You make the false assumption that NASA is just a whole bunch of government employees. In reality there are thousands of contractors or employees of contractors working for NASA's goals, and they are likely paid the same in terms of salaried, overtime exempt employment contracts as any other high tech engineering employee.
If SpaceX did anything, it removed the, "must build something for the Shuttle in each state" mantra, so that things are built where they make sense to build them. There apparently had been a company that could have built solid rocket boosters for the shuttle as one-piece structures and barged them to Florida instead of multiple 14' segments with those demonized o-rings, but Utah's Thiokol built 'em instead and had to segment them to bring them by rail.
Simply ending the need to split things up stupidly is alone going to help the costs.
It's more important to know who designated the vehicle "best in its class". There are some classes that are easy, like low-midline compacts, luxury compacts, low-midline mid-size, luxury mid-size, low-midline full-size, and luxury full-size. Those are classes that various consumer magazines and the like use, and are much more realistic.
Kudos for teaching your child skepticism early. That's important, and I wish that I'd learned that at a younger age than I did. I would have wasted less money on crappy toys.
I laugh at the author's assumption that we'll be able to afford this excessive use of technology.
We use cylinder locks and metal keys because they're cheap and good enough.
We use alarm clocks with buttons because they're cheap, easily replaced, and good enough.
We use manually-turned valves to control hot and cold water, again, because they're cheap and good enough.
In short, almost all of our technology is minimalist, because once a technology is developed into a decent working system, there's not a lot of good in changing it for a more expensive system. I like my manual door locks, as there's a certain amount of skill required to pick one that a skr1pt k1dd13 can't download off of the Internet to use.
On top of that, can you imagine the cabling required to control all of these fancy gizmos? A lot of what's described can't operate off of wireless, it needs some physical control. Shower valves, for example.
Plus reliability is always an issue. We have a Clapper to control one of the lights and even it's not perfect, and it's simple.
I thought that you just had to push that weird button thingie and then the atmosphere and core would spontaneously appear, quickly enough to keep everyone alive...
Others have covered the demonstrated failure rate being 2/27 or 1/18, depending on the type of mission. If we're talking about missions that reached ISS, we're at 1/18. I'd much rather see reliability rates in the 99+%, but even that's one failure in twelve launches to exceed 99% reliability in groups of nine.
Second, what's the value in being able to send up smaller missions, akin to a commuter flight versus a jumbo jet?
Third, what's the redundancy of having multiple functional launch systems worth?
Fourth, what's the value in the US having a launch system of its own without depending on other countries?
Fifth, what's the likelihood that having this launch system prove to be successful will result in the developer working on heavier-lift systems?
When the United States has no launch system we are completely dependent on the Russians for access to a very expensive machine built with enormous cost to us and to all of the other participating countries. Should the Russians decide that they don't want to play anymore, they could simply deny our astronauts access, making the station de facto Russian property. Since the Russians have significantly more station experience than we do, I'm sure that they'd be able to operate it without us.
Our having a launch system, ultimately intended to be man-rated, essentially prohibits that possibility. Same with the Europeans, if they ever have a man-rated rocket. I'm all for that.
Very true, especially in the infancy of SpaceX's program. I do hope that they figure out why the engine failed, and hopefully their records on its manufacture and testing prior to its use will contribute toward answering that.
I'll have to ask my wife about it- she actually is a rocket scientist, albeit one that deals with solid rockets, not liquid, but I'd expect that the post-failure analysis would follow the same kinds of procedures.
No, failsafes refer to a designed-in failure method that is not catastrophic to the whole assembly.
Some engines, like turboshaft engines, have an intentional narrow point in the driveshaft designed to fail under the right circumstances. If something's got to give, make it something that fails without either destroying the machine outright or else killing the occupants.
A rocket design that manages to avoid destroying the vehicle when an engine explodes definitely qualifies as fail-safe.
Obviously SpaceX wants to achieve man-rating so that they can launch and return personnel in addition to the cargo runs they're currently beginning. I'm curious as to how this moderate malfunction will impact the rest of the program.
Bearing in mind, of course, the deaths of Chaffee, Grissom, and White in the Apollo 1 accident, the launch-time engine failure and later unrelated catastrophic failure for Apollo 13, the Challenger disaster, and the Columbia disaster, it's difficult to call SpaceX's anomaly as being any worse than those. If SpaceX manages a series of cargo deliveries without any loss of the capsule or with complete success on delivery then even with this anomaly they're arguably no worse off than any of the previous space programs were, as far as reliability and safety goes.
Then split off a separate health plan for them. I'm tired of my health insurance rates going up year after year because smokers force the average per capita costs up.
Or people in cold, cold climates are literally freezing their eyeballs into having health problems via exposure to the elements, and also happen to like hot beverages to counteract the cold...
I want to see the same study conducted on Scandinavian ex-pats who drink copious amounts of coffee in less frigid climates.
Yeah, if there were a way to access youtube content from a google.com-resolving server via SSL, I'd be on that like a fat kid on an ice cream buffet...
Hmmm... Common carrier sub-business site that doesn't pre-filter uploads receives something legal in that host's country that is found objectionable in your country.
Block another sub-business site from that same conglomerate business...
BRILLIANT!
Are they sure that alcohol is banned in Iran? It seems like a lot of the stuff must be consumed, given the nature of some of the plans...
I've found, if there are labels at all, once toning out one can figure out what the original installer meant. We have some with schemes like A-0-3-46-D. We figured out that was IDF A-0, third patch panel, 46th port, data.
If the telecom closets and outlets are labelled together then it works well without necessarily needing documentation. IF "IDF-C" is prominently displayed on the third closet, then usually one can figure out that "C-###D" will go to IDF-C.
I recommend against individually identifying patch panels, instead using a 1-whatever approach, where at the end of the 48th port on the first patch, the first on the second patch gets numbered 49, etc. That does mean enough attention needs to be made to allow it all to fit, but at the same time it means that there aren't multiple drops with the same number.
I found that as-builts are actually more important for finding where drops are than for knowing where a drop is to then figure out the closet. At one of our sites the drawings for the cabinets were not compared to the drawings of the low voltage and power, so there are lots of drops hidden behind fixtures. Annoying, but sometimes we can actually find them if the as-builts are accurate.
Telecommunications closets within 250' of every edge of the building where there is any possibility that equipment could be placed, as total cable length can be 328', and you have to account for patch cables and workstation/equipment cables, as well as elevation changes and routing. These TCs need their own air conditioning independent of the rest of the building and need to be keyed so that only a very select group of staff can go in. Do not use wall-mount enclosures if you can avoid it. Run conditioned power to the TCs. It's your call if you have battery backups in each TC or a big one at the supply for them, but electrically isolate them from the floor. Probably a good idea to have the AC units on a battery backup too.
Conduit, Conduit, Conduit. Color code it and label it. For trunk runs have at least two sets, one for copper, one for fiber, and just do them in 4". For distribution, don't go smaller than 1", and probably still best to have two runs. Remember, no low voltage and high voltage in the same conduit, and best practice to not put fiber and copper in the same conduit in order to protect the fiber as changes are necessary.
Talk to the designer for equipment layout. You'll want to put junction boxes wherever you'll need to bring conduit down from the ceiling, even if they're just plugged at the moment. You can add the drop and outlet later, but if you don't put the jbox in, it's a big PITA.
You do not need to string all of the cable for all of the conduit up front, but you should run at least a twelve-strand fiber between all of your TCs, and probably run one of each of single mode and multi mode. You should probably also run a 25 pair copper for phones.
You should look into STP or S/FTP instead of UTP for the copper. Learn how to ground it right and make sure that the contractors follow the specs. Do not use Cat5e, use at least 6, preferably 6a. Commscope makes a thin 6a if you're worried about bend radii and number of cables in a conduit.
When you're installing conduit, allow for a few places for later expansion for wireless. It may sound strange, but leaving a double-gang box with a reducer and a metal plate at the end of a short 1" conduit stubbing off of your trunk can be handy if down the road it's needed.
Pay attention to grounding and bonding.
Devise a labelling scheme. We use MDF as A, IDFs B - whatever. Then patch panel position number, then type. So, A-021D would be an ethernet (data) port, 21st on the patch panel, in the MDF. B-047V would be a phone (voice) port, 47th pair, in IDF-B. You could use F for fiber, or if running single and multi mode, S or M.
...why not change the duration, or require active production to defend a patent?
For some industries, 17 years is a very long time. If the duration were lowered for software to something like five years that'd make more sense to me.
For physical device patents, patent holders who fail to produce goods (and I don't mean to license the patent to another manufacturer without self-producing) a lack of production should spell the end. If they won't produce it then someone else could have the right to do so.
Actually a friend of mine is Director for a space geology research and imaging archive facility at a major public university, and establishing what causes the appearance of flow patterns is very important to them.
There are other fluids than water that can sustain a semicolloidal solution or carry sediments. I assume that scientists now have to figure out what fluid flowed, rather than simply assuming that it had to be water.
Slashdot Mirror
You make the false assumption that NASA is just a whole bunch of government employees. In reality there are thousands of contractors or employees of contractors working for NASA's goals, and they are likely paid the same in terms of salaried, overtime exempt employment contracts as any other high tech engineering employee.
If SpaceX did anything, it removed the, "must build something for the Shuttle in each state" mantra, so that things are built where they make sense to build them. There apparently had been a company that could have built solid rocket boosters for the shuttle as one-piece structures and barged them to Florida instead of multiple 14' segments with those demonized o-rings, but Utah's Thiokol built 'em instead and had to segment them to bring them by rail.
Simply ending the need to split things up stupidly is alone going to help the costs.
It's more important to know who designated the vehicle "best in its class". There are some classes that are easy, like low-midline compacts, luxury compacts, low-midline mid-size, luxury mid-size, low-midline full-size, and luxury full-size. Those are classes that various consumer magazines and the like use, and are much more realistic.
Kudos for teaching your child skepticism early. That's important, and I wish that I'd learned that at a younger age than I did. I would have wasted less money on crappy toys.
I laugh at the author's assumption that we'll be able to afford this excessive use of technology.
We use cylinder locks and metal keys because they're cheap and good enough.
We use alarm clocks with buttons because they're cheap, easily replaced, and good enough.
We use manually-turned valves to control hot and cold water, again, because they're cheap and good enough.
In short, almost all of our technology is minimalist, because once a technology is developed into a decent working system, there's not a lot of good in changing it for a more expensive system. I like my manual door locks, as there's a certain amount of skill required to pick one that a skr1pt k1dd13 can't download off of the Internet to use.
On top of that, can you imagine the cabling required to control all of these fancy gizmos? A lot of what's described can't operate off of wireless, it needs some physical control. Shower valves, for example.
Plus reliability is always an issue. We have a Clapper to control one of the lights and even it's not perfect, and it's simple.
I'm still waiting for 802.11a drivers...
Sounds to me like you've been watching too many Sam Rockwell movies...
I thought that you just had to push that weird button thingie and then the atmosphere and core would spontaneously appear, quickly enough to keep everyone alive...
I donno, are we including a bowl of petunias as well?
I don't see how ATV is human-rated when they deorbit and burn them up to get rid of them...
Others have covered the demonstrated failure rate being 2/27 or 1/18, depending on the type of mission. If we're talking about missions that reached ISS, we're at 1/18. I'd much rather see reliability rates in the 99+%, but even that's one failure in twelve launches to exceed 99% reliability in groups of nine.
First, what's the cost per unit of payload mass?
Second, what's the value in being able to send up smaller missions, akin to a commuter flight versus a jumbo jet?
Third, what's the redundancy of having multiple functional launch systems worth?
Fourth, what's the value in the US having a launch system of its own without depending on other countries?
Fifth, what's the likelihood that having this launch system prove to be successful will result in the developer working on heavier-lift systems?
When the United States has no launch system we are completely dependent on the Russians for access to a very expensive machine built with enormous cost to us and to all of the other participating countries. Should the Russians decide that they don't want to play anymore, they could simply deny our astronauts access, making the station de facto Russian property. Since the Russians have significantly more station experience than we do, I'm sure that they'd be able to operate it without us.
Our having a launch system, ultimately intended to be man-rated, essentially prohibits that possibility. Same with the Europeans, if they ever have a man-rated rocket. I'm all for that.
But you won't walk in a manner consistent with your species.
If a spider loses an appendage, it'll still walk in a manner similar to the rest of its species.
Very true, especially in the infancy of SpaceX's program. I do hope that they figure out why the engine failed, and hopefully their records on its manufacture and testing prior to its use will contribute toward answering that.
I'll have to ask my wife about it- she actually is a rocket scientist, albeit one that deals with solid rockets, not liquid, but I'd expect that the post-failure analysis would follow the same kinds of procedures.
No, failsafes refer to a designed-in failure method that is not catastrophic to the whole assembly.
Some engines, like turboshaft engines, have an intentional narrow point in the driveshaft designed to fail under the right circumstances. If something's got to give, make it something that fails without either destroying the machine outright or else killing the occupants.
A rocket design that manages to avoid destroying the vehicle when an engine explodes definitely qualifies as fail-safe.
Obviously SpaceX wants to achieve man-rating so that they can launch and return personnel in addition to the cargo runs they're currently beginning. I'm curious as to how this moderate malfunction will impact the rest of the program.
Bearing in mind, of course, the deaths of Chaffee, Grissom, and White in the Apollo 1 accident, the launch-time engine failure and later unrelated catastrophic failure for Apollo 13, the Challenger disaster, and the Columbia disaster, it's difficult to call SpaceX's anomaly as being any worse than those. If SpaceX manages a series of cargo deliveries without any loss of the capsule or with complete success on delivery then even with this anomaly they're arguably no worse off than any of the previous space programs were, as far as reliability and safety goes.
Shut up, Fruitloops...
Then split off a separate health plan for them. I'm tired of my health insurance rates going up year after year because smokers force the average per capita costs up.
Or people in cold, cold climates are literally freezing their eyeballs into having health problems via exposure to the elements, and also happen to like hot beverages to counteract the cold...
I want to see the same study conducted on Scandinavian ex-pats who drink copious amounts of coffee in less frigid climates.
Yeah, if there were a way to access youtube content from a google.com-resolving server via SSL, I'd be on that like a fat kid on an ice cream buffet...
Hmmm... Common carrier sub-business site that doesn't pre-filter uploads receives something legal in that host's country that is found objectionable in your country.
Block another sub-business site from that same conglomerate business...
BRILLIANT!
Are they sure that alcohol is banned in Iran? It seems like a lot of the stuff must be consumed, given the nature of some of the plans...
I've found, if there are labels at all, once toning out one can figure out what the original installer meant. We have some with schemes like A-0-3-46-D. We figured out that was IDF A-0, third patch panel, 46th port, data.
If the telecom closets and outlets are labelled together then it works well without necessarily needing documentation. IF "IDF-C" is prominently displayed on the third closet, then usually one can figure out that "C-###D" will go to IDF-C.
I recommend against individually identifying patch panels, instead using a 1-whatever approach, where at the end of the 48th port on the first patch, the first on the second patch gets numbered 49, etc. That does mean enough attention needs to be made to allow it all to fit, but at the same time it means that there aren't multiple drops with the same number.
I found that as-builts are actually more important for finding where drops are than for knowing where a drop is to then figure out the closet. At one of our sites the drawings for the cabinets were not compared to the drawings of the low voltage and power, so there are lots of drops hidden behind fixtures. Annoying, but sometimes we can actually find them if the as-builts are accurate.
I do infrastructure for a large organization.
You need:
Telecommunications closets within 250' of every edge of the building where there is any possibility that equipment could be placed, as total cable length can be 328', and you have to account for patch cables and workstation/equipment cables, as well as elevation changes and routing. These TCs need their own air conditioning independent of the rest of the building and need to be keyed so that only a very select group of staff can go in. Do not use wall-mount enclosures if you can avoid it. Run conditioned power to the TCs. It's your call if you have battery backups in each TC or a big one at the supply for them, but electrically isolate them from the floor. Probably a good idea to have the AC units on a battery backup too.
Conduit, Conduit, Conduit. Color code it and label it. For trunk runs have at least two sets, one for copper, one for fiber, and just do them in 4". For distribution, don't go smaller than 1", and probably still best to have two runs. Remember, no low voltage and high voltage in the same conduit, and best practice to not put fiber and copper in the same conduit in order to protect the fiber as changes are necessary.
Talk to the designer for equipment layout. You'll want to put junction boxes wherever you'll need to bring conduit down from the ceiling, even if they're just plugged at the moment. You can add the drop and outlet later, but if you don't put the jbox in, it's a big PITA.
You do not need to string all of the cable for all of the conduit up front, but you should run at least a twelve-strand fiber between all of your TCs, and probably run one of each of single mode and multi mode. You should probably also run a 25 pair copper for phones.
You should look into STP or S/FTP instead of UTP for the copper. Learn how to ground it right and make sure that the contractors follow the specs. Do not use Cat5e, use at least 6, preferably 6a. Commscope makes a thin 6a if you're worried about bend radii and number of cables in a conduit.
When you're installing conduit, allow for a few places for later expansion for wireless. It may sound strange, but leaving a double-gang box with a reducer and a metal plate at the end of a short 1" conduit stubbing off of your trunk can be handy if down the road it's needed.
Pay attention to grounding and bonding.
Devise a labelling scheme. We use MDF as A, IDFs B - whatever. Then patch panel position number, then type. So, A-021D would be an ethernet (data) port, 21st on the patch panel, in the MDF. B-047V would be a phone (voice) port, 47th pair, in IDF-B. You could use F for fiber, or if running single and multi mode, S or M.
Or seventeen years from the issue date, whichever is longer.
If you're going to correct someone, at least make sure their information is wrong before you do it.
...why not change the duration, or require active production to defend a patent?
For some industries, 17 years is a very long time. If the duration were lowered for software to something like five years that'd make more sense to me.
For physical device patents, patent holders who fail to produce goods (and I don't mean to license the patent to another manufacturer without self-producing) a lack of production should spell the end. If they won't produce it then someone else could have the right to do so.
Actually a friend of mine is Director for a space geology research and imaging archive facility at a major public university, and establishing what causes the appearance of flow patterns is very important to them.
There are other fluids than water that can sustain a semicolloidal solution or carry sediments. I assume that scientists now have to figure out what fluid flowed, rather than simply assuming that it had to be water.