One of the BBC articles maintains that the US did not tell Denmark about both the nuclear bombs used in Chrome Dome missions, and the fact that they lost one.
Greenland is a self-governing province of Denmark but the carrying of nuclear weapons over Danish territory was kept secret.
But the real purpose of this search was deliberately hidden from Danish officials.
One document from July reads: "Fact that this operation includes search for object or missing weapon part is to be treated as confidential NOFORN", the last word meaning not to be disclosed to any foreign country.
The other article says:
Denmark did not co-operate with the parliament's petitions committee, and is still refusing to release key environmental radiation records made of Thule at the time.
The Danish government had always denied that nuclear-armed US planes were flying over Danish-controlled Greenland - until the crash occurred.
And according to Ms Wallis, it is still trying to brush a difficult issue under the carpet.
Which at least implies that the Danish government knew but was trying to keep a lid on it.
Q: Can SOFIA see the Lunar Module crash sites on the surface of the Moon and get a record of them for history?
A: You asked if SOFIA can see very detailed features on the surface of the Moon. The short answer is "No - such features are too small."
Here is the long answer: The best resolution (ability to see fine detail) of any of the world's telescopes is about a tenth of an arc second (explained below). This is achieved by the Hubble Space Telescope. (This statement applies only to telescopes that use visible light and make images or photographs.) The next best telescopes are the Keck Telescopes in Hawaii and some telescopes in Chile. These can see details about three tenths of an arc second. SOFIA does not do as well as these telescopes, seeing details of one or two arc seconds at the very best.
The telescope will be exposed to the elements during flight: this photo of the telescope installation shows that the aircraft will be flying around with a 3x3 m hole in its fuselage.
The buffetting and general vibration levels must be huge. here is how they plan to compensate.
On its own, no. But then again, neither would Ares. Using Falcon 9 might solve one of the (apparently) large hurdles in the project, i.e. getting a heavy-lift man-rated launcher up and running.
Not that old chestnut again. We've had 6 manned missions and a few probes to the moon, all commissioned by a handful of governments. Our oceans are being surveyed constantly, by both satellites and survey ships (including submersibles) sponsored by governments, research establishments and commercial operators alike. The moon missions just generate more publicity (ignoring the outliers like Jacques Cousteau).
If they do that, they have to give up 50 % of their floor space (which is a significant factor in the cost of a data center) so they can move containers around.
Wind, solar and hydro (including tidal) may not be complete replacements, but they are part of the solution. So is nuclear (fission and fusion). All benefit from more research, more so than the dead end that is our current fossil fuels.
But that still leaves the question: what's the point of having something that can be moved efficiently if you're never going to move it? You're just introducing another constraint (X racks of servers have to fit within an Y-foot container) plus the expense of fitting stuff inside the container without reaping any benefit that I can see.
At 50%, we're already getting pretty near the theoretical limit for combustion processes, iirc. I suspect you're better off finding ways not to use coal (or other fossil fuels) at all.
Since it is mostly irrelevant where a data center physically is,
well, "near a high-capacity internet link" is a pretty big issue for datacenters, and AFAIK the main reason datacenters are still being built in stupid places.
But would a company want a building full of grubby, dinged, rusty containers? Which they'd have to modify anyway (add access panels for utilities, replace the doors with something more sensible for indoor use).
Microsoft, which is currently putting the finishing touches on a huge new data center near Chicago. The bottom floor of the $550 million facility will house at least 150 data center containers packed with servers.
So they put servers in containers, then put the containers in a warehouse? What good does the container do at that point? You're just compartmentalizing the warehouse, with really unwieldy compartments (I'll bet you can't move the containers once installed, so you're stuck with the form factor chosen at installation). Why not install modular walls instead (if it's the compartmentalization that yields the extra efficiency)?
If you want a multi-stage design, you'd be better off looking at jet and scramjet technologies than balloons.
That's been done already: Orbital Sciences offers the Pegasus which can launch up to 450 kg into a 200 km orbit. The Pegasus weighs 23 tons at launch. To scale this up, you'd probably need a specialized aircraft: Pegasus is about the limit for launching from underneath the fuselage (larger-diameter rockets just won't fit), so you'd need to launch from a wing pylon, and I think there are no aircraft in service that have wing pylons rated for that much weight. If you could modify an Antonov 124 to carry its full payload (150 tons) on a wing pylon, you'd get about 450x6=2700 kg in LEO.
Slashdot Mirror
The US (USAF?) does need a major overhaul of its nuclear handling policies; this crap would've never flown under SAC. You can pin that one on Clinton,
Yes, because everybody knows Clinton was in power in 1968.
One of the BBC articles maintains that the US did not tell Denmark about both the nuclear bombs used in Chrome Dome missions, and the fact that they lost one.
Greenland is a self-governing province of Denmark but the carrying of nuclear weapons over Danish territory was kept secret.
But the real purpose of this search was deliberately hidden from Danish officials.
One document from July reads: "Fact that this operation includes search for object or missing weapon part is to be treated as confidential NOFORN", the last word meaning not to be disclosed to any foreign country.
The other article says:
Denmark did not co-operate with the parliament's petitions committee, and is still refusing to release key environmental radiation records made of Thule at the time.
The Danish government had always denied that nuclear-armed US planes were flying over Danish-controlled Greenland - until the crash occurred.
And according to Ms Wallis, it is still trying to brush a difficult issue under the carpet.
Which at least implies that the Danish government knew but was trying to keep a lid on it.
So which is it?
not only is it a dupe, but the original article is still on the front page. Way to go.
... "the most powerful video card in history", it's "the most powerful videocard yet".
[/pet peeve]
Of course, "Core 3" was what everyone expected them to do, so Intel couldn't possibly use that. Using imaginary numbers is much more logical.
From the link in my post:
Q: Can SOFIA see the Lunar Module crash sites on the surface of the Moon and get a record of them for history?
A: You asked if SOFIA can see very detailed features on the surface of the Moon. The short answer is "No - such features are too small."
Here is the long answer: The best resolution (ability to see fine detail) of any of the world's telescopes is about a tenth of an arc second (explained below). This is achieved by the Hubble Space Telescope. (This statement applies only to telescopes that use visible light and make images or photographs.) The next best telescopes are the Keck Telescopes in Hawaii and some telescopes in Chile. These can see details about three tenths of an arc second. SOFIA does not do as well as these telescopes, seeing details of one or two arc seconds at the very best.
The telescope will be exposed to the elements during flight: this photo of the telescope installation shows that the aircraft will be flying around with a 3x3 m hole in its fuselage.
The buffetting and general vibration levels must be huge.
here is how they plan to compensate.
The mind boggles.
What the hell kind of codename is that? Maybe an attempt at 'truth in advertising'?
On its own, no. But then again, neither would Ares.
Using Falcon 9 might solve one of the (apparently) large hurdles in the project, i.e. getting a heavy-lift man-rated launcher up and running.
Not that old chestnut again.
We've had 6 manned missions and a few probes to the moon, all commissioned by a handful of governments. Our oceans are being surveyed constantly, by both satellites and survey ships (including submersibles) sponsored by governments, research establishments and commercial operators alike.
The moon missions just generate more publicity (ignoring the outliers like Jacques Cousteau).
That isn't answered by TFA, and I don't see how packing a few racks of servers in a large metal box would help make a datacenter more efficient.
TFA mentions the containers are used inside a building.
If they do that, they have to give up 50 % of their floor space (which is a significant factor in the cost of a data center) so they can move containers around.
meh, Australia's just a British colony anyway...
Wind, solar and hydro (including tidal) may not be complete replacements, but they are part of the solution. So is nuclear (fission and fusion). All benefit from more research, more so than the dead end that is our current fossil fuels.
But that still leaves the question: what's the point of having something that can be moved efficiently if you're never going to move it? You're just introducing another constraint (X racks of servers have to fit within an Y-foot container) plus the expense of fitting stuff inside the container without reaping any benefit that I can see.
True, but switches on the outlet are pretty much UK-only, as are plugs that include a fuse. Other 230 V-countries don't use them.
At 50%, we're already getting pretty near the theoretical limit for combustion processes, iirc. I suspect you're better off finding ways not to use coal (or other fossil fuels) at all.
Since it is mostly irrelevant where a data center physically is,
well, "near a high-capacity internet link" is a pretty big issue for datacenters, and AFAIK the main reason datacenters are still being built in stupid places.
Have you ever seen an oceangoing ship? They all turn into USS Rustbucket after a few years.
But would a company want a building full of grubby, dinged, rusty containers? Which they'd have to modify anyway (add access panels for utilities, replace the doors with something more sensible for indoor use).
Microsoft, which is currently putting the finishing touches on a huge new data center near Chicago. The bottom floor of the $550 million facility will house at least 150 data center containers packed with servers.
So they put servers in containers, then put the containers in a warehouse? What good does the container do at that point? You're just compartmentalizing the warehouse, with really unwieldy compartments (I'll bet you can't move the containers once installed, so you're stuck with the form factor chosen at installation). Why not install modular walls instead (if it's the compartmentalization that yields the extra efficiency)?
Orbital Sciences has much better information on the Pegasus and its launch aircraft.
(Damn, I've got to do something with the L1011 and Pegasus that are sitting in my 'to build' pile of scale models)
Low earth orbit is around 2000km up.
No, it's 200 km up.
If you want a multi-stage design, you'd be better off looking at jet and scramjet technologies than balloons.
That's been done already: Orbital Sciences offers the Pegasus which can launch up to 450 kg into a 200 km orbit. The Pegasus weighs 23 tons at launch.
To scale this up, you'd probably need a specialized aircraft: Pegasus is about the limit for launching from underneath the fuselage (larger-diameter rockets just won't fit), so you'd need to launch from a wing pylon, and I think there are no aircraft in service that have wing pylons rated for that much weight.
If you could modify an Antonov 124 to carry its full payload (150 tons) on a wing pylon, you'd get about 450x6=2700 kg in LEO.