If the polluter dies in bankrupcty and after liquidation there are insufficient assets, then the polluter can't pay. You can't get more money from them because they don't exist anymore. This was somewhat of an unusual bankrupcy, the details of which seem to be hard for some people to grasp... GM's "good" assets were "sold" to a new entity to form a new company. A tranfer of assets occured. The "bad" assets remain with the old company; this includes the polluted lands. The newly formed company has been released of any liability associated with the old company by the bankrupcy court. The old company is still liable - they're not "off the hook"; but, they're not likely to be able to pay for the clean-up.
Because their planned expansion and the new model(s) they're developing will allow them to repay the loan.
I made $50k last year, my first year of production. My business is growing. My business plan is a.) viable b.) verifiable c.) shows I'll likely make $100M over the next decade. I need $10M for a building, tooling, R&D, and to cover short-term costs while ramping up. Does the bank turn me down because I only made $50k last year?
While the bankrupcy itself was unusual, it's not unusual at all for corporations to receive relief on environmental cleanup and associated fines during bankruptcy. State and Federal governments ends up with the tab for the cleanup.
Well, if 90% is within a "couple of feet below the water surface" then I would say that skimming to a depth of 10 feet would have a significant impact. If you're being agressive you could aim for the top 30 feet and increase your impact. It's a bad situation and sometimes you have to live with best effort, even if it's less than 100% effective.
Actually, no I didn't. Even though it has the surface area of Alaska, it is (probably) only a few feet thick. You'll never create an economic model that justifies hundreds of skimmer ships. A handful, perhaps... Yes, it will take years -- perhaps decades, to skim off.
So, if there's that much trash, composed primarily of plastics, dispersed over a large area of the Pacific... It might make economic sense to modify a ship or two to go out there, skim it off the ocean surface (the top few feet or so) and bring it to shore. There it could be converted back to it's original form, petroleum, run through a gasification plant, or burned as-is in an incinerator for power. Even if it only breaks even with the fuel usage of the ship(s), it still solves the problem, no? (but would require government funding for operational expenses, yes). One might even consider a factory ship where processing was contained on the vessel.
Some of the senior geeks remember HP BASIC, etc. and using it to do real work. I've seen CFD and FEA done with Quick Basic on a 386 in a laboratory environment. If your choices were BASIC and FORTRAN (both were common in engineering applications in the 80's and on through the '90's), the BASIC compiler was often cheaper by an order of magnitude and more approachable.
I tend to agree with that idea. DOS was the upstart (and initially a poor clone) and CP/M was entrenched. It could have become the foundation if not for a shrewd move by B. Gates and company.
That's partially what's responsible for the failure that's put us in this recession. In general though, they're much too simple to fail catastrophically. You're talking about having the machine make decisions on the order of "if the average drops below x, sell". Well, they're more complex than that; but, you get the idea I think.
So let me make sure I have this right: you're comparing a 1.2kW 30' consumer grade single household turbine to a 200-250' 3-5MW commercial wind turbine? You're not serious are you? Let me do a little math.... The Windspire turbine is 2000 to 4000 times smaller than the commercial power plants the NYT article is discussing.
follow up... I just checked again and the amount of radiation received due to fly-ash, for someone living next to the power plant, is like 1.5 to 15 mrem/yr per usgs. The higher number is only an additional 5% above background of 360 mrem/yr average. The worst case measured was around 50mrem / yr, due to contamination of the ground where food was being grown resulting in a buildup within the body of those eating the food. They are fairly insignificant numbers.
What was published does not look like the complete study... The published report does not completely address the LAS but does make mention of using ejection seat analysis code to model the LAS system. I personally would like to see more detail on the LAS flight parameters myself. What the model does do is show that, based on this Air Force analysis, that the Orion would be decending through a cloud of burning solid fuel fragments; and, based on their analysis, they believe the Orion will not clear the burning fuel fragments, resulting in melt of the parachutes in the recovery system.
Let us not forget the up-mass issue. The claim is that the booster has plenty of up-mass; but, they've been cutting systems and putting constraints on the weight of the Orion in order to stay within those margins. During the Augustine Commission presentation I believe they said they currently had a 14% margin for up-mass (that's from memory; so, don't flame me). That's with a crew of 4. The claim is that the LAS is the limitation; but, what they're not saying is that they can't increase the capability of the LAS without increasing it's mass and cutting into the current margin. They designed the LAS knowing what the capabilities of the booster are, and what limitations that would put on the capsule. It's a circular argument that conveniently hides the issues at hand... The point is, the vehicle appears to not have the capability to do what it was commissioned to do: Reliably and safely lift a crew of 7 into LEO.
Interesting that. I believe the Air Force study compared both Titan and the Challenger, then used the Titan for the purposes of the presentation. So, there were TWO real world examples used. The only question in my mind is what is the LAS profile and how well did the Air Force model it -- they did claim to use their ejection seat code for the analysis and that is known to be a good model of reality.
The main engines on the shuttle run for around 8:30 depending on the mission profile. the boosters only for 2:06 at which point they are detached. There is a final kick by the OMS to circularize the orbit which occurs later (around that 45 minute point) but by then you're essentially already in orbit.
I agree with your general premise that it's still fairly safe... but comparing them to carrier ops! That's one of the most dangerous places in the world with respect to aviation.
They were starting from scratch with a new design, not an upgrade of an existing one. New rocket design. New engines. New avionics. They're also working without a corporate mindshare of experience to fall back on, excluding those individual folks they've managed to hire away from Boeing, Lockheed, Rocketdyne, etc... Failure(s) during the first couple of launches of a new design are, historically, on par.
did they simulate the lack of gravity and radiation as well? I didn't think so. The ISS is a better simulation of the voyage. As has been pointed out, submariners routinely endure 100 day missions without outside contact; so, they didn't really prove much.
Slashdot Mirror
same thing that happens to any piece of abandoned land. It reverts (or rather, defaults) back to the local government.
If the polluter dies in bankrupcty and after liquidation there are insufficient assets, then the polluter can't pay. You can't get more money from them because they don't exist anymore. This was somewhat of an unusual bankrupcy, the details of which seem to be hard for some people to grasp... GM's "good" assets were "sold" to a new entity to form a new company. A tranfer of assets occured. The "bad" assets remain with the old company; this includes the polluted lands. The newly formed company has been released of any liability associated with the old company by the bankrupcy court. The old company is still liable - they're not "off the hook"; but, they're not likely to be able to pay for the clean-up.
Because their planned expansion and the new model(s) they're developing will allow them to repay the loan.
I made $50k last year, my first year of production. My business is growing. My business plan is a.) viable b.) verifiable c.) shows I'll likely make $100M over the next decade. I need $10M for a building, tooling, R&D, and to cover short-term costs while ramping up. Does the bank turn me down because I only made $50k last year?
While the bankrupcy itself was unusual, it's not unusual at all for corporations to receive relief on environmental cleanup and associated fines during bankruptcy. State and Federal governments ends up with the tab for the cleanup.
Well, if 90% is within a "couple of feet below the water surface" then I would say that skimming to a depth of 10 feet would have a significant impact. If you're being agressive you could aim for the top 30 feet and increase your impact. It's a bad situation and sometimes you have to live with best effort, even if it's less than 100% effective.
Think of the artists impression as the "executive summary" for those without the scientific background
Actually, no I didn't. Even though it has the surface area of Alaska, it is (probably) only a few feet thick. You'll never create an economic model that justifies hundreds of skimmer ships. A handful, perhaps... Yes, it will take years -- perhaps decades, to skim off.
So, if there's that much trash, composed primarily of plastics, dispersed over a large area of the Pacific... It might make economic sense to modify a ship or two to go out there, skim it off the ocean surface (the top few feet or so) and bring it to shore. There it could be converted back to it's original form, petroleum, run through a gasification plant, or burned as-is in an incinerator for power. Even if it only breaks even with the fuel usage of the ship(s), it still solves the problem, no? (but would require government funding for operational expenses, yes). One might even consider a factory ship where processing was contained on the vessel.
Some of the senior geeks remember HP BASIC, etc. and using it to do real work. I've seen CFD and FEA done with Quick Basic on a 386 in a laboratory environment. If your choices were BASIC and FORTRAN (both were common in engineering applications in the 80's and on through the '90's), the BASIC compiler was often cheaper by an order of magnitude and more approachable.
I tend to agree with that idea. DOS was the upstart (and initially a poor clone) and CP/M was entrenched. It could have become the foundation if not for a shrewd move by B. Gates and company.
That's partially what's responsible for the failure that's put us in this recession. In general though, they're much too simple to fail catastrophically. You're talking about having the machine make decisions on the order of "if the average drops below x, sell". Well, they're more complex than that; but, you get the idea I think.
There's no human in the loop after they've set up the trading algorithm.
So let me make sure I have this right: you're comparing a 1.2kW 30' consumer grade single household turbine to a 200-250' 3-5MW commercial wind turbine? You're not serious are you? Let me do a little math.... The Windspire turbine is 2000 to 4000 times smaller than the commercial power plants the NYT article is discussing.
Those aren't spark plugs, they're glow plugs. different animal altogether. No spark, just a hot wire...
follow up... I just checked again and the amount of radiation received due to fly-ash, for someone living next to the power plant, is like 1.5 to 15 mrem/yr per usgs. The higher number is only an additional 5% above background of 360 mrem /yr average. The worst case measured was around 50mrem / yr, due to contamination of the ground where food was being grown resulting in a buildup within the body of those eating the food. They are fairly insignificant numbers.
Still doesn't make much sense, even if it is more radioactive than the surrounding dirt. It was essentially thrown in there gratuitously.
What's with the reference to the coal fly-ash spill in the middle of the summary about TVA building nuclear power plants?
policing the solar system, protecting the innocent inner planets from the evil attacking hordes.
What was published does not look like the complete study... The published report does not completely address the LAS but does make mention of using ejection seat analysis code to model the LAS system. I personally would like to see more detail on the LAS flight parameters myself. What the model does do is show that, based on this Air Force analysis, that the Orion would be decending through a cloud of burning solid fuel fragments; and, based on their analysis, they believe the Orion will not clear the burning fuel fragments, resulting in melt of the parachutes in the recovery system.
Let us not forget the up-mass issue. The claim is that the booster has plenty of up-mass; but, they've been cutting systems and putting constraints on the weight of the Orion in order to stay within those margins. During the Augustine Commission presentation I believe they said they currently had a 14% margin for up-mass (that's from memory; so, don't flame me). That's with a crew of 4. The claim is that the LAS is the limitation; but, what they're not saying is that they can't increase the capability of the LAS without increasing it's mass and cutting into the current margin. They designed the LAS knowing what the capabilities of the booster are, and what limitations that would put on the capsule. It's a circular argument that conveniently hides the issues at hand... The point is, the vehicle appears to not have the capability to do what it was commissioned to do: Reliably and safely lift a crew of 7 into LEO.
Interesting that. I believe the Air Force study compared both Titan and the Challenger, then used the Titan for the purposes of the presentation. So, there were TWO real world examples used. The only question in my mind is what is the LAS profile and how well did the Air Force model it -- they did claim to use their ejection seat code for the analysis and that is known to be a good model of reality.
The main engines on the shuttle run for around 8:30 depending on the mission profile. the boosters only for 2:06 at which point they are detached. There is a final kick by the OMS to circularize the orbit which occurs later (around that 45 minute point) but by then you're essentially already in orbit.
I agree with your general premise that it's still fairly safe... but comparing them to carrier ops! That's one of the most dangerous places in the world with respect to aviation.
They weren't allowed to use titanium. The Air Force had priority and was using all of the available material for other projects.
They were starting from scratch with a new design, not an upgrade of an existing one. New rocket design. New engines. New avionics. They're also working without a corporate mindshare of experience to fall back on, excluding those individual folks they've managed to hire away from Boeing, Lockheed, Rocketdyne, etc... Failure(s) during the first couple of launches of a new design are, historically, on par.
did they simulate the lack of gravity and radiation as well? I didn't think so. The ISS is a better simulation of the voyage. As has been pointed out, submariners routinely endure 100 day missions without outside contact; so, they didn't really prove much.