Ah, I see where it's coming from. Don't worry, I also had childhood marvell at the Space Shuttle, disregarding "primitive" capsules.
But I grew out of it.
It's really funny how you accused me of following emotional judgments previously (just...re-read your post)
That said, I might as well try to continue replying on the level...
Where did I claim that the feature of ballistic reentry "just happens"? That it doesn't require any engineering? (point is - it requires much less than winged orbiter). Also, NASA didn't have other heavy launcher options specifcally because of the fixation on the Shuttle. Which in itself is a very pathetic heavy launcher, wasting most of its launch mass for structures needed in its reentry profile. Enlarged abort boundaries never proved usefull (and it's debatable they would help, since even loss of one engine too soon means loss of crew in many cases anyway; certainly it requires no damage). Enlarged landing ooportunities are another backwards argument - they are needed only because Shutle must land on the runway.
But hey, carry on, I understand that shattering your childhood heroes (not by me, no; by all space agencies in the world...but what you said at the end shows you don't have much repsect for their work anyway...so why bother about Shuttle or the topic generally?) can be painful.
Fair enough. But IMHO it's also important to consider if that particular failure mode increases the risk further?
I don't think so...as it seems to be used to decrease the perceived risk in non-nominal situations (it's almost like they are sometimes using it in "something is not right, better fallback to ballistic") and was used exlusively with the first spacecrafts; guided reentry seems to be more for comfort and better control over landing site / shortening time of extraction (which I admit lowers other risks). Ballistic reentry is the default behaviour of Soyuz construction, requiring less effort (well, at least from the spacecraft; crew and g-forces are another matter)
Sure, they both have comparable number of flights (and Soyuz, unlike Shuttle, is on its way to have much more; btw, how should we count Progress?) with the same number of fatal ones...but an important historical fact is when, at which stage of the program, in what external circumstances the accidents happened. I don't attach any value to the operating procedures of respective agencies. It's just, again, historical fact that underestimating the risks seems to work, in the long term, much better for Soyuz than for Shuttle.
And please, automotive comparisons?... Also, remember that ballistic reentry is not a safety features that was tackled on. It's an inherent bonus of the design (so Soyuz can afford to underestimate the risks that most likely lead to ballistic reentry; just like you can rush on transatlantic cruise because big enough ships are...ugh...unsinkable;) )
While pointing the failure mode of shedding sections, you should remember that there are no orbital manned spacecrafts which don't do that. And, like Soyuz, Shuttle also does it in very risky fashion (mainly regarding SRB separation)
As for russian rullette and the reasons why we're going back to capsules... First, I should stress that my initial mention of Shuttle was just, aiming to be slightly silly, pointing out speficic failure mode which happens on Soyuz and was survivable up to now, and also which is generally much worse news (however unlikely in itself, disregarding other major malfunctions which are itself catastrophic) on the Shuttle, due to its much narrower tolerances for errors - simply looking at the complexity of it supports that last notion. And secondly, here's the deal: yes, you CAN work around the overall concept being more risky (as NASA certainly did, Shuttle does have good safety record overall). But...why do you think minimising cost (for at least the same safety!) is a bad thing? Does NASA have even 1/10 of the budget that went to Iraq war?...
Capsules are simply more sensible with our current technical capabilies and budget limits. It's hard to defend the Shuttle when large part of its design concept was greatly influenced by military requirements...which were never utilised (but caused great waste of resources) More than that, it was limited by budgetary constraints - for example, at the early design stages, it was sometimes envisioned as having ejectable cabin...essentially a capsule (that could perhaps afford survival in Challenger and Columbia accidents). Who am I to argue with designers of Shuttle? Space agencies and private ventures all over the world also seem to mostly agree.
Yes, because every human on this planet that wants a mobile phone already has one. Also, none of those that already have one (or will have in the feature) will buy a new one down the road, with more features/etc. (but still at prices way below at which Apple is aiming)
What? You have a weird way of saying that, while soviet/russian space programme is plagued by problems (now mostly financial ones, and in the past - ridiculously understood deadlines), Soyuz almost always manages to bring people back even with major malfunctions; it has survivable failure modes, to much greater degree than the Shuttle.
Historical data are a fact. Soyuz, but also had no fatalities for a long, long time.
You seem to forget that ballistic reentry is a survivable emergency mode, a very usefull safety feature; being able to deorbit without control; a feature that all capsules share (and early ones were purely ballistic...)
Yes, they were lucky...that the couplings with service module seem to be designed in a way that causes them to break off (soon enough to prevent burning through hatch; the specific contruction of the Soyuz capsule also surely helps) even when the separation fails (I'm NOT claiming that's necesserally a delibarate design decision!)
Another fact/question: why the US is going "back" to capsules?
Make sure you are sure of your facts before writing sucvh suggestion...
In the case of Challenger...there really wasn't much of an explosion. What looked like it happened below the stack, when fuel tank, badly damaged by oscilating SRB, dumped its oxidizer and fuel. The forces on the stack rapidly changed, beyond the compensation of the engines (which were still firing with the leftovers in fuel lines). All this happening in the time of ascent when aerodynamic forces are the greates didn't help. Those forxes were the thing that shred the whole stack to pieces.
As for Columbia...it was a very gradual process, with changing aerodynamics on the one damaged wing, and autopilot fighting the uneven forces. When they exceeded its capabilites to compensate, the orbited went out of control and was, again, shred to pieces by aerodynamic forces.
Remember that I didn't say the aerdynamic forces were the culprit. Yes, Challanger was badly damaged from SRB. Columbia had badly damaged wing. I just said that the immediate cause of disintegration wre aerdynamic forces that exceeded the toleranxces of the orbiter. Something which is really hard to do with a capsule.
I seem to remember one of the explanations for delay in international Kindle launch was "negotiating with carriers" (isn't it still used by Amazon somewhere?)
But for roaming you don't need any negotiations, AT&T already did those...so is it really roaming what international Kindle uses? Or did Amazon choose such terms?
Also, with competition between carriers much higher in the EU, with much better prices, and with a low bandwith device like Kindle, one would guess Amazon would be able to find carriers willing to offer service like for US Kindles... (I can certainly name one in my country: with a prepaid account active for 1 year after any recharge, and also prepaid 5GB for around $15...what is a Kindle?)
Their original stated goal was 10% market penetration. According to some reports, they achieved that in first two quarters of this year (worldwide, not just U.S.).
See, the thing is...they didn't. They achieved 10% but only of the smartphone market (with the "smartphone" being in itself quite fluid term...under some definitions iPhone OS doesn't qualify; heck, SE featurephones might be close enough to fall into it under slightly different criteria, they sure do have multitasking). But smartphones are still a small part of the total mobile phone market; vast majority of devices sold are cheap feature phones.
And here's the deal: Nokia pushes Symbian to replace S40. Android device makers stated their plans to bring sub $100 devices already in the next year (and how soon sub $50? Prices without contract of course) This will be when they will grow immenselly, they won't even have to really steal marketshare from each other. Apple doesn't even plan to compete, as you wrote. How long will they be able to find new market segments that keep them succesfull?
It's not that the astronauts are saying it...the facts (your quote) simply support that notion.
The two fatal accidents it had at the beginning were because of a) rushing it into service (first accident) b) disgarding common sense safety (crew not in pressure suits for reentry). Yes, it had a few rough, ballistic reentries, but it survived them. Heck, even reentering the atmosphere with the upper hatch acting as heatshield worked (upside down, basically, due to failure in detaching service module and changed aerodynamics of the spacecraft; try flying a Space Shuttle in "wrong" orientation to the airflow...oh wait, both Challenger and Columbia did it, and look how it ended (in both cases the immediate cause of orbiter disintegration were aerodynamic forces))
Only Nokia Siemens lost money. The rest is profitable. (also, I'd like to point out that looking at a single quarter...well, fixation on short term really helped with recent recession; really...)
Also, stop with this "iPhone is taking over" BS. Yes, Apple pushed the market forward, and they should be applauded for it. But outside US, Japan and few other countries, iPhone practically doesn't exist. It will be similar story as with Macs and PCs. Soon the biggest, by far, market for smartphone growth will be in dozens of countries you don't even hear about. Places where Apple doesn't even have the will to be present. Places where Macs and iPods never existed. Where Nokia completelly dominates. Where Symbian (and Android, I'd guess) will carve a huge userbase.
The reason you imply is BS. The paperwork itself to prepare for this Nokia claim would take many months (plus there were apaprently negotiations)
Nokia is the ONLY profitable mobile phone manufacturer (others either quit the market, or mobile phones aren't their main product; RIM is debatable, though they don't seem to sell mobile phones per se, more enterprise solutions). They aren't far from "Nokia has more marketshare than all other manufacturers combined". Their smarpthones have half of the market. Such small loss doesn't seem significant for their long-term well being.
It seems they talk about nationality, not place of residence... (you might want to check the list of countries, you're elligible only if being from one of few participating in this program; I'm not;/ )
Yeah...couldn't they just select individuals who are used to similar disfunctional enviroments (and at the same time also excited with the goals; there should be some...) instead of going with "stars" (in normal social contexts)?
Yeah...but human drivers don't work, I think, purely in "absolutesteering wheel position" fashion, also largery in "require strenght" fashion, so it's perhaps not as clear cut... (that said, I must strees I'm not disagreeing that wheel is a much better car controller than a joystick)
Regardign Negcon - perhaps you're trying to hold it vertically? Let you right hand in "maximum left" position be on top, with left hand on bottom (and vice verse when steering right)
The steering mechanism having different levels of influence over the wheels depending on speed just seems like a recipe for disaster.
But it's like that already in current cars - when the speed increases, steering assist disengages.
(that said - steering wheel is a very good interface for a car; and not the first one, as commonly believed; otoh...Negcon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeGcon - definatelly better than joystick, I can assure you...and at least almost as good as steering wheel)
Benefits of both steering wheel (precision, hard to make accidental movements) and joysticks (quickly moving between extremes), but without their flaws!
Cars at the beginning didn't have steering wheels. They had...a sort of lever; basically vertical steering wheel with very limited movement range, something more similar to joysticks than to the proper steering wheel.
At least it seems to have plastic back, not metal one... (seriously, what idiot manager at Amazon thought making the case of a book cold & fingerprint attracting was a good idea?)
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see where it's coming from. Don't worry, I also had childhood marvell at the Space Shuttle, disregarding "primitive" capsules.
But I grew out of it.
It's really funny how you accused me of following emotional judgments previously (just...re-read your post)
That said, I might as well try to continue replying on the level...
Where did I claim that the feature of ballistic reentry "just happens"? That it doesn't require any engineering? (point is - it requires much less than winged orbiter). Also, NASA didn't have other heavy launcher options specifcally because of the fixation on the Shuttle. Which in itself is a very pathetic heavy launcher, wasting most of its launch mass for structures needed in its reentry profile. Enlarged abort boundaries never proved usefull (and it's debatable they would help, since even loss of one engine too soon means loss of crew in many cases anyway; certainly it requires no damage). Enlarged landing ooportunities are another backwards argument - they are needed only because Shutle must land on the runway.
But hey, carry on, I understand that shattering your childhood heroes (not by me, no; by all space agencies in the world...but what you said at the end shows you don't have much repsect for their work anyway...so why bother about Shuttle or the topic generally?) can be painful.
Fair enough. But IMHO it's also important to consider if that particular failure mode increases the risk further?
I don't think so...as it seems to be used to decrease the perceived risk in non-nominal situations (it's almost like they are sometimes using it in "something is not right, better fallback to ballistic") and was used exlusively with the first spacecrafts; guided reentry seems to be more for comfort and better control over landing site / shortening time of extraction (which I admit lowers other risks). Ballistic reentry is the default behaviour of Soyuz construction, requiring less effort (well, at least from the spacecraft; crew and g-forces are another matter)
Sure, they both have comparable number of flights (and Soyuz, unlike Shuttle, is on its way to have much more; btw, how should we count Progress?) with the same number of fatal ones...but an important historical fact is when, at which stage of the program, in what external circumstances the accidents happened. I don't attach any value to the operating procedures of respective agencies. It's just, again, historical fact that underestimating the risks seems to work, in the long term, much better for Soyuz than for Shuttle.
And please, automotive comparisons?... Also, remember that ballistic reentry is not a safety features that was tackled on. It's an inherent bonus of the design (so Soyuz can afford to underestimate the risks that most likely lead to ballistic reentry; just like you can rush on transatlantic cruise because big enough ships are...ugh...unsinkable ;) )
While pointing the failure mode of shedding sections, you should remember that there are no orbital manned spacecrafts which don't do that. And, like Soyuz, Shuttle also does it in very risky fashion (mainly regarding SRB separation)
As for russian rullette and the reasons why we're going back to capsules... First, I should stress that my initial mention of Shuttle was just, aiming to be slightly silly, pointing out speficic failure mode which happens on Soyuz and was survivable up to now, and also which is generally much worse news (however unlikely in itself, disregarding other major malfunctions which are itself catastrophic) on the Shuttle, due to its much narrower tolerances for errors - simply looking at the complexity of it supports that last notion. And secondly, here's the deal: yes, you CAN work around the overall concept being more risky (as NASA certainly did, Shuttle does have good safety record overall). But...why do you think minimising cost (for at least the same safety!) is a bad thing? Does NASA have even 1/10 of the budget that went to Iraq war?...
Capsules are simply more sensible with our current technical capabilies and budget limits. It's hard to defend the Shuttle when large part of its design concept was greatly influenced by military requirements...which were never utilised (but caused great waste of resources) More than that, it was limited by budgetary constraints - for example, at the early design stages, it was sometimes envisioned as having ejectable cabin...essentially a capsule (that could perhaps afford survival in Challenger and Columbia accidents). Who am I to argue with designers of Shuttle? Space agencies and private ventures all over the world also seem to mostly agree.
Yes, because every human on this planet that wants a mobile phone already has one. Also, none of those that already have one (or will have in the feature) will buy a new one down the road, with more features/etc. (but still at prices way below at which Apple is aiming)
What? You have a weird way of saying that, while soviet/russian space programme is plagued by problems (now mostly financial ones, and in the past - ridiculously understood deadlines), Soyuz almost always manages to bring people back even with major malfunctions; it has survivable failure modes, to much greater degree than the Shuttle.
Historical data are a fact. Soyuz, but also had no fatalities for a long, long time.
You seem to forget that ballistic reentry is a survivable emergency mode, a very usefull safety feature; being able to deorbit without control; a feature that all capsules share (and early ones were purely ballistic...)
Yes, they were lucky...that the couplings with service module seem to be designed in a way that causes them to break off (soon enough to prevent burning through hatch; the specific contruction of the Soyuz capsule also surely helps) even when the separation fails (I'm NOT claiming that's necesserally a delibarate design decision!)
Another fact/question: why the US is going "back" to capsules?
Make sure you are sure of your facts before writing sucvh suggestion...
In the case of Challenger...there really wasn't much of an explosion. What looked like it happened below the stack, when fuel tank, badly damaged by oscilating SRB, dumped its oxidizer and fuel. The forces on the stack rapidly changed, beyond the compensation of the engines (which were still firing with the leftovers in fuel lines). All this happening in the time of ascent when aerodynamic forces are the greates didn't help. Those forxes were the thing that shred the whole stack to pieces.
As for Columbia...it was a very gradual process, with changing aerodynamics on the one damaged wing, and autopilot fighting the uneven forces. When they exceeded its capabilites to compensate, the orbited went out of control and was, again, shred to pieces by aerodynamic forces.
Remember that I didn't say the aerdynamic forces were the culprit. Yes, Challanger was badly damaged from SRB. Columbia had badly damaged wing. I just said that the immediate cause of disintegration wre aerdynamic forces that exceeded the toleranxces of the orbiter. Something which is really hard to do with a capsule.
I seem to remember one of the explanations for delay in international Kindle launch was "negotiating with carriers" (isn't it still used by Amazon somewhere?)
But for roaming you don't need any negotiations, AT&T already did those...so is it really roaming what international Kindle uses? Or did Amazon choose such terms?
Also, with competition between carriers much higher in the EU, with much better prices, and with a low bandwith device like Kindle, one would guess Amazon would be able to find carriers willing to offer service like for US Kindles... (I can certainly name one in my country: with a prepaid account active for 1 year after any recharge, and also prepaid 5GB for around $15...what is a Kindle?)
Their original stated goal was 10% market penetration. According to some reports, they achieved that in first two quarters of this year (worldwide, not just U.S.).
See, the thing is...they didn't. They achieved 10% but only of the smartphone market (with the "smartphone" being in itself quite fluid term...under some definitions iPhone OS doesn't qualify; heck, SE featurephones might be close enough to fall into it under slightly different criteria, they sure do have multitasking). But smartphones are still a small part of the total mobile phone market; vast majority of devices sold are cheap feature phones.
And here's the deal: Nokia pushes Symbian to replace S40. Android device makers stated their plans to bring sub $100 devices already in the next year (and how soon sub $50? Prices without contract of course) This will be when they will grow immenselly, they won't even have to really steal marketshare from each other. Apple doesn't even plan to compete, as you wrote. How long will they be able to find new market segments that keep them succesfull?
It's not that the astronauts are saying it...the facts (your quote) simply support that notion.
The two fatal accidents it had at the beginning were because of a) rushing it into service (first accident) b) disgarding common sense safety (crew not in pressure suits for reentry). Yes, it had a few rough, ballistic reentries, but it survived them. Heck, even reentering the atmosphere with the upper hatch acting as heatshield worked (upside down, basically, due to failure in detaching service module and changed aerodynamics of the spacecraft; try flying a Space Shuttle in "wrong" orientation to the airflow...oh wait, both Challenger and Columbia did it, and look how it ended (in both cases the immediate cause of orbiter disintegration were aerodynamic forces))
Only Nokia Siemens lost money. The rest is profitable. (also, I'd like to point out that looking at a single quarter...well, fixation on short term really helped with recent recession; really...)
Also, stop with this "iPhone is taking over" BS. Yes, Apple pushed the market forward, and they should be applauded for it. But outside US, Japan and few other countries, iPhone practically doesn't exist. It will be similar story as with Macs and PCs. Soon the biggest, by far, market for smartphone growth will be in dozens of countries you don't even hear about. Places where Apple doesn't even have the will to be present. Places where Macs and iPods never existed. Where Nokia completelly dominates. Where Symbian (and Android, I'd guess) will carve a huge userbase.
Or Apple simply believes they can get better terms than other manufacturers...
Regarding 1), free wiki acess anywhere seems really nice. I guess that falls under "disabling web browser" also?
Oh well; no Kindle for me then.
The reason you imply is BS. The paperwork itself to prepare for this Nokia claim would take many months (plus there were apaprently negotiations)
Nokia is the ONLY profitable mobile phone manufacturer (others either quit the market, or mobile phones aren't their main product; RIM is debatable, though they don't seem to sell mobile phones per se, more enterprise solutions). They aren't far from "Nokia has more marketshare than all other manufacturers combined". Their smarpthones have half of the market. Such small loss doesn't seem significant for their long-term well being.
...and saves wasting time for commuting.
(though really, you do know that bubble thing is bs?)
Sooo...what about "unusually"?
It seems they talk about nationality, not place of residence... (you might want to check the list of countries, you're elligible only if being from one of few participating in this program; I'm not ;/ )
Hate to break it to you, but everybody has 100% chance of death.
Yeah...couldn't they just select individuals who are used to similar disfunctional enviroments (and at the same time also excited with the goals; there should be some...) instead of going with "stars" (in normal social contexts)?
Yeah...but human drivers don't work, I think, purely in "absolutesteering wheel position" fashion, also largery in "require strenght" fashion, so it's perhaps not as clear cut... (that said, I must strees I'm not disagreeing that wheel is a much better car controller than a joystick)
Regardign Negcon - perhaps you're trying to hold it vertically? Let you right hand in "maximum left" position be on top, with left hand on bottom (and vice verse when steering right)
So...why the biggest passenger plane in the world (and every Airbus for that matter) has joysticks? ;)
The steering mechanism having different levels of influence over the wheels depending on speed just seems like a recipe for disaster.
But it's like that already in current cars - when the speed increases, steering assist disengages.
(that said - steering wheel is a very good interface for a car; and not the first one, as commonly believed; otoh...Negcon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeGcon - definatelly better than joystick, I can assure you...and at least almost as good as steering wheel)
That I would love ;p
Benefits of both steering wheel (precision, hard to make accidental movements) and joysticks (quickly moving between extremes), but without their flaws!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeGcon )
Cars at the beginning didn't have steering wheels. They had...a sort of lever; basically vertical steering wheel with very limited movement range, something more similar to joysticks than to the proper steering wheel.
At least it seems to have plastic back, not metal one... (seriously, what idiot manager at Amazon thought making the case of a book cold & fingerprint attracting was a good idea?)