Actually this is not correct. The Russians developed the Mig-31 Foxhound specifically to counter both our long range bombers and our high-speed reconnaissance aircraft such as the SR-71. Satellites are predictable (as their orbits are easily able to be calculated) so having the "surprise" capability of an SR-71 flight is not the same as having satellite coverage. Same reason we have the AF X-37B among other things that have not yet come out of the black. But as for nothing being able to touch the SR-71 (and don't get me wrong - it was decades ahead of its time and to this day is still an amazing aircraft):
Quote: "These deficiencies were settled when a more advanced MiG-25 development, the MiG-31, entered in service in the 1980s: the Foxhound was armed with a missile very similar to the US AIM-54 Phoenix, the R-33 (AA-9 Amos as reported by NATO designation). This weapon was ideal not only for shooting down the American bombers, but also to intercept and destroy fast reconnaissance aircraft, such as the SR-71.
This statement was dramatically confirmed in Paul Crickmore’s book Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond The Secret Missions.
In this book one of the first Foxhound pilots, Captain Mikhail Myagkiy, who had been scrambled with its MiG-31 several times to intercept the US super-fast spy plane, explains how he was able to lock on a Blackbird on Jan. 31, 1986:
“The scheme for intercepting the SR-71 was computed down to the last second, and the MiGs had to launch exactly 16 minutes after the initial alert. () They alerted us for an intercept at 11.00. They sounded the alarm with a shrill bell and then confirmed it with a loudspeaker. The appearance of an SR-71 was always accompanied by nervousness. Everyone began to talk in frenzied voices, to scurry about, and react to the situation with excessive emotion.” Myagkiy and its Weapons System Officer (WSO) were able to achieve a SR-71 lock on at 52,000 feet and at a distance of 120 Km from the target. The Foxhound climbed at 65,676 feet where the crew had the Blackbird in sight and according to Myagkiy: “Had the spy plane violated Soviet airspace, a live missile launch would have been carried out. There was no practically chance the aircraft could avoid an R-33 missile.”
After this interception Blackbirds reportedly began to fly their reconnaissance missions from outside the borders of the Soviet Union.
But the MiG-31s intercepted the SR-71 at least another time. On Sept. 3, 2012 an article written by Rakesh Krishman Simha for Indrus.in explains how the Foxhound was able to stop Blackbirds spy missions over Soviet Union on Jun. 3, 1986. That day, no less than six MiG-31s “intercepted” an SR-71 over the Barents Sea by performing a coordinated interception that subjected the Blackbird to a possible all angle air-to-air missiles attack. Apparently, after this interception, no SR-71 flew a reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union and few years later the Blackbird was retired to be replaced with the satellites. Even if claiming that the MiG-31 was one of the causes of the SR-71 retirement is a bit far fetched, it is safe to say that towards the end of the career of the legendary spyplane, Russians proved to have developed tactics that could put the Blackbird at risk."
I think there are at least two competing issues - the first is that, in large part, space has become "boring" for many, for lack of a better word. We've spent years and years circling in LEO with shuttle and ISS, without much "wow factor" to show for it. There is a certain pessimism that comes with relying on a space agency that has its priorities shifted with each and every administration change (and my post history here certainly reflects that, as I often comment on space-related articles and not many others). Since Apollo, there has not really been a mission that has captivated the masses nearly as much. Sure, we have the efforts of SpaceX and SpaceShip One and others in the private sector, but there's nothing truly inspiring about that, at least, not yet. Resupply to the ISS just isn't sexy. I think Chris Hadfield did an absolutely excellent job of trying to bring the ISS some much-needed publicity and popularity with his various experiments and clips from the ISS, and that was a great idea and a great start. Going to the moon? Going to Mars? Now you'd grab people's attention and maybe even inspire renewed interest in the sciences and the space program (whether public or privately funded). But the Voyagers can only leave the solar system so many times before the general reaction becomes "Meh, this again?" Curiosity can only drill into so many rocks on Mars before the average person starts to lose interest.
The second is that, for a post such as this, there's not much that can necessarily be added by most - just the concept that you could fit almost four Earths into that hexagonal storm is lost on or incomprehensible to many. Not necessarily in the/. crowd, but in the public at large. Aside from pretty desktop wallpapers, there aren't many folks that are equipped to comment about or discuss images such as this in any real analytical or technical detail.
On July 20, 1969, man took his first footsteps on the moon. They were carried there aboard the Saturn V, the most powerful rocket ever built, a record which stands to this day. It was the culmination of a challenge set forth by John F. Kennedy in his landmark speech on September 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
Why the history lesson? President Obama's 2011-2012 budget effectively ends the U.S. manned spaceflight program by cancelling Ares/Constellation/Orion and providing for no successor (the designed-only-on-paper SLS does not count). The shuttle is currently being retired to various museums around the country. We will remain at the mercy of the Russians to launch U.S. astronauts into orbit to the ISS, unless/until SpaceX manages to accomplish a series of safe launches. While some may argue that NASA received a nominal budget increase, they also have no real program and no real goal. And we all know how well such plans work in successive presidential administrations.
I was not born in time to see the first moon landing, and it appears I will be long dead before another American lands on the moon, or Mars, or anywhere else in the solar system. How is it that the United States is willing to concede that for years to come, and possibly decades, we've simply given up on manned spaceflight? In 1969 we could land on the moon - and in 2012 we've just lost the ability or the will to do it? Ares I and Ares V may not have been the perfect answer, but at least we were still on track to have manned access to space. Maybe once the Chinese or the Russians start colonizing the moon, or traveling to Mars, the U.S. will see the error of its ways - and by then it will be too little, too late. We will be the ones trying to play catchup, having relinquished our lead in all things related to manned space exploration. Case in point - a large part of the cost of Ares I was attempting to reverse engineer Saturn parts, because while we have the blueprints, and we have production parts and samples, the reasons WHY parts were designed the way they were has been lost - the engineers are long dead, or retired. Things such as why valves had certain diameters, or why pipes had certain bend radii - all lost to dust and history. And now the cycle is again set to repeat with the retirement of the shuttle with no replacement on the horizon.
The ultimate future of mankind is off this rock. All of humanity's eggs cannot live forever in this fragile little basket we call Earth. And circling the Earth in LEO at the mercy of another country's launch schedule is not progress, but madness.
Here's a good answer. At the moment, all of humanity's eggs are in one, and some might argue very fragile, basket. We're exactly one extinction level event away from going the way of the dinosaurs. I agree that another "boots and flags" mission is fairly pointless. But setting up a long-term viable colony on the moon, or Mars, such that the human race has a chance at surviving even if some catastrophe was to happen to Earth, seems like a pretty decent idea. If Shoemaker-Levy 9 had Earth in its crosshairs instead of Jupiter - we had absolutely no chance of stopping it.
And, if you want to go out out on an even longer timescale - the sun isn't going to be here forever. Of course, hopefully by that time we will be well past the point of using chemical rockets, etc. But, babysteps... get off this rock first.
This article by Jeffrey Goldberg is both sad, hilarious, and informative.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/
"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained. "Resistance?" I asked. "Your testicles," he explained. "That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
Also explains why it is seen with Pioneer 10 and 11 and not Voyager 1 or 2 or other more "modern" spacecraft.
From the FAQ: The Pioneers are spin-stabilized spacecraft. The Voyagers are three-axis stabilized craft that fire thrusters to maintain their orientation in space or to slew around and point their instruments. Those thruster firings would introduce uncertainties in the tracking data that would overwhelm any effect as small as that occurring with Pioneer.
This difference in the way the spacecraft are stabilized actually is one of the reasons the Pioneer data are so important and unique. Most current spacecraft are three-axis stabilized, not spin stabilized.
18 months is currently too long for a manned Mars mission, much less anything slower and therefore longer.
Quote: Mars will be even tougher, these models suggest. Some scenarios call for missions that would last 18 months or more. "Right now there's no design solution to stay within safety limits for such a Mars mission," Cucinotta says. "Putting enough radiation shielding around a spacecraft would make it far too heavy to launch, so we need to find better lightweight shielding materials, and we probably need to develop medical techniques to counteract damage to cells caused by cosmic rays." He notes that one of the biggest obstacles to progress in this area is "uncertainty in the types of cell damage deep cosmic ray exposure can cause. We still have a lot to learn."
A Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) test failed at El Centro, Calif. The PTV was released from a B-52 aircraft at 15,240 meters and the drogue chute programmer was actuated by a static line connected to the aircraft. One drogue chute appeared to fail upon deployment, followed by failure of the second drogue seven seconds later. Disreefing of these drogues normally occurred at 8 seconds after deployment with disconnect at deployment at plus 18 seconds. The main chute programmer deployed and was effective for only 14 out of the expected 40 seconds' duration. This action was followed by normal deployment of one main parachute, which failed, followed by the second main parachute as programmed after four-tenths of a second, which also failed. The main chute failure was observed from the ground and the emergency parachute system deployment was commanded but also failed because of high dynamic pressure, allowing the PTV to impact and be destroyed. Investigation was under way and MSC personnel were en route to El Centro and Northrop-Ventura to determine the cause and to effect a solution.
TWX, George M. Low, MSC, to NASA Hq., Attn: Apollo Program Director, Jan. 11, 1968.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/app-c.html#section2
Ah, Saturn V... good times. Glad we've once again remembered it's a better idea to have the astronauts at the TOP of the stack rather than stuck to the SIDE of the stack.
Since, generally speaking, spy satellites are considered the most closely guarded secrets of both the US and any other nation producing them, rest assured that this will never be allowed to hit the ground before being blown into a million pieces. If an ocean-ditch isn't in the cards, since it appears they've lost all control of the satellite and are at the mercy of probability during the deorbit, the US will not let it re-enter and land somewhere (even in pieces) where another country could examine the wreckage. (and yes, I'm including allied countries.) Our "anti-ballistic missile defense system" may get its first real-world test!
Alternatively, if it does land, a B-2 will certainly turn the landing zone into a smoking many-thousand degree crater seconds or minutes later. It doesn't matter if it's ten year old tech - no one else is going to be getting their hands on it if the US has anything to say about it. (and yes, I'm including if it lands in a populated area.) If it can't be recovered covertly, it will be destroyed overtly.
... will surely find a way to either a) cripple something like this or b) charge for it.
Or worse, do their standard bass-ackwards job of crippling it, like they manage to do with every other firmware and interface they "design" (and I use that term loosely) so it's constantly sloshing and having balls bounce around inside of it.
What is limiting you to ONE GMail account, if your first one is too full? It's not like they verify anything, if you're absolutely in love with GMail, and run out of space in free account #1, sign up for free account #2, and off you go, instant DOUBLE STORAGE. Yes, it's slightly inconvenient, but with auto-forwarding of all new mail to the new account enabled, and the ability to "send as" the old account #1 from #2... really not much of a problem.
But the sun (and other stars) have more mass than Jupiter and Saturn - that's why the pressure at the core was great enough to start nuclear fusion and "start" the sun at some point 5 billion years ago. Saturn and Jupiter, while they have hot cores under immense pressure and temperature (along with immense gravity), don't have high enough pressure (not enough mass) to kick the tires and start the fusion. So it may not be the same energy or processes at work, as fusion releases WAY more energy than just pressure and rotation alone./"My God, it's full of stars" - Obligatory.
Sure, it's "not working"... just like "Misty" asploded into six pieces...
"When it was first launched from the space shuttle Atlantis on March 1, 1990, it was believed to be the first advanced KH-11 spacecraft," he says, referring to the top-of-the-line American spy satellite. "Within weeks, both U.S. and Soviet space sources reported it had malfunctioned and would make a 'fiery re-entry in the next 30 days.' Both assessments were wrong."
Richelson reports that the only people who successfully kept track of the flight were civilian space observers in England and Canada who watched a series of maneuvers performed by the satellite, including the "explosion" that Richelson believes "may have been a tactic to deceive those monitoring the satellite."
One of the observers who spoke to Richelson, Ted Molczan of Toronto, told NBC News that the supposed explosion took place on March 7, 1990, six days after launch, and was first reported by the Soviet press.
"Russia reported it had detected debris," Molczan recalled, "and NORAD identified six pieces."
The plan for stealthiness may have involved some clever trickery by the CIA.
"The satellite was exceedingly bright, brighter than the KH-11, and kept in a low orbit, only 250 kilometers (150 miles) above the earth, so it was easily visible," Molczan said. "Then there was nothing after the 'explosion.' They apparently needed the 'explosion' to be long enough so they could deploy the stealth masking device."
U.S. officials may have also used disinformation to enhance the deception, often discussing the need to develop stealthy satellites, never letting on that such satellites not only had been developed but launched as well...
TFA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077830/
From a set of Corelle dishes purchased back when I was in college (not sure if they still include this):
"Caution: Dishes may break if dropped. If dishes break, they may make a loud noise."
WTF? I have to imagine they were sued at some point for someone being startled to death by the sounds of their dishes breaking...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually this is not correct. The Russians developed the Mig-31 Foxhound specifically to counter both our long range bombers and our high-speed reconnaissance aircraft such as the SR-71. Satellites are predictable (as their orbits are easily able to be calculated) so having the "surprise" capability of an SR-71 flight is not the same as having satellite coverage. Same reason we have the AF X-37B among other things that have not yet come out of the black. But as for nothing being able to touch the SR-71 (and don't get me wrong - it was decades ahead of its time and to this day is still an amazing aircraft):
Links: http://theaviationist.com/2013... and http://gizmodo.com/theres-no-t...
Quote: "These deficiencies were settled when a more advanced MiG-25 development, the MiG-31, entered in service in the 1980s: the Foxhound was armed with a missile very similar to the US AIM-54 Phoenix, the R-33 (AA-9 Amos as reported by NATO designation). This weapon was ideal not only for shooting down the American bombers, but also to intercept and destroy fast reconnaissance aircraft, such as the SR-71.
This statement was dramatically confirmed in Paul Crickmore’s book Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond The Secret Missions.
In this book one of the first Foxhound pilots, Captain Mikhail Myagkiy, who had been scrambled with its MiG-31 several times to intercept the US super-fast spy plane, explains how he was able to lock on a Blackbird on Jan. 31, 1986:
“The scheme for intercepting the SR-71 was computed down to the last second, and the MiGs had to launch exactly 16 minutes after the initial alert. () They alerted us for an intercept at 11.00. They sounded the alarm with a shrill bell and then confirmed it with a loudspeaker. The appearance of an SR-71 was always accompanied by nervousness. Everyone began to talk in frenzied voices, to scurry about, and react to the situation with excessive emotion.” Myagkiy and its Weapons System Officer (WSO) were able to achieve a SR-71 lock on at 52,000 feet and at a distance of 120 Km from the target. The Foxhound climbed at 65,676 feet where the crew had the Blackbird in sight and according to Myagkiy: “Had the spy plane violated Soviet airspace, a live missile launch would have been carried out. There was no practically chance the aircraft could avoid an R-33 missile.”
After this interception Blackbirds reportedly began to fly their reconnaissance missions from outside the borders of the Soviet Union.
But the MiG-31s intercepted the SR-71 at least another time. On Sept. 3, 2012 an article written by Rakesh Krishman Simha for Indrus.in explains how the Foxhound was able to stop Blackbirds spy missions over Soviet Union on Jun. 3, 1986. That day, no less than six MiG-31s “intercepted” an SR-71 over the Barents Sea by performing a coordinated interception that subjected the Blackbird to a possible all angle air-to-air missiles attack. Apparently, after this interception, no SR-71 flew a reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union and few years later the Blackbird was retired to be replaced with the satellites. Even if claiming that the MiG-31 was one of the causes of the SR-71 retirement is a bit far fetched, it is safe to say that towards the end of the career of the legendary spyplane, Russians proved to have developed tactics that could put the Blackbird at risk."
I think there are at least two competing issues - the first is that, in large part, space has become "boring" for many, for lack of a better word. We've spent years and years circling in LEO with shuttle and ISS, without much "wow factor" to show for it. There is a certain pessimism that comes with relying on a space agency that has its priorities shifted with each and every administration change (and my post history here certainly reflects that, as I often comment on space-related articles and not many others). Since Apollo, there has not really been a mission that has captivated the masses nearly as much. Sure, we have the efforts of SpaceX and SpaceShip One and others in the private sector, but there's nothing truly inspiring about that, at least, not yet. Resupply to the ISS just isn't sexy. I think Chris Hadfield did an absolutely excellent job of trying to bring the ISS some much-needed publicity and popularity with his various experiments and clips from the ISS, and that was a great idea and a great start. Going to the moon? Going to Mars? Now you'd grab people's attention and maybe even inspire renewed interest in the sciences and the space program (whether public or privately funded). But the Voyagers can only leave the solar system so many times before the general reaction becomes "Meh, this again?" Curiosity can only drill into so many rocks on Mars before the average person starts to lose interest.
The second is that, for a post such as this, there's not much that can necessarily be added by most - just the concept that you could fit almost four Earths into that hexagonal storm is lost on or incomprehensible to many. Not necessarily in the /. crowd, but in the public at large. Aside from pretty desktop wallpapers, there aren't many folks that are equipped to comment about or discuss images such as this in any real analytical or technical detail.
On July 20, 1969, man took his first footsteps on the moon. They were carried there aboard the Saturn V, the most powerful rocket ever built, a record which stands to this day. It was the culmination of a challenge set forth by John F. Kennedy in his landmark speech on September 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
Why the history lesson? President Obama's 2011-2012 budget effectively ends the U.S. manned spaceflight program by cancelling Ares/Constellation/Orion and providing for no successor (the designed-only-on-paper SLS does not count). The shuttle is currently being retired to various museums around the country. We will remain at the mercy of the Russians to launch U.S. astronauts into orbit to the ISS, unless/until SpaceX manages to accomplish a series of safe launches. While some may argue that NASA received a nominal budget increase, they also have no real program and no real goal. And we all know how well such plans work in successive presidential administrations.
I was not born in time to see the first moon landing, and it appears I will be long dead before another American lands on the moon, or Mars, or anywhere else in the solar system. How is it that the United States is willing to concede that for years to come, and possibly decades, we've simply given up on manned spaceflight? In 1969 we could land on the moon - and in 2012 we've just lost the ability or the will to do it? Ares I and Ares V may not have been the perfect answer, but at least we were still on track to have manned access to space. Maybe once the Chinese or the Russians start colonizing the moon, or traveling to Mars, the U.S. will see the error of its ways - and by then it will be too little, too late. We will be the ones trying to play catchup, having relinquished our lead in all things related to manned space exploration. Case in point - a large part of the cost of Ares I was attempting to reverse engineer Saturn parts, because while we have the blueprints, and we have production parts and samples, the reasons WHY parts were designed the way they were has been lost - the engineers are long dead, or retired. Things such as why valves had certain diameters, or why pipes had certain bend radii - all lost to dust and history. And now the cycle is again set to repeat with the retirement of the shuttle with no replacement on the horizon.
The ultimate future of mankind is off this rock. All of humanity's eggs cannot live forever in this fragile little basket we call Earth. And circling the Earth in LEO at the mercy of another country's launch schedule is not progress, but madness.
Here's a good answer. At the moment, all of humanity's eggs are in one, and some might argue very fragile, basket. We're exactly one extinction level event away from going the way of the dinosaurs. I agree that another "boots and flags" mission is fairly pointless. But setting up a long-term viable colony on the moon, or Mars, such that the human race has a chance at surviving even if some catastrophe was to happen to Earth, seems like a pretty decent idea. If Shoemaker-Levy 9 had Earth in its crosshairs instead of Jupiter - we had absolutely no chance of stopping it. And, if you want to go out out on an even longer timescale - the sun isn't going to be here forever. Of course, hopefully by that time we will be well past the point of using chemical rockets, etc. But, babysteps... get off this rock first.
This article by Jeffrey Goldberg is both sad, hilarious, and informative. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ "We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained. "Resistance?" I asked. "Your testicles," he explained. "That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
The Planetary Society has an interesting FAQ on this subject: http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/innovative_technologies/pioneer_anomaly/update_20050720.html
Also explains why it is seen with Pioneer 10 and 11 and not Voyager 1 or 2 or other more "modern" spacecraft.
From the FAQ: The Pioneers are spin-stabilized spacecraft. The Voyagers are three-axis stabilized craft that fire thrusters to maintain their orientation in space or to slew around and point their instruments. Those thruster firings would introduce uncertainties in the tracking data that would overwhelm any effect as small as that occurring with Pioneer. This difference in the way the spacecraft are stabilized actually is one of the reasons the Pioneer data are so important and unique. Most current spacecraft are three-axis stabilized, not spin stabilized.
Quote: Mars will be even tougher, these models suggest. Some scenarios call for missions that would last 18 months or more. "Right now there's no design solution to stay within safety limits for such a Mars mission," Cucinotta says. "Putting enough radiation shielding around a spacecraft would make it far too heavy to launch, so we need to find better lightweight shielding materials, and we probably need to develop medical techniques to counteract damage to cells caused by cosmic rays." He notes that one of the biggest obstacles to progress in this area is "uncertainty in the types of cell damage deep cosmic ray exposure can cause. We still have a lot to learn."
Source: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/27may_phantomtorso.htm?list776758
awaiting final code for one-minute countdown."
A Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) test failed at El Centro, Calif. The PTV was released from a B-52 aircraft at 15,240 meters and the drogue chute programmer was actuated by a static line connected to the aircraft. One drogue chute appeared to fail upon deployment, followed by failure of the second drogue seven seconds later. Disreefing of these drogues normally occurred at 8 seconds after deployment with disconnect at deployment at plus 18 seconds. The main chute programmer deployed and was effective for only 14 out of the expected 40 seconds' duration. This action was followed by normal deployment of one main parachute, which failed, followed by the second main parachute as programmed after four-tenths of a second, which also failed. The main chute failure was observed from the ground and the emergency parachute system deployment was commanded but also failed because of high dynamic pressure, allowing the PTV to impact and be destroyed. Investigation was under way and MSC personnel were en route to El Centro and Northrop-Ventura to determine the cause and to effect a solution. TWX, George M. Low, MSC, to NASA Hq., Attn: Apollo Program Director, Jan. 11, 1968.
Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v4p2h.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/app-c.html#section2 Ah, Saturn V... good times. Glad we've once again remembered it's a better idea to have the astronauts at the TOP of the stack rather than stuck to the SIDE of the stack.
Since, generally speaking, spy satellites are considered the most closely guarded secrets of both the US and any other nation producing them, rest assured that this will never be allowed to hit the ground before being blown into a million pieces. If an ocean-ditch isn't in the cards, since it appears they've lost all control of the satellite and are at the mercy of probability during the deorbit, the US will not let it re-enter and land somewhere (even in pieces) where another country could examine the wreckage. (and yes, I'm including allied countries.) Our "anti-ballistic missile defense system" may get its first real-world test! Alternatively, if it does land, a B-2 will certainly turn the landing zone into a smoking many-thousand degree crater seconds or minutes later. It doesn't matter if it's ten year old tech - no one else is going to be getting their hands on it if the US has anything to say about it. (and yes, I'm including if it lands in a populated area.) If it can't be recovered covertly, it will be destroyed overtly.
"Please remove your shoes before boarding the Series of Tubes..."
... will surely find a way to either a) cripple something like this or b) charge for it. Or worse, do their standard bass-ackwards job of crippling it, like they manage to do with every other firmware and interface they "design" (and I use that term loosely) so it's constantly sloshing and having balls bounce around inside of it.
What is limiting you to ONE GMail account, if your first one is too full? It's not like they verify anything, if you're absolutely in love with GMail, and run out of space in free account #1, sign up for free account #2, and off you go, instant DOUBLE STORAGE. Yes, it's slightly inconvenient, but with auto-forwarding of all new mail to the new account enabled, and the ability to "send as" the old account #1 from #2 ... really not much of a problem.
Delete entire inbox, Cancel or Allow?
~Cancel~
Delete entire inbox, Cancel or Allow?
~Cancel!~
Delete entire inbox, Cancel or Allow?
~Cancel!~
~Cancel Failed, deleting inbox~
But the sun (and other stars) have more mass than Jupiter and Saturn - that's why the pressure at the core was great enough to start nuclear fusion and "start" the sun at some point 5 billion years ago. Saturn and Jupiter, while they have hot cores under immense pressure and temperature (along with immense gravity), don't have high enough pressure (not enough mass) to kick the tires and start the fusion. So it may not be the same energy or processes at work, as fusion releases WAY more energy than just pressure and rotation alone. /"My God, it's full of stars" - Obligatory.
They've gone to plaid!
Sure, it's "not working"... just like "Misty" asploded into six pieces...
"When it was first launched from the space shuttle Atlantis on March 1, 1990, it was believed to be the first advanced KH-11 spacecraft," he says, referring to the top-of-the-line American spy satellite. "Within weeks, both U.S. and Soviet space sources reported it had malfunctioned and would make a 'fiery re-entry in the next 30 days.' Both assessments were wrong."
Richelson reports that the only people who successfully kept track of the flight were civilian space observers in England and Canada who watched a series of maneuvers performed by the satellite, including the "explosion" that Richelson believes "may have been a tactic to deceive those monitoring the satellite."
One of the observers who spoke to Richelson, Ted Molczan of Toronto, told NBC News that the supposed explosion took place on March 7, 1990, six days after launch, and was first reported by the Soviet press.
"Russia reported it had detected debris," Molczan recalled, "and NORAD identified six pieces."
The plan for stealthiness may have involved some clever trickery by the CIA.
"The satellite was exceedingly bright, brighter than the KH-11, and kept in a low orbit, only 250 kilometers (150 miles) above the earth, so it was easily visible," Molczan said. "Then there was nothing after the 'explosion.' They apparently needed the 'explosion' to be long enough so they could deploy the stealth masking device."
U.S. officials may have also used disinformation to enhance the deception, often discussing the need to develop stealthy satellites, never letting on that such satellites not only had been developed but launched as well...
TFA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077830/
From a set of Corelle dishes purchased back when I was in college (not sure if they still include this): "Caution: Dishes may break if dropped. If dishes break, they may make a loud noise." WTF? I have to imagine they were sued at some point for someone being startled to death by the sounds of their dishes breaking...
Will it be Fiji or Vienna that come bundled with Duke Nukem 3D?
Microsoft, meet PC. PC, meet buggy software. It's called "Vista", "Office", "Windows"...
... it's full of wheelchairs?
/obligatory
MS Vista released in January will be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever!
... so basically they're going to adopt the Microsoft software development model?
C:\FOO> Error deleting FOO.BAR
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?