Com'on drop the "the rest of the world hates USA because you love freedom" routine...
It's not because we love freedom, it's because the US has become dominant. It's the same urge that drives everyone to hate Microsoft. Regardless of whether the US in the right or Microsoft makes good products, just the fact they are on top makes most people want to knock them off their throne.
Should another country, or even the EU, become the dominant force in the world, they are quite likely to be hated in turn by anyone not in their position. Call it envy or whatever, that feeling is there. Then, add on to that, perceived and real abuses, and a vast hatred is easy to develop.
I heard a story second hand from someone who went out to either a satellite or rocket manufacturer's plant, probably satellite. They said they saw a woman working in the clean room, had all her gear on. And sitting in the room beside her was her child coloring on some paper. So yes, the answer is not reading and/or obeying the instructions. And management not enforcing those instructions. Think about the NOAA satellite that was recently damaged at the manufacturer in a fall of a few feet. All because they didn't follow instructions.
It's probably more the dependence on the delivery system. If a rocket blows up, you're hosed and you move on. If the server farm fails, due to no fault of its own, you're to blame, and you need to fix it. And rockets back in the 70s failed about 10% of the time, maybe more.
The current Atlas (II and III) incarnations are at 70 consecutive successful launches. Delta has had only one failure in recent memory. Both vehicles are on par with the Shuttle, perhaps Atlas is slightly more likely to be successful. Titan is lower. Pegasus is slightly above 90% and the new rockets (Atlas V, Delta IV) have each had too few launches to predict future success or failure. Russian rockets have been pretty successful of late. Very little information comes out about the Chinese rockets. Ariane and any others have had recent failures; none of their safety records compare.
It is true that the Shuttle designers were forced to design a vehicle asked to do too many jobs, that was ill-fitted to do any of them. This was not their fault, it is NASA/DoD/Congress who is to blame for that. When the Shuttle's were designed, it should have had a more clearly designed mission: science, satellite delivery, station building, military payloads. Not all of the above. Especially since the military requirements have been unnecessary since the first accident.
And years later in the 80s, the Air Force launched an unmanned rocket through thick clouds and has some very nice pictures of lightning reaching up for the rocket and ruining a perfectly good satellite, no recovery on that incident. Central Florida records the most lightning strikes in the US (The world leader is in a part of Africa I believe). Rules were rewritten again after that event-for both manned and unmanned launches.
Well, actually many of them are not, they're technicians, with high school educations, at least the ones who install parts on the Shuttle. The engineers and scientists work in their offices. Though it's not like many engineers would bother to get their hands dirty.
Now, stating NASA has a horribly flawed QA process is not knee jerking, it more akin to saying Microsoft has a few security holes. It's pretty much just stating the obvious.
By your definition any satellite we put at one of Lagrange points is a planet. The point of classifications is to supposed to simplify discussions not complicate them. The problem is mostly due to trying to use a single criterion for determining what is a planet. There's been some good suggestions, and there should be several criteria.
Orbits the sun is pass/fail. Mass above a certain value then makes it a planet, else check further. Some possibilities are eccentricity of the orbit, how spherical the planet/planetoid is, size (as opposed to mass), escape velocity from the gravity well, atmosphere, etc....
Some of the above are better choices than others. For example, eccentricity of the orbit is a poor choice. A captured object should be just as likely to be called a planet as one formed with the original planets. Also, these criteria could be evaluated on a scale and total score applied, rather than pass fail on any chosen.. Just my $.012 after taxes.
Odds of a launched rocket running into an object in space are small, but not what I would consider astronomically small. Given several thousand objects in space, the odds of one item hitting another become very realistic, especially over time.
End-of-life plan yes. But if the satellite is part of a constellation (related group of satellites) and not in low Earth orbit (GPS is in semi-synchronous, in the middle) the typical plan is to raise their orbit at the end of life, not to lower them. This is for 2 reasons: (1) the satellite does not have enough fuel to bring it down to Earth in our lifetimes and (2) by being above the orbits, they are less likely to interfere with the constellation.
THe Slective availability option is always available. They jiggered with it as a matter of operating procedure until 2000. They can always turn it back on. Plus they try to optimize accuracy in areas of military operations (Iraq, Afghanistan). By just doing the reverse, they could increase the inaccuracy in regions. However, I doubt this could be used to large effect without impacting US military operations in a larger region. Plus, using too many such maneuvers would reduce the lifetime of the satellites (fuel is the precious, limited commodity)
Earlier GPS satellites had less features and probably cost less. There have been 50 launches.
Florida Today article is the local paper for Cape Canaveral and states that the Delta II launch costs are now $90 million. Whether that value includes the $45 million for the satellite itself, I don't know.
The satellites do have a design lifetime of less than 8 years. However, they have been lasting several years longe, typically lasting 10-11 years. The Air Force manages to keep quite a few working, even though particular satellites may have several subsystems failing. The satellites that are coming after the GPSIIR run out have a longer design life, perhaps 10 years. Hence the Air Force has only launched 37 since SVN 13 in 1989, only 2.5 per year.
Yes, the government pays 105, maybe $135 million per launch.
Mostly the US has declared that it is 'unnecessary' for the EU to develop their own system or that the planned sytem would disrupt GPS (the planned improvements to GPS due to similar frequencies). Recently the US has come to an agreement with the EU about how the satellites will work. So it does appear that Galileo will become a reality.
Yep it's off with the ability to turn it back on should the need arise. However, the political backlash would probably cost a president his re-election, so Bush wouldn't do it till after the election.
A couple more GPS IIR then the upgrade GPS will be launched, then several years after that another upgrade will start going up.
It was a very nice launch on a beautiful Florida day.
True, but then all the companies making firewalls would get the government(s) to declare Microsoft a monopoly preventing them from selling their products. Probably because even if Microsoft were to create an effective firewall, they probably would depend on monopolistic activities to sell their product rather than depend on a superior product--all hypothetical of course.
Agreed. The most obscene speech lately is that coming out of Michael Powell's mouth. Instead of legilating and fining these things out of existence, parents should be teaching their children how to deal with it, typically by changing the station. This nation wants to blame society every time something goes wrong and then try to 'fix' society. It's always the wrong fix. If you're worried about what the children can see and be affected, start with the people who control those things--parents. And not by legislating the fix. By smacking them in the head every time they want the government to raise their kids for them.
I think the law should include all shows discussing religion, politics or law should begin with a disclaimer that the content within is dangerous to your pursuit of life, liberty, and/or happiness.
Ditto. I always pictured a chalkboard in my mind and the calculations on the chalkboard. With this I could remember quite a few digits in my brain, though as the number of digits went up, I slowed down. These kind of exercises also helped my memory improve, as I had to recall many digits.
Eventually, for the simpler, and/or recurring, ones, pattern recognition kicks in. For example, square numbers, plus the 'tricks' (like 65*65 = (60+5)*(60+10-5) = 60*70 - 60*5 +60*5 +10*5 - 5*5 = 60*70+25=4225, or in general n5*n5 = n*(n+1)*100 + 25.
This is why it is so important to remember your single digit multiplication tables. Instant recognition of 7*9=63. Once single digit is easy, practice double digit. Learn the 'tricks' till it's pattern recognition. Obviously, just like getting good at sports, how good/fast you want to be depends on how much effort you put into it.
In my case, after college, I stopped using most of the speed and tricks, and I lost some of my ability. But the visualization/memory skills are more useful than the math these days, and I have a job as a mathematician.
Reminds me of something a Sergeant once told me about handling emails. If the email was really important to handle, you'll get a second email (or phone call). He was also within two years of retiring.
Well if you found sex and marriage before you became a slashdotter, like myself, then you probably do have sex. I have found that having kids reduces your chances of sex probably as much as being a slashdotter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not because we love freedom, it's because the US has become dominant. It's the same urge that drives everyone to hate Microsoft. Regardless of whether the US in the right or Microsoft makes good products, just the fact they are on top makes most people want to knock them off their throne.
Should another country, or even the EU, become the dominant force in the world, they are quite likely to be hated in turn by anyone not in their position. Call it envy or whatever, that feeling is there. Then, add on to that, perceived and real abuses, and a vast hatred is easy to develop.
You mean the treaty the USSR violated a long time ago with their missile shield protecting Moscow?
I heard a story second hand from someone who went out to either a satellite or rocket manufacturer's plant, probably satellite. They said they saw a woman working in the clean room, had all her gear on. And sitting in the room beside her was her child coloring on some paper. So yes, the answer is not reading and/or obeying the instructions. And management not enforcing those instructions. Think about the NOAA satellite that was recently damaged at the manufacturer in a fall of a few feet. All because they didn't follow instructions.
It's probably more the dependence on the delivery system. If a rocket blows up, you're hosed and you move on. If the server farm fails, due to no fault of its own, you're to blame, and you need to fix it. And rockets back in the 70s failed about 10% of the time, maybe more.
The current Atlas (II and III) incarnations are at 70 consecutive successful launches. Delta has had only one failure in recent memory. Both vehicles are on par with the Shuttle, perhaps Atlas is slightly more likely to be successful. Titan is lower. Pegasus is slightly above 90% and the new rockets (Atlas V, Delta IV) have each had too few launches to predict future success or failure. Russian rockets have been pretty successful of late. Very little information comes out about the Chinese rockets. Ariane and any others have had recent failures; none of their safety records compare.
It is true that the Shuttle designers were forced to design a vehicle asked to do too many jobs, that was ill-fitted to do any of them. This was not their fault, it is NASA/DoD/Congress who is to blame for that. When the Shuttle's were designed, it should have had a more clearly designed mission: science, satellite delivery, station building, military payloads. Not all of the above. Especially since the military requirements have been unnecessary since the first accident.
And years later in the 80s, the Air Force launched an unmanned rocket through thick clouds and has some very nice pictures of lightning reaching up for the rocket and ruining a perfectly good satellite, no recovery on that incident. Central Florida records the most lightning strikes in the US (The world leader is in a part of Africa I believe). Rules were rewritten again after that event-for both manned and unmanned launches.
Well, actually many of them are not, they're technicians, with high school educations, at least the ones who install parts on the Shuttle. The engineers and scientists work in their offices. Though it's not like many engineers would bother to get their hands dirty.
Now, stating NASA has a horribly flawed QA process is not knee jerking, it more akin to saying Microsoft has a few security holes. It's pretty much just stating the obvious.
The missileers I've worked with used to make this comment, but never mentioned a lid painted this way. But knowing the types, I would not doubt it.
I've seen the cartoons, and he always seemed to care what Mickey called him.
By your definition any satellite we put at one of Lagrange points is a planet. The point of classifications is to supposed to simplify discussions not complicate them. The problem is mostly due to trying to use a single criterion for determining what is a planet. There's been some good suggestions, and there should be several criteria.
Orbits the sun is pass/fail. Mass above a certain value then makes it a planet, else check further. Some possibilities are eccentricity of the orbit, how spherical the planet/planetoid is, size (as opposed to mass), escape velocity from the gravity well, atmosphere, etc....
Some of the above are better choices than others. For example, eccentricity of the orbit is a poor choice. A captured object should be just as likely to be called a planet as one formed with the original planets. Also, these criteria could be evaluated on a scale and total score applied, rather than pass fail on any chosen.. Just my $.012 after taxes.
Odds of a launched rocket running into an object in space are small, but not what I would consider astronomically small. Given several thousand objects in space, the odds of one item hitting another become very realistic, especially over time.
it was a IIR, IIF won't launch for several more years.
End-of-life plan yes. But if the satellite is part of a constellation (related group of satellites) and not in low Earth orbit (GPS is in semi-synchronous, in the middle) the typical plan is to raise their orbit at the end of life, not to lower them. This is for 2 reasons: (1) the satellite does not have enough fuel to bring it down to Earth in our lifetimes and (2) by being above the orbits, they are less likely to interfere with the constellation.
THe Slective availability option is always available. They jiggered with it as a matter of operating procedure until 2000. They can always turn it back on. Plus they try to optimize accuracy in areas of military operations (Iraq, Afghanistan). By just doing the reverse, they could increase the inaccuracy in regions. However, I doubt this could be used to large effect without impacting US military operations in a larger region. Plus, using too many such maneuvers would reduce the lifetime of the satellites (fuel is the precious, limited commodity)
Earlier GPS satellites had less features and probably cost less. There have been 50 launches.
Florida Today article is the local paper for Cape Canaveral and states that the Delta II launch costs are now $90 million. Whether that value includes the $45 million for the satellite itself, I don't know.
The satellites do have a design lifetime of less than 8 years. However, they have been lasting several years longe, typically lasting 10-11 years. The Air Force manages to keep quite a few working, even though particular satellites may have several subsystems failing. The satellites that are coming after the GPSIIR run out have a longer design life, perhaps 10 years. Hence the Air Force has only launched 37 since SVN 13 in 1989, only 2.5 per year.
Yes, the government pays 105, maybe $135 million per launch.
Mostly the US has declared that it is 'unnecessary' for the EU to develop their own system or that the planned sytem would disrupt GPS (the planned improvements to GPS due to similar frequencies). Recently the US has come to an agreement with the EU about how the satellites will work. So it does appear that Galileo will become a reality.
Forbes magazine
EU viewpoint
Yep it's off with the ability to turn it back on should the need arise. However, the political backlash would probably cost a president his re-election, so Bush wouldn't do it till after the election.
A couple more GPS IIR then the upgrade GPS will be launched, then several years after that another upgrade will start going up.
It was a very nice launch on a beautiful Florida day.
True, but then all the companies making firewalls would get the government(s) to declare Microsoft a monopoly preventing them from selling their products. Probably because even if Microsoft were to create an effective firewall, they probably would depend on monopolistic activities to sell their product rather than depend on a superior product--all hypothetical of course.
Agreed. The most obscene speech lately is that coming out of Michael Powell's mouth. Instead of legilating and fining these things out of existence, parents should be teaching their children how to deal with it, typically by changing the station. This nation wants to blame society every time something goes wrong and then try to 'fix' society. It's always the wrong fix. If you're worried about what the children can see and be affected, start with the people who control those things--parents. And not by legislating the fix. By smacking them in the head every time they want the government to raise their kids for them.
I think the law should include all shows discussing religion, politics or law should begin with a disclaimer that the content within is dangerous to your pursuit of life, liberty, and/or happiness.
Ditto. I always pictured a chalkboard in my mind and the calculations on the chalkboard. With this I could remember quite a few digits in my brain, though as the number of digits went up, I slowed down. These kind of exercises also helped my memory improve, as I had to recall many digits.
Eventually, for the simpler, and/or recurring, ones, pattern recognition kicks in. For example, square numbers, plus the 'tricks' (like 65*65 = (60+5)*(60+10-5) = 60*70 - 60*5 +60*5 +10*5 - 5*5 = 60*70+25=4225, or in general n5*n5 = n*(n+1)*100 + 25.
This is why it is so important to remember your single digit multiplication tables. Instant recognition of 7*9=63. Once single digit is easy, practice double digit. Learn the 'tricks' till it's pattern recognition. Obviously, just like getting good at sports, how good/fast you want to be depends on how much effort you put into it.
In my case, after college, I stopped using most of the speed and tricks, and I lost some of my ability. But the visualization/memory skills are more useful than the math these days, and I have a job as a mathematician.
Reminds me of something a Sergeant once told me about handling emails. If the email was really important to handle, you'll get a second email (or phone call). He was also within two years of retiring.
Well if you found sex and marriage before you became a slashdotter, like myself, then you probably do have sex. I have found that having kids reduces your chances of sex probably as much as being a slashdotter.