I don't know why but for some strange reason every time someone talks about Flash the Queen Song Flash jumps into my head.
Flash - ah - saviour of the universe
Flash - ah - it'll save ev'ry one of us
Flash - ah - it's a miracle
Flash - ah - king of the impossible
It's for ev'ry one of us
Stands for ev'ry one of us
It'll save with a mighty hand
Ev'ry man ev'ry woman ev'ry child
With a mighty flash
Flash - ah
Flash - ah - it'll save ev'ry one of us
No "might be" about it. Those are *definately not* pictures of Aurora. They're pictures of a prop from the (VERY, VERY BAD) movie Stealth. It's even mentioned in the Aurora article you linked.
Indeed - a few people have pointed that out and that seems to be the focus despite me saying "it *might* be" as I never seen the pictures before. As I didn't see the apparently crappy movie I didn't make the connection, thanks for pointing out the entry on the wiki though.
I know now why I made a rule about never posting when I have a flu and while I think that much of my reasoning was valid one little error gets you roasted here. I feel my rule has been reinforced quite adequately now and next time I'll stick to moderating.
What makes this interesting is the speculation surrounding the SR-91 Aurora. Due to treaties between the US and (at the time) USSR the SR-71 Blackbird had to be retired because manned intelligence flights were against the terms of the treaty.
Of course the treaty didn't say anything about unmanned flights and this is where the SR-91 comes into it. This *might* be a picture of a SR-91. The cockpit makes me wonder what I'm looking at, if it can be piloted/unpiloted. I don't know for sure. Kudos to Yankee engineering though, it looks fast.
The scramjet powering the test aircraft is one thing aside, the avionics to remotely control something this fast is what I'm interested in. The B2 bomber was criticised for being so far over budget but it would be if two aircraft that share control system technology were being developed. Both would have inputs to computer controller flight surfaces. The game of subterfuge in military craft is fascinating especially when it the politicians that wear the heat for a failure that is actually, secretly, a success. I know, it's all speculation.
I reason that this might include deliberately understating the capabilities of craft such as this. The SR-71 engines are reported as most efficient at mach 3.5 but that doesn't indicate top speed - which is probably still classified - and the SR-91 (that officially doesn't exist) which may cruise somewhere between mach 3-6 reveals a lot about how quickly intelligence gathering about any part of the world can be done. Say a rough estimate of any part of the world within 3 hours, maybe there are things that just can't be done with a satellite?
It says much about the intelligence capability that the US doesn't readily advertise, and where that capability (that doesn't officially exist) is going when a prototype vehicle is aiming for Mach 6. Kudos for the Univerity of Queensland to for getting the first test engine going.
Something tells me that most American spaceflights will still be done using Russian technology, taking off from Kazakhstan, and operated by Russian ground and flight crews, for at least the next two decades.
Who'd of thought that they were watching the future of American space flight when they first launched sputnik.
I'm sorry it just seems that it's the same 'gonna do this gonna do that' and it never happens.
I think at this point we could reopen the debate on the effects of a nuclear plant failing compared to an oil line failing. And how much easier and effective it is to drop a cofferdam on a nuclear core than a well miles below the surface of water.
What this disaster illustrates is that these corporations are prepared to take these huge risks without adequate precautions. No one knows the precautions are inadequate until it is too late. It's a theme repeated over and over again in every industry including Nuclear.
What we are seeing here are the results of systemic failures that exists in the very structure of Industry. Simply that preventing these massive externalities are perceived to cost too much by these companies. It's not just short sighted, it's not just Malicious Criminal Negligence because the risks are known but the budget to mitigate the risk is not approved by the key stakeholders. The real debate is how we force them to not take the risk. These disasters are symptomatic of a debate we have never had.
What penalty is too great for a corporation to risk? In the US, which some say is the most litigious country in the world, everyone should be able to sue BP out of existence. Parent companies should also be liable, internationally, to force a top down view of risk. All shareholder profits should be forfeit to pay for the disaster - because shareholders have a responsibility to influence what risks are intolerable. The board is fired along with senior management, their assets are seized. Those executives are personally culpable, have criminal charges pressed and their permanent record indicates that they risked this happening, that they allowed this to happen. Corporate execution by dissolving the companies charter *should* be the final act.
But it never is.
So humanity is doomed to live this lesson over and over again - because this is allowed to happen.
Sooner or later companys will stop doing things that endanger the environment or peoples lives... Or we'll run out of CEO's. either way... it would be an improvement.
Maybe we could plug the leak with oil industry executive salaries? It's the only thing large enough known to continually expand providing enough pressure to seal the leak.
I know you're just trying to make a point... but seriously, it's pretty doubtful the CEO had any real clue about the shortcuts that were taken that compromised safety in this situation.
Edicts for the culture and attitude of the company come from the top. If the culture was to prevent this type of accident at all costs it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the cost of preventing the accident was not one they could incur and now the CEO will be troubled by how to avoid all this incoming expenditure to mitigate the affects of the accident. After all of BP's 'We're so green m'kay' ads they are just hypocrites.
CEO's usually worry about the high level decisions. Someone's decision to remove one of the lock-down devices on part of a containment cap and replace it with a dummy version to make demo tests easier? Probably NOT something that was ever kicked up to him to sign off on.....
Sure he probably wouldn't have concerned himself with costs under a few hundred million. More likely it was kicked up to someone who had been directed not to exceed a certain budget and the request was not approved by them instead.
(He or she is already going to be punished by that whole "financially accountable" part -- since that's the performance metric his/her job performance is usually judged by.)
In time oil industry executives will just put prices up to pass the costs onto the taxpayer and claim the costs for their error on their corporate tax return. This will mitigate the costs incurred by the disaster on the companies profit margin and justify a pay increase. We have seen over the period of the Global Financial Crisis that executives salaries have to find a way to increase because of -insert reason here-. Oil executives know this procedure.
This is people putting money before safety. This isn't an "accident". I would consider an earthquake ripping the BOP off the well an accident. I would consider a jet crashing on the rig and somehow managing to destroy the BOP an accident. This was people cutting corners and getting caught.
BP is doing everything possible to fix the problem, while we sit on the sidelines and debate their ineffectiveness.
I think you should look into Exxon Valdez oil spill which destroyed Prince William Sound. The impetus, by law, of any corporation's board is to maximise the dividends paid to shareholders. BP will do, or should I say, is doing everything it can do now to minimise this accident's effect on it's stock price.
BP is doing everything possible to fix the problem, while we sit on the sidelines and debate their ineffectiveness.
I would not doubt that there are people in BP saying 'Why isn't the government doing more to fix this? We already take a big risk". Their ineffectiveness is already proven because they could not *prevent* the accident occurring, it's not as if they don't already have experience doing what they do. They didn't do everything they could to prevent this happening because it cost too much for them - so they risked a spill equivalent to the potential for reward.
We look at the spill and see wasted oil and destroyed ecosystem, they see the spill and see wasted profit and try to devise how to avoid any further expenditure. They already have failed, the question now is how badly have they failed.
Have absolutely no doubt that the affect on profit is BP's primary motivation.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.
Until all citizens of the world are, at least, in control of this Iron Triangle we all will never truly be free of the constraints that hold us in the territorial notions and prejudices' that keep us from leaving the Earth and becoming 'Earthlings'.
Any way you look at it, it's a colossal waste of money and expertise. The shuttles represent an existing viable launch platform with all the necessary manufacturing, engineering and logistical support already in place...It's mind boggling that this program will be simply dismantled when we don't have another launch platform ready to go.
Soyuz is the most reliable manned spacecraft and it has direct roots all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program.
Which is what happens when you build a 'platform' and then continually develop it, which is what *should* have been done with Apollo.
To give an example of similar complexity (and whilst I'm not an aviation expert) it's hard to imagine the original 747's released continued to the latest model 747 without any improvements to their systems. When I say 'systems' I don't just mean aircraft systems but ground support 'system', repair procedures fault identification etc.
Now I know that much of the launch vehicle, in Apollo's case, ended up not being re-used when compared to a 747 or the Shuttle but my point is that the ongoing development of the *platform* is what is important. I'm certain that a 2010 model Apollo, had it's development continued, would be every bit as reliable at Soyuz. Now if we accept the design mistakes of the Shuttle and had ground systems that could better mitigate those problems what would a 2010 model Shuttle look like. The answer is, pretty much the same - just more reliable.
This is my frustration, as a keen observer, with the current space proposals. Why isn't choosing Shuttle derived system like Direct a viable option as a platform that has already been invested in? I know that there is a certain degree of politics involved but if that remains the key driver in these decisions then the entire space program will pretty much be over with the retirement of the Shuttle.
I feel this cynicism because if it takes another decade to have a human space program many of the people who have learned the valuable experiences will no longer be involved, this cycle will be repeated and the space program will remain one massive pork barrel.
Exactly, I agree with proportions, but these large companies can be smart and slimy. What's to keep them from forming, acquiring, or partnering a smaller entity just to keep from paying less.
Nothing. It does however give the smaller guys a bargaining chip and spread the money around. When it comes time to renew the patent if the company is 'acquired' by a larger player then they have to pay the proportionally larger patent fee.
I've often thought of Prisons as a University of Criminality. Maybe instead of making better criminals prisons like these can help repair broken lives.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Goldfinger was the one where Bond has to stop the Fort Knox being blown up with a nuclear device.
I don't know why but for some strange reason every time someone talks about Flash the Queen Song Flash jumps into my head.
Flash - ah - saviour of the universe Flash - ah - it'll save ev'ry one of us Flash - ah - it's a miracle Flash - ah - king of the impossible It's for ev'ry one of us Stands for ev'ry one of us It'll save with a mighty hand Ev'ry man ev'ry woman ev'ry child With a mighty flash Flash - ah Flash - ah - it'll save ev'ry one of usIndeed - a few people have pointed that out and that seems to be the focus despite me saying "it *might* be" as I never seen the pictures before. As I didn't see the apparently crappy movie I didn't make the connection, thanks for pointing out the entry on the wiki though.
I know now why I made a rule about never posting when I have a flu and while I think that much of my reasoning was valid one little error gets you roasted here. I feel my rule has been reinforced quite adequately now and next time I'll stick to moderating.
No, never saw the movie, I guess that explains why I was modded a troll. Thanks for letting me know though.
What makes this interesting is the speculation surrounding the SR-91 Aurora. Due to treaties between the US and (at the time) USSR the SR-71 Blackbird had to be retired because manned intelligence flights were against the terms of the treaty.
Of course the treaty didn't say anything about unmanned flights and this is where the SR-91 comes into it. This *might* be a picture of a SR-91. The cockpit makes me wonder what I'm looking at, if it can be piloted/unpiloted. I don't know for sure. Kudos to Yankee engineering though, it looks fast.
The scramjet powering the test aircraft is one thing aside, the avionics to remotely control something this fast is what I'm interested in. The B2 bomber was criticised for being so far over budget but it would be if two aircraft that share control system technology were being developed. Both would have inputs to computer controller flight surfaces. The game of subterfuge in military craft is fascinating especially when it the politicians that wear the heat for a failure that is actually, secretly, a success. I know, it's all speculation.
I reason that this might include deliberately understating the capabilities of craft such as this. The SR-71 engines are reported as most efficient at mach 3.5 but that doesn't indicate top speed - which is probably still classified - and the SR-91 (that officially doesn't exist) which may cruise somewhere between mach 3-6 reveals a lot about how quickly intelligence gathering about any part of the world can be done. Say a rough estimate of any part of the world within 3 hours, maybe there are things that just can't be done with a satellite?
It says much about the intelligence capability that the US doesn't readily advertise, and where that capability (that doesn't officially exist) is going when a prototype vehicle is aiming for Mach 6. Kudos for the Univerity of Queensland to for getting the first test engine going.
Personally - I just like fast planes ;-)
Maybe we will ask ourselves, one day, why we didn't make a backup of nature.
Who'd of thought that they were watching the future of American space flight when they first launched sputnik.
I'm sorry it just seems that it's the same 'gonna do this gonna do that' and it never happens.
I'm just curious why you don't use eclipse?
Google
What this disaster illustrates is that these corporations are prepared to take these huge risks without adequate precautions. No one knows the precautions are inadequate until it is too late. It's a theme repeated over and over again in every industry including Nuclear.
What we are seeing here are the results of systemic failures that exists in the very structure of Industry. Simply that preventing these massive externalities are perceived to cost too much by these companies. It's not just short sighted, it's not just Malicious Criminal Negligence because the risks are known but the budget to mitigate the risk is not approved by the key stakeholders. The real debate is how we force them to not take the risk. These disasters are symptomatic of a debate we have never had.
What penalty is too great for a corporation to risk? In the US, which some say is the most litigious country in the world, everyone should be able to sue BP out of existence. Parent companies should also be liable, internationally, to force a top down view of risk. All shareholder profits should be forfeit to pay for the disaster - because shareholders have a responsibility to influence what risks are intolerable. The board is fired along with senior management, their assets are seized. Those executives are personally culpable, have criminal charges pressed and their permanent record indicates that they risked this happening, that they allowed this to happen. Corporate execution by dissolving the companies charter *should* be the final act.
But it never is.
So humanity is doomed to live this lesson over and over again - because this is allowed to happen.
Maybe we could plug the leak with oil industry executive salaries? It's the only thing large enough known to continually expand providing enough pressure to seal the leak.
Edicts for the culture and attitude of the company come from the top. If the culture was to prevent this type of accident at all costs it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the cost of preventing the accident was not one they could incur and now the CEO will be troubled by how to avoid all this incoming expenditure to mitigate the affects of the accident. After all of BP's 'We're so green m'kay' ads they are just hypocrites.
Sure he probably wouldn't have concerned himself with costs under a few hundred million. More likely it was kicked up to someone who had been directed not to exceed a certain budget and the request was not approved by them instead.
In time oil industry executives will just put prices up to pass the costs onto the taxpayer and claim the costs for their error on their corporate tax return. This will mitigate the costs incurred by the disaster on the companies profit margin and justify a pay increase. We have seen over the period of the Global Financial Crisis that executives salaries have to find a way to increase because of -insert reason here-. Oil executives know this procedure.
I think you should look into Exxon Valdez oil spill which destroyed Prince William Sound. The impetus, by law, of any corporation's board is to maximise the dividends paid to shareholders. BP will do, or should I say, is doing everything it can do now to minimise this accident's effect on it's stock price.
I would not doubt that there are people in BP saying 'Why isn't the government doing more to fix this? We already take a big risk". Their ineffectiveness is already proven because they could not *prevent* the accident occurring, it's not as if they don't already have experience doing what they do. They didn't do everything they could to prevent this happening because it cost too much for them - so they risked a spill equivalent to the potential for reward.
We look at the spill and see wasted oil and destroyed ecosystem, they see the spill and see wasted profit and try to devise how to avoid any further expenditure. They already have failed, the question now is how badly have they failed.
Have absolutely no doubt that the affect on profit is BP's primary motivation.
That's why the bodies rust and the bumpers cost so much to replace. Car manufacturers make a lot of money on spare parts.
In the short term only.
President Dwight Eisenhower warned U.S citizens to quote:
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.
Until all citizens of the world are, at least, in control of this Iron Triangle we all will never truly be free of the constraints that hold us in the territorial notions and prejudices' that keep us from leaving the Earth and becoming 'Earthlings'.
The thing is your far left is still to the far right of most other countries in the world, and it's not because we're all 'commies' either.
just sayin...
Now we know what War is good for.
Nah, it's still nothing.
Maybe we could coin it 'the Goundhog decades'.
Which is what happens when you build a 'platform' and then continually develop it, which is what *should* have been done with Apollo.
To give an example of similar complexity (and whilst I'm not an aviation expert) it's hard to imagine the original 747's released continued to the latest model 747 without any improvements to their systems. When I say 'systems' I don't just mean aircraft systems but ground support 'system', repair procedures fault identification etc.
Now I know that much of the launch vehicle, in Apollo's case, ended up not being re-used when compared to a 747 or the Shuttle but my point is that the ongoing development of the *platform* is what is important. I'm certain that a 2010 model Apollo, had it's development continued, would be every bit as reliable at Soyuz. Now if we accept the design mistakes of the Shuttle and had ground systems that could better mitigate those problems what would a 2010 model Shuttle look like. The answer is, pretty much the same - just more reliable.
This is my frustration, as a keen observer, with the current space proposals. Why isn't choosing Shuttle derived system like Direct a viable option as a platform that has already been invested in? I know that there is a certain degree of politics involved but if that remains the key driver in these decisions then the entire space program will pretty much be over with the retirement of the Shuttle.
I feel this cynicism because if it takes another decade to have a human space program many of the people who have learned the valuable experiences will no longer be involved, this cycle will be repeated and the space program will remain one massive pork barrel.
It's ok if it's all "in family".
Yes, this is a sarcastic comment, the CAIB document is very revealing.
Nothing. It does however give the smaller guys a bargaining chip and spread the money around. When it comes time to renew the patent if the company is 'acquired' by a larger player then they have to pay the proportionally larger patent fee.
To the size of the company.
I was very tentative when I clicked the view picture link.
I've often thought of Prisons as a University of Criminality. Maybe instead of making better criminals prisons like these can help repair broken lives.