I really doubt this was a nuclear-powered satellite. Why go through all the expense and hassle of RTG's when solar panels are (relatively) cheap and common, and solar energy is free?
Yeah, you might get a bit of EMP protection, but I'd think with a huge-ass radar antenna you kinda negate that.
Just because it broke doesn't mean you can't learn useful information from it. Most likely, the failure was something small (broken wire, software bug, dead battery, something of that nature), so assuming the hardware survives reentry and lands somewhere accessible, there's a very good chance analysts would get lots of information.
Remember when the F-117 was shot down in the Balkans? Even though the airplane was broken, I can guarantee you that the Russians and Chinese were very interested in examining the debris. You can learn a lot from a busted piece of machinery.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Han knows it's incorrect, but pulls it over on two backwater bumpkins becaue he thinks they're too stupid to know the difference and will just accept it as gospel truth."
Remember, Han is a smuggler but a very competent pilot and navigator--I doubt he'd screw up something so fundamental as a unit of distance. More likely that he's willing to do just about anything to make a buck. Kinda like snake oil or used car salesmen, or politicians.
a new generation of unnecessary first-strike weaponry What, pray tell, makes "first-strike" weapons different from regular ones? For the most part, anything that's good enough to use for "second strike" is good enough for a first strike too.
It's like stealth aircraft. People whine and complain that stealth is offensive only--but it's just as useful for the defender. It lets him set up better ambushes and might let his retaliatory strikes get through.
I, too, believe the US should stop messing around in other countries. But that doesn't mean we can just stop where we are and say it's "good enough"; other countries will keep developing better stuff and will laugh at us the whole time. I hope we never need to use our stuff, but if we do, I want our guys in the best equipment our money can buy.
It's the same reason many law-abiding people carry concealed firearms. They hope and pray they never have to use it, but if they get stuck against a 270lb ball of muscle that's threatening their life, they don't want to be relying on their keys, or a pen, or the (probably nonexistent) mercy of the attacker to try and survive*. The gun gives the good guys the best possible chance of being able to go home to their families.
*Or, as officials in Illinois suggested, trying to make oneself vomit on the attacker. Sure, that's gonna stop em...
Not really... most are set at about a 15 degree angle; the F-16 is reclined to 30 degrees. That was first done to be able to fit the seat in the aircraft, and the small G-load benefit was discovered later. I think the F-22 and F-35 may also be set like that, but I'm not sure.
I was doing stuff like that as a freshman six years ago, as part of a design competition. We didn't actually build our design (it was for an SSTO winged launch vehicle with a projected cost of $25 billion) but large parts of it were designed with multi-island genetic algorithms and such. After that, I worked a while for one of the school's research labs that specialized in stuff like that. It's what made me realize I want nothing to do with initial concepts like that; it can be fun for a while, but in the end, you don't really have much to show for your work other than a powerpoint and a paper or two. I like my current job much better--I draw something up in Catia, then take it out on the floor and help put it together that afternoon. And at the end of the day, I can point to it and say "that is what I did today".
*_technically_ I suppose the linked image is supposed to be erotic, but if it's considered a NSFW image where you work then I truly pity you. I wouldn't know; the filters here block out the entire site. That I can still access slashdot and my gun forums amazes me on a daily basis.
There is one case where I believe the government should be funding space "exploration", excluding military operations.
I believe the prime focus of a civilian government space program should be the establishment, maintenance, and expansion of permanent space settlements. Included in this would be orbiting habitats, permanent bases on the moon and Mars, terraforming Mars, and so on... and eventually full-blown interstellar colony ships.
My reasoning is that such a program would provide direct benefit to all of humanity. Among such benefits:
The technology used for sustainable long-duration habitable environments (water reuse, power efficiency, etc) could carry directly over to reducing resource consumption on earth.
Other technology (materials, sensors, other devices) could be incorporated into new products.
Most importantly, humankind would be establishing "backups" on other planets, and hopefully (eventually) in other solar systems. That way we don't all die when some asteroid or gamma ray burst comes along. Survival of the species.
A free market is not really interested in the above... the development costs are far too high, and the monetary return (if any) would be a very long time coming... and as long as average corporation and its shareholders are only interested in next year's or next quarter's profits, you will never see them invest in something whose break-even point might be 50 or 100 years (or more) in the future.
I might could be convinced to fund pure science missions (lunar far-side radio telescope, Hubble, etc.) even if they don't feed into the above goal.
Leave all the touristy stuff and commercial satellites to private industry, though. The market is at the point where it can sustain and grow, given a favorable regulatory environment.
Occasionally a seizure can produce a fugue, where you wander around in a daze, totally incoherent. Something similar happens to my wife, too. She sometimes gets seizures at night if she's real stressed out and hasn't been sleeping much; once it's over she can barely make coherent sentences, and really it's just best to let her sleep it off.
They address "normal" people just like they would other engineers. "Here's my idea, here's my reasoning, here's my conclusion." They expect that everyone else will realize that this is intended as a prompt for you to present your ideas. Also especially annoying is the "Here's my (devil's advocate) idea, here's my (hypothetical) reasoning, here's my conclusion (that I WANT you to disprove)." Most people look at you like you have three heads when you start a discussion like that....
Just remember-- we're not TRYING to be dicks, most of the time. Nobody's good at everything, and we might even be trying to help, awkwardly. Listen to this guy, for he is wise. I can't tell you how many times I've unintentionally offended people by presenting a blunt argument like that, or by putting up a "devil's advocate" scenario. But I should point out that it is equally frustrating on the engineer's end to try and deal with a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude. That is, "I'm not going to consider your data because it disagrees with my position", not "your data is invalid, and I can explain why if you'd like to hear it".
Maybe it might be a good idea to put together a "how to recognize and interact with engineers" book or something? My wife (a history/liberal arts major) has gotten pretty good at it; then again, she did debate in high school and has basically an engineer's mindset...
Well, a quick google search shows that the US launched one reactor-powered satellite in 1965; the reactor failed relatively quickly and the satellite was boosted into a higher "disposal" orbit. There were apparently plans to launch an experiemental reactor in the shuttle's payload bay, in support of the SDI program; this was scrapped after Challenger.
The Soviet Union launched several reactor-powered satellites; it seems that most (if not all) of them were RORSATs (Radar Ocean Reconnaissance SATellites). I believe their primary function was finding US carrier battlegroups and supply convoys, with the intent of directing attack submarines and long-range bombers. I'd imagine they used reactors because they could supply more power. I also seem to remember reading that solar panels are pretty vulnerable to EMP effects in orbit; maybe a reactor is less so?
I really doubt you'll see any RTGs on an earth-orbit satellite. It's a lot cheaper and easier just to use solar panels; RTGs are reserved for deep space missions or other things where solar panels lose effectiveness due to distance (Jupiter/Saturn adn beyond), dust (MSL rover), or extended shadow (moon surface experiments).
The company I work for has a very interesting policy for exempt work... even as an exempt employee, we can still work "overtime". It goes like this:
The first 5 hours that you work late during the "standard week" is free; any time after that, or any time not during the "standard week" is paid as additional straight time. The best part is that our "standard week" in engineering is four 10-hour days, and until you get up into a management-type position you rarely (maybe 2-3x/month) work later than that. Friday is extra pay; most of us generally come in and work till lunch that day. However, you generally are expected to be there for the normal 40 hours; and though personal time is technically "unlimited", using more than the standard allotment without good cause is generally frowned upon. You're also guaranteed at least 4 hours if you get called in (say, on the weekend), even if you're only there 30 minutes.
What's even better is that, for the first six months, someone coming in as Engineer I is classified as hourly, so you get all the benefits of time-and-a-half and all that. The catch is that, once you go salary, you keep the same base pay till the annual adjustments/raises come around... so you effectively lose a little money if you've been working overtime.
with a satellite, you're going to have to wait for someone to get up there and fumble around miles above the planet, Not really... human maintenance of "ordinary" satellites went out with Challenger (Hubble being the one notable exception). If they can't fix the problem from the ground, the insurance takes the hit and they build another one. It's also cheaper that way, really; and it'll probably stay like that until space access really gets to be affordable--ie, extremely cheap launch costs, and close to airline-like operations and reliability.
If all you're considering is performance, then no, SS2 doesn't improve things. But I think the real benefit of Scaled's approach (fairly simple, reuseable sub-orbital craft) is on the operational side. On one hand, if you're building full-blown rockets and flying into orbit, you might be pushing the technology envelope, but spending a lot of money on each launch (which means a couple launches/year at most), and because the conditions of your flight are fairly demanding, you stand a good chance at losing the vehicle. On the other hand, suborbital flight is less risky, but not as demanding, and you won't be making giant technological leaps.
On the gripping hand, going suborbital lets you do a lot of flying. It's a more demanding environment than even standard high-altitude flight (U-2 etc), but because the risks and costs are lower, you can learn how to operate space-qualified vehicles on an everyday basis. Getting to the point of airline-like reliability will come a lot faster, and then you can take the engineering and operational lessons learned and apply them to something that goes higher and faster.
In my experience, it's always been easier to get the simple thing working reliably and then build off of it, as opposed to designing something really complex, then trying to make it work at all.
You think Hezbollah and Hamas are evil organizations, and I'll assume because they kill people and advocate violence towards their enemies. Is that any different from statements from the Pentagon? Yes, it is different. Those two groups deliberately target innocent men, women, and children. They blow up school buses and such on purpose; the US and other allied forces try very hard to avoid doing so.
laughed out loud when I saw the video about Iranians "harassing" the US Navy. When you look at the video, you have five off-the-shelf speedboats versus multi-thousand ton US warships. I really can't believe the Pentagon are taking themselves seriously anymore. I see you forget what an "off-the-shelf speedboat" laden with explosives can do. Those boats could also run themselves in front of one of the US ships and let itself get run over--and then claim that "the Americans rammed our innocent boats!"
No, it won't. You're assuming it'll somehow magically come to a dead stop when released, then start to fall straight down. What will really happen is that it'll just get shoved into a slightly lower orbit, so it will hit the atmosphere at pretty much orbital velocity, just like the shuttle does.
The 777 was the first twin to get ETOPS Actually, the 767 was the first aircraft with ETOPS certification (TWA was approved in 1985 for its 767 fleet)... the 777 was the first one to have 180-minute ETOPS on the day it entered service. And yes, ETOPS regs are very strict... the same mechanic can't work on both engines, for example, and there's a whole list of extra equipment required.
Just because it was spinning doesn't mean it was running. Next time you see a parked airliner, watch how the wind blowing through the engine causes the blades to spin.
Slashdot Mirror
I really doubt this was a nuclear-powered satellite. Why go through all the expense and hassle of RTG's when solar panels are (relatively) cheap and common, and solar energy is free?
Yeah, you might get a bit of EMP protection, but I'd think with a huge-ass radar antenna you kinda negate that.
Just because it broke doesn't mean you can't learn useful information from it. Most likely, the failure was something small (broken wire, software bug, dead battery, something of that nature), so assuming the hardware survives reentry and lands somewhere accessible, there's a very good chance analysts would get lots of information.
Remember when the F-117 was shot down in the Balkans? Even though the airplane was broken, I can guarantee you that the Russians and Chinese were very interested in examining the debris. You can learn a lot from a busted piece of machinery.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Han knows it's incorrect, but pulls it over on two backwater bumpkins becaue he thinks they're too stupid to know the difference and will just accept it as gospel truth."
Remember, Han is a smuggler but a very competent pilot and navigator--I doubt he'd screw up something so fundamental as a unit of distance. More likely that he's willing to do just about anything to make a buck. Kinda like snake oil or used car salesmen, or politicians.
It's like stealth aircraft. People whine and complain that stealth is offensive only--but it's just as useful for the defender. It lets him set up better ambushes and might let his retaliatory strikes get through.
I, too, believe the US should stop messing around in other countries. But that doesn't mean we can just stop where we are and say it's "good enough"; other countries will keep developing better stuff and will laugh at us the whole time. I hope we never need to use our stuff, but if we do, I want our guys in the best equipment our money can buy.
It's the same reason many law-abiding people carry concealed firearms. They hope and pray they never have to use it, but if they get stuck against a 270lb ball of muscle that's threatening their life, they don't want to be relying on their keys, or a pen, or the (probably nonexistent) mercy of the attacker to try and survive*. The gun gives the good guys the best possible chance of being able to go home to their families.
*Or, as officials in Illinois suggested, trying to make oneself vomit on the attacker. Sure, that's gonna stop em...
Helicopter?
Not really... most are set at about a 15 degree angle; the F-16 is reclined to 30 degrees. That was first done to be able to fit the seat in the aircraft, and the small G-load benefit was discovered later. I think the F-22 and F-35 may also be set like that, but I'm not sure.
I was doing stuff like that as a freshman six years ago, as part of a design competition. We didn't actually build our design (it was for an SSTO winged launch vehicle with a projected cost of $25 billion) but large parts of it were designed with multi-island genetic algorithms and such. After that, I worked a while for one of the school's research labs that specialized in stuff like that. It's what made me realize I want nothing to do with initial concepts like that; it can be fun for a while, but in the end, you don't really have much to show for your work other than a powerpoint and a paper or two. I like my current job much better--I draw something up in Catia, then take it out on the floor and help put it together that afternoon. And at the end of the day, I can point to it and say "that is what I did today".
Bah...
Usable nuclear fusion
Personal spacecraft--bonus for FTL techonology, but I'll settle for earth-to-moon range.
No flying cars--I fly small airplanes today, and trust me, there are enough idiots up there already. I don't want Atlanta drivers in the air.
There is one case where I believe the government should be funding space "exploration", excluding military operations.
I believe the prime focus of a civilian government space program should be the establishment, maintenance, and expansion of permanent space settlements. Included in this would be orbiting habitats, permanent bases on the moon and Mars, terraforming Mars, and so on... and eventually full-blown interstellar colony ships.
My reasoning is that such a program would provide direct benefit to all of humanity. Among such benefits:
The technology used for sustainable long-duration habitable environments (water reuse, power efficiency, etc) could carry directly over to reducing resource consumption on earth.
Other technology (materials, sensors, other devices) could be incorporated into new products.
Most importantly, humankind would be establishing "backups" on other planets, and hopefully (eventually) in other solar systems. That way we don't all die when some asteroid or gamma ray burst comes along. Survival of the species.
A free market is not really interested in the above... the development costs are far too high, and the monetary return (if any) would be a very long time coming... and as long as average corporation and its shareholders are only interested in next year's or next quarter's profits, you will never see them invest in something whose break-even point might be 50 or 100 years (or more) in the future.
I might could be convinced to fund pure science missions (lunar far-side radio telescope, Hubble, etc.) even if they don't feed into the above goal.
Leave all the touristy stuff and commercial satellites to private industry, though. The market is at the point where it can sustain and grow, given a favorable regulatory environment.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote Herland back in 1915; essentially a similar premise.
Just remember-- we're not TRYING to be dicks, most of the time. Nobody's good at everything, and we might even be trying to help, awkwardly. Listen to this guy, for he is wise. I can't tell you how many times I've unintentionally offended people by presenting a blunt argument like that, or by putting up a "devil's advocate" scenario. But I should point out that it is equally frustrating on the engineer's end to try and deal with a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude. That is, "I'm not going to consider your data because it disagrees with my position", not "your data is invalid, and I can explain why if you'd like to hear it".
Maybe it might be a good idea to put together a "how to recognize and interact with engineers" book or something? My wife (a history/liberal arts major) has gotten pretty good at it; then again, she did debate in high school and has basically an engineer's mindset...
Probably not with the Apache, but Germany's Stuka dive bombers (Spanish civil war/WWII) had sirens fitted specifically for that reason.
Well, a quick google search shows that the US launched one reactor-powered satellite in 1965; the reactor failed relatively quickly and the satellite was boosted into a higher "disposal" orbit. There were apparently plans to launch an experiemental reactor in the shuttle's payload bay, in support of the SDI program; this was scrapped after Challenger.
The Soviet Union launched several reactor-powered satellites; it seems that most (if not all) of them were RORSATs (Radar Ocean Reconnaissance SATellites). I believe their primary function was finding US carrier battlegroups and supply convoys, with the intent of directing attack submarines and long-range bombers. I'd imagine they used reactors because they could supply more power. I also seem to remember reading that solar panels are pretty vulnerable to EMP effects in orbit; maybe a reactor is less so?
I really doubt you'll see any RTGs on an earth-orbit satellite. It's a lot cheaper and easier just to use solar panels; RTGs are reserved for deep space missions or other things where solar panels lose effectiveness due to distance (Jupiter/Saturn adn beyond), dust (MSL rover), or extended shadow (moon surface experiments).
The company I work for has a very interesting policy for exempt work... even as an exempt employee, we can still work "overtime". It goes like this:
The first 5 hours that you work late during the "standard week" is free; any time after that, or any time not during the "standard week" is paid as additional straight time. The best part is that our "standard week" in engineering is four 10-hour days, and until you get up into a management-type position you rarely (maybe 2-3x/month) work later than that. Friday is extra pay; most of us generally come in and work till lunch that day. However, you generally are expected to be there for the normal 40 hours; and though personal time is technically "unlimited", using more than the standard allotment without good cause is generally frowned upon. You're also guaranteed at least 4 hours if you get called in (say, on the weekend), even if you're only there 30 minutes.
What's even better is that, for the first six months, someone coming in as Engineer I is classified as hourly, so you get all the benefits of time-and-a-half and all that. The catch is that, once you go salary, you keep the same base pay till the annual adjustments/raises come around... so you effectively lose a little money if you've been working overtime.
If all you're considering is performance, then no, SS2 doesn't improve things. But I think the real benefit of Scaled's approach (fairly simple, reuseable sub-orbital craft) is on the operational side. On one hand, if you're building full-blown rockets and flying into orbit, you might be pushing the technology envelope, but spending a lot of money on each launch (which means a couple launches/year at most), and because the conditions of your flight are fairly demanding, you stand a good chance at losing the vehicle. On the other hand, suborbital flight is less risky, but not as demanding, and you won't be making giant technological leaps.
On the gripping hand, going suborbital lets you do a lot of flying. It's a more demanding environment than even standard high-altitude flight (U-2 etc), but because the risks and costs are lower, you can learn how to operate space-qualified vehicles on an everyday basis. Getting to the point of airline-like reliability will come a lot faster, and then you can take the engineering and operational lessons learned and apply them to something that goes higher and faster.
In my experience, it's always been easier to get the simple thing working reliably and then build off of it, as opposed to designing something really complex, then trying to make it work at all.
No, it won't. You're assuming it'll somehow magically come to a dead stop when released, then start to fall straight down. What will really happen is that it'll just get shoved into a slightly lower orbit, so it will hit the atmosphere at pretty much orbital velocity, just like the shuttle does.
Just because it was spinning doesn't mean it was running. Next time you see a parked airliner, watch how the wind blowing through the engine causes the blades to spin.
That's why you give them fake information. They think my card is linked to some little old lady in Atlanta who lives in a fraternity house.
The grocery store I used to work at put that day's sports and main front pages up in a case over the urinals. It was actually kinda nice...