local job) - and they will eventually run out of suicide bombers, as someone has said. (Actually, the reason they will run out is because the bombers signed up to kill Americans, and they end up killing Muslims - bad for morale)
The US was giving massive amounts of aid and weapons to Israel, ticking people off...
Further, if you look we were also giving massive amounts of aid (and admitedly fewer weapons) to the arab countries as well... perhaps we gave more to the Israelies, but then they had the advantage of not having a religion that forces them to look down at us as much. When you want aid money, spitting on it as it is handed out is a bad idea!
I think the real point of all this is that being involved with Iraq caused this - and we knew it going into Iraq. We just also knew that not going into Iraq would also cause it - and we hope that by creating a free Iraq (if it can be done) we can prevent terrorism in 50 years.
There is no hope to end terrorism for today, the terrorists are already committed.
...in a nation that never once supported bin laden...
This comment might make sense for the "war on bin laden," but for the war on terror it doesn't - Iraq as a government was paying people's families if they martyred themselves by becoming mass murderers (terrorists). Iraq was beligerent about it, so they got stuffed. Iran is probably second, and I imagine they are very worried that the Iraqi conflict may end in a few years (probably why there are so many Iranians trying to extend that conflict as long as possible).
Lebanon is a strange one - the government pays terrorists to strike, and then says sorry and pays damages. Probably a case of multiple personality disorder (commonly seen in governments around the world!).
Similarly by reading history you will find that appeasement makes the problem worse, not better (Japan, Germany, etc.). The only thing that has worked in the past is total destruction followed by compassionate support of the survivors (Japan, Germany, etc.).
And although there is always something that could have been done better, because there are always opposing viewpoints someone is always mad at you. The terrorists are wrong (even if you call them freedom fighters), just like the few American revelutionaries that misstreated Torries were wrong. It is not acceptable to kill someone who is not trying to kill you. If they are doing something you don't like, fight back - but the most effective ways to fight back are the ways of Greenpeace and Gandi. Especially against a major power.
You might be able to say that they have an excuse for targeting militaries, or military aid. They do not have an excuse to target civilians. The logical way to look at this is to apply the same rules to both sides, and if everyone ends up dead you are wrong! If we responded to them the way they responded to us, their would not be a middle east, oil workers would require radiation shielding, and there would be no Islamic people left on Earth...
The reason this is not totally true is that your body is constantly repairing itself, including killing cancers and radiation damage. You get sick and die when your body's repair rate is exceeded by the damage rate - either a cancer snuck through the defenses, or you get a lot all at once.
So how does this work in reality (as someone about to start a company doing "dangerous" stuff)? I would think that the point would be to fix what you can and quantify what you can't, but since discovering problems never ends (similar to the program is never complete, only abandoned), at what point do you say "to heck with it, we launch!". And at that point, are you still in a safety culture? It just seems to me that engineering is incentivized to never approve for launch, which incentivises management to ignore them. (Something I would really like to avoid - for right now I plan on avoiding it by using small, cross-skilled teams. Is there a better way? Any recommended readings, etc?)
Frankly, I believe the opposite - that the problem is that they are being forced into a "safety culture" when that is not the best option. For example, when you are doing something that we do not know how to do safely, the safety culture tries to prevent any progress at all (as in, we can't launch - there is a high risk of failure), which leads to management ignoring the naysayers (because, um, we're NASA, its our job to fly not cry). Unsurprisingly, this leads to known problems not being fixed (because the manager gets deluged in safety violations and cannot tell which ones they should pay attention to, so they pay attention to none).
It's not this simple, of course. But there is a problem if engineering's response is "we told you so!" If honest, that response means that engineering does not have a good enough relationship with management to communicate the problem (which engineering is partially to blame for), but (more likely) it could also just be that engineering crys wolf a lot.
You are working from an incrroect assumption - that you can "know" the level of any risk. Any risk is uncertain, or looked at another way certain. It will either kill you or not - if you have enough information you can determine that supposedly, but in the real world you normally have to make a guess about the level of risk involved. That guess is made based on previous experience.
One big gripe I have with these types of reports is the culture it causes. Essentially, CYA. The attitude is that I better bring up every possible problem, so that if it causes the big boom, I can say "told ya so!" The problem is that this forces managers to ignore the vast majority of problems, because they have been told about "problems" every launch. I bet that if you were to compare the "this will cause LOV" claimants from successful and unsuccessful launches, you would not be able to tell the difference.
The real solution would have to be an acceptance of the risk, and an attempt to quantify it. Essentially, you need a conservative (I wouldn't ride the thing!) engineer to try to inform a non-conservative (You want to live forever?) astronaut of the risks, without CYA or ignoring possible problems. The current solution is engineers CYA, so managers have to ignore possible problems.
Yeah, I had just seen too many posts that completely missed the point - I was trying to give a high level comparison. The reason I mentioned the poor efficiency is that it does lead to having the available energy spread out over a large mass, which is why refining it is energy intensive.
Scenario A: You dig up 1 barrel of oil. You burn the oil, VROOM-VROOM!
Scenario B: You dig up 6 barrels of oil, you use the oil to make 1 barrel of Ethanol, VROOM-VROOM!
What the article is saying is that wasting 6 barrels of oil to create one barrel of ethanol doesn't make any sense. And they are right - though you can argue whether their study is more valid than the USDA study which stated the opposite. I would look at the relative biases (the USDA gets money if they say ethanol is good), and look at the differences in the numbers (the USDA study did not include maintenance on the equipment, etc.) to see which one to believe.
Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere between the two - but is probably a net negative. Plants are horibly inefficient solar cells! (If it was simple, we would be burning trees instead of oil!)
There is a lot of that, of course (but how much do you trust Bob over in accounting, anyway?), but there are still situations where you need to forward to an external vendor, aol, hotmail, or rim. And if it you require SPF, you have just killed email in all those situations.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better - since you now have a trashable and untrashable area, you can take occasional snapshots of the trashable area. That gaurantees that you can recover from anything, including user error (Oh, so pushing delete DELETES things? Nifty!)
As someone else pointed out, it is the turbo pumps - they are designed to spin as fast as possible, and then they remove all the metal strength that is not absolutely required.
If the pump starts sucking vaccuum, the power head is still putting the same energy into the pump, but now that energy is not being absorbed by the fuel pressure rise - so the energy goes into the pump structure itself. Right afterwards you get a lovely loud boom - best viewed from a distance!
By the way, ejecting at supersonic speeds (or more correctly, at speeds where the air pressure from the motion is about the same as sonic speeds at teh ground) is basically suicide. I read a report about a fighter pilot that had to eject above mach (because his plane was about to hit the ground above mach) - it read like this 'upon ejection, both legs were broken by the air pressure, his neck had a fracture and was pinned against the seat harness, arm broken, etc. He landed in the water and swam for a few minutes with borken legs and one broken arm - really an amazing survival story!
Just in case you really believe this, "teen pregnancies" include married 18-19 year olds. Now you can question the virtues of 18 year olds getting married, but that is not really your decision - its theirs. And if they are married, wouldn't pregnancy be expected?
Look into the real data - babies out of marriage. The US is very low. (Just to go to the extreme - Utah has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, because Mormon kids tend to wait until marriage for sex, so they marry younger. Utah also has one of the lowest unwed pregnancy rates. You may argue that 18 year olds getting married is evil in your perspective, but they are adults, aren't they?)
Statistics should be judged like any other communication medium - see what the guy is trying to convince you of, and look for holes in the data apropriately.
Well, you can argue about what is fair or not, granted. But given that the US had to attack a middle eastern government to show the others the terrorism is not a way to avoid blame for your actions, Iraq was a good choice. No one cares about Afganistan - I don't think anyone on Earth really thought they could stand up to the US. A lot of middle easterners thought that Iraq was impervious to the US, so taking it down caused a lot of change in middle eastern government. (As in, Iran used to say "They can't take Iraq, so if I am less irritating than Iraq I'm safe")
It is unfortunate that defying those in power is a "mortal sin," but that is politics. If you can create a stable system where that isn't true, I'll join you in a heartbeat - but until then I really recomend not anoying those in power. Even if they are "moral" and do not squish you for bugging them, when they have to choose between saving you and saving your neighbor, they will choose your neighbor...
So... US giving money is bad? Arab countries are worse off after receiving the $1.3B, because the $10B is somehow negative to them?
Your right, it is political - but the politics are based primarily on religion. How many Isrealies want to see Americans dead? How many Arabs want to see Americans dead? All I was saying is that there is a positive corellation between the "hate americans" population ratio and the amount of funding received. Is that really surprising?
For example, why does Egypt get so much aid? (Well, apart from the fact that they need it more than Jordan, for example). Compare them to Iran - really the only difference I know of is that Egyptians have a lower "lets kill americans" population percentage.
Why do people think that Americans should give support to people that hate them? Don't people understand that giving people charity and money tends to make them dependant on you (and therefore perversely hate you more)?
Really, I think if Iraq becomes a free country, so that Iraqis can become rich through trade with the US - the world will be a much better place in 20-40 years.
And what about the money Iraq was paying to the families of suicide bombers (apparently at least a factor in the decision to do it)?
They supported terror. They publicly defied the US. That made them the perfect target to cause a perception change in the middle east. Face it, before we attacked most of the middle east cheered when Americans were killed. Now the average middle easterner is worried about it. (Of course the terrorists haven't changed - they are a lost cause...)
I really think that in the long run, we have made the right decision. (And yes, in order to convince the US population to do it, truth was streched, deals were made, etc. And unfortunately, that is how our country works... they can't exactly go on the air and say "Well, when we killed 3 guys and put a wiretap on Saddaam's phone he kept calling bin Laden!" I think the documentaries on all this in 20-40 years after the secrets are no longer secrets should be very interesting...)
Yeah, they really are competitors - even if they are interelated, relatively friendly competitors.
For example, when OPEC raises prices, resellers pass that cost on to the consumer, right? But that leads to lower volumes, which means lower profits. When one persons profit maximization minimizes your profit, you are more or less competitors. (To put it another way: have you ever worked with or as an outsourcing company? Did you feel that your inerests were aligned with your "partner," or that they were a competitor?)
I agree that there were major problems in the middle east before 9/11 (and also today!), and my only comment is that there are current major problems in Africa, former Soviet countries, etc. We cannot solve all the worlds problems in a single day. (Though we are currently working towards solving the worlds problems, even the greedy capitalist pigs like me!)
The reason we didn't attack the Saudis was the same reason we will not attack Lebanon - the government in general is anti-terrorism, they just have some crazies in there. Attacking them moves power to the crazies, not away.
Um, can I also just point out that to a "bush...oil" person that the Saudi's would be competitors to a US company?
...our striking back at them is what gets them the continued support they need...
I disagree with this - I think that striking back at a sponsoring government has hurt them terribly. Yes, they now have lots of people willing to blow themselves up, but they now have no government contacts to provide passports, transportation, financing, etc. I believe that is why they have not been effective outside the middle east recently (I going out on a limb here and predicting that the London bombs were a local job) - and they will eventually run out of suicide bombers, as someone has said. (Actually, the reason they will run out is because the bombers signed up to kill Americans, and they end up killing Muslims - bad for morale)
It also doesn't work if he is using you to show off to his friends - I think a lot of terrorism can be attributed to that.
The US was giving massive amounts of aid and weapons to Israel, ticking people off...
Further, if you look we were also giving massive amounts of aid (and admitedly fewer weapons) to the arab countries as well... perhaps we gave more to the Israelies, but then they had the advantage of not having a religion that forces them to look down at us as much. When you want aid money, spitting on it as it is handed out is a bad idea!
I think the real point of all this is that being involved with Iraq caused this - and we knew it going into Iraq. We just also knew that not going into Iraq would also cause it - and we hope that by creating a free Iraq (if it can be done) we can prevent terrorism in 50 years.
There is no hope to end terrorism for today, the terrorists are already committed.
...in a nation that never once supported bin laden...
This comment might make sense for the "war on bin laden," but for the war on terror it doesn't - Iraq as a government was paying people's families if they martyred themselves by becoming mass murderers (terrorists). Iraq was beligerent about it, so they got stuffed. Iran is probably second, and I imagine they are very worried that the Iraqi conflict may end in a few years (probably why there are so many Iranians trying to extend that conflict as long as possible).
Lebanon is a strange one - the government pays terrorists to strike, and then says sorry and pays damages. Probably a case of multiple personality disorder (commonly seen in governments around the world!).
Similarly by reading history you will find that appeasement makes the problem worse, not better (Japan, Germany, etc.). The only thing that has worked in the past is total destruction followed by compassionate support of the survivors (Japan, Germany, etc.).
And although there is always something that could have been done better, because there are always opposing viewpoints someone is always mad at you. The terrorists are wrong (even if you call them freedom fighters), just like the few American revelutionaries that misstreated Torries were wrong. It is not acceptable to kill someone who is not trying to kill you. If they are doing something you don't like, fight back - but the most effective ways to fight back are the ways of Greenpeace and Gandi. Especially against a major power.
You might be able to say that they have an excuse for targeting militaries, or military aid. They do not have an excuse to target civilians. The logical way to look at this is to apply the same rules to both sides, and if everyone ends up dead you are wrong! If we responded to them the way they responded to us, their would not be a middle east, oil workers would require radiation shielding, and there would be no Islamic people left on Earth...
The reason this is not totally true is that your body is constantly repairing itself, including killing cancers and radiation damage. You get sick and die when your body's repair rate is exceeded by the damage rate - either a cancer snuck through the defenses, or you get a lot all at once.
So there is a definate benefit to moderation.
The US is tired of cooperating because we are expected to be altruistic while everyone else is expected to "stick it to the man."
Thanks! I'll look into it!
So how does this work in reality (as someone about to start a company doing "dangerous" stuff)? I would think that the point would be to fix what you can and quantify what you can't, but since discovering problems never ends (similar to the program is never complete, only abandoned), at what point do you say "to heck with it, we launch!". And at that point, are you still in a safety culture? It just seems to me that engineering is incentivized to never approve for launch, which incentivises management to ignore them. (Something I would really like to avoid - for right now I plan on avoiding it by using small, cross-skilled teams. Is there a better way? Any recommended readings, etc?)
Frankly, I believe the opposite - that the problem is that they are being forced into a "safety culture" when that is not the best option. For example, when you are doing something that we do not know how to do safely, the safety culture tries to prevent any progress at all (as in, we can't launch - there is a high risk of failure), which leads to management ignoring the naysayers (because, um, we're NASA, its our job to fly not cry). Unsurprisingly, this leads to known problems not being fixed (because the manager gets deluged in safety violations and cannot tell which ones they should pay attention to, so they pay attention to none).
It's not this simple, of course. But there is a problem if engineering's response is "we told you so!" If honest, that response means that engineering does not have a good enough relationship with management to communicate the problem (which engineering is partially to blame for), but (more likely) it could also just be that engineering crys wolf a lot.
You are working from an incrroect assumption - that you can "know" the level of any risk. Any risk is uncertain, or looked at another way certain. It will either kill you or not - if you have enough information you can determine that supposedly, but in the real world you normally have to make a guess about the level of risk involved. That guess is made based on previous experience.
One big gripe I have with these types of reports is the culture it causes. Essentially, CYA. The attitude is that I better bring up every possible problem, so that if it causes the big boom, I can say "told ya so!" The problem is that this forces managers to ignore the vast majority of problems, because they have been told about "problems" every launch. I bet that if you were to compare the "this will cause LOV" claimants from successful and unsuccessful launches, you would not be able to tell the difference.
The real solution would have to be an acceptance of the risk, and an attempt to quantify it. Essentially, you need a conservative (I wouldn't ride the thing!) engineer to try to inform a non-conservative (You want to live forever?) astronaut of the risks, without CYA or ignoring possible problems. The current solution is engineers CYA, so managers have to ignore possible problems.
Yeah, I had just seen too many posts that completely missed the point - I was trying to give a high level comparison. The reason I mentioned the poor efficiency is that it does lead to having the available energy spread out over a large mass, which is why refining it is energy intensive.
How it really works is this:
Scenario A: You dig up 1 barrel of oil. You burn the oil, VROOM-VROOM!
Scenario B: You dig up 6 barrels of oil, you use the oil to make 1 barrel of Ethanol, VROOM-VROOM!
What the article is saying is that wasting 6 barrels of oil to create one barrel of ethanol doesn't make any sense. And they are right - though you can argue whether their study is more valid than the USDA study which stated the opposite. I would look at the relative biases (the USDA gets money if they say ethanol is good), and look at the differences in the numbers (the USDA study did not include maintenance on the equipment, etc.) to see which one to believe.
Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere between the two - but is probably a net negative. Plants are horibly inefficient solar cells! (If it was simple, we would be burning trees instead of oil!)
You have obviously never worked in corporate america
There is a lot of that, of course (but how much do you trust Bob over in accounting, anyway?), but there are still situations where you need to forward to an external vendor, aol, hotmail, or rim. And if it you require SPF, you have just killed email in all those situations.