I can see why they wouldn't want to exhibit their shortcomings, or their full capabilities, but why not a few 1 metre resolution demonstrations of how well they can see you if they wanted to? After all, the occasional demonstration of capabilities is required to maintain the threat value of the military, and it's public knowledge (declassified information) that the US spy satellites had 1m resolution capabilities back in the late '60s. As far as useful life, the X37B does refuelling runs*, so no big deal there.
Any aircraft not on the ground should be in direct contact wit the ground traffic controllers – no switch – no exceptions!
You're answering your own question. Transponders are turned off when the plane is on the ground. No need for a transponder signal when the plane is in a hangar, or when it is in maintenance, or at the gate planing and deplaning passengers.
Wrong! The world produces more than enough food, and agricultural output grows four times for every three times the population grows. World hunger is a distribution problem, not a production problem. In fact, fully a third of the food produced in the world is wasted.
We still don't know what was in the cargo hold or if there was a billionaire on board. Did that plane have a richer suite?
We do know that Freescale Semiconductor, a US technology company having ties to both the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, had 20 senior staff on board Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. They had just launched a new electronic warfare device for military radar systems in the days before the Boeing 777 went missing, which caused it's stock prices to nearly double in the month prior to the crash; stock prices which have been steadily declining towards their previous levels since the bluefin failed to find wreckage.
Inmarsat also has a satellite over the pacific which (according to the picture) covers the southern arc. Why couldn't they triangulate from both satellites?
Further, the Jindalee Operational Radar Network in Australia is an over the horizon radar capable of sensing a four seater airplane like a cessna from 2600km away. Why didn't they see a plane 6-8 times larger and several hundred kilometers closer?
What about wearing a scarf because it's cold outside? With a bad enough windchill in the wintertime, you need to completely cover up your face unless you want frostbite. Are they going to make laws prohibiting cold weather?
Of course. Why do you think they're warming up the globe?
they'd probably have to do some restoration, and that's crazy expensive.
Thanks for the great observations, I agree with all of them- including this one.
But even though it's crazy expensive it also seems like that cost is nothing compared to what they would earn.
The crazy expensive part could be a blocker for a company without enough capital but Disney is anything but lacking capital.
The problem is that Fox, not Disney, owns the rights to the movies themselves. Disney bought the franchise from Lucas, but Lucas sold the movie rights to Fox long ago. The only way Disney's capital can come into play on Episodes 1-6 was if they acquired the rights from Fox, or went into a partnership of some sort.
I believe the return profile is to aim at the ocean and use the engines to slow down and laterally transition over land. Thus, if there are any failures, the rocket ends up in the drink and not in somebodies basement via the roof.
The problem is that if they launch over the sea and then try to recover a first stage back to land it is going to burn a lot of fuel reversing course before it falls out of the sky. That extra fuel will eat into payload-to-orbit, as will the landing leg system and all the other gubbins needed to soft-land it meaning that it can only be realistically used on small-payload launches which means less financial return on such flights.
Seriously, do you think that SpaceX hasn't crunched those numbers? Do you not think that SpaceX has looked at historical payload mass patterns and the anticipated market, and designed the rocket accordingly? Do you not know that SpaceX has done a tank stretch on the Falcon 9 to accommodate the extra fuel needed for the legs and the turnaround? Do you suppose that if a customer needs extra payload to orbit that they cannot choose to leave the legs off and switch back to an expendable launch profile?
When I swear off a technology, it usually means it's about to take over and nobody is going to even be given the choice of not using it any more. You heard me right: everything from Windows to Blu-ray is my fault. At some point I'll figure out how to use this power for good.
Okay. We need you to embrace Windows 8, and Apple, and ditch open source. Oh, and for the love of Sanity Itself, please never abandon Slashdot Beta.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see why they wouldn't want to exhibit their shortcomings, or their full capabilities, but why not a few 1 metre resolution demonstrations of how well they can see you if they wanted to? After all, the occasional demonstration of capabilities is required to maintain the threat value of the military, and it's public knowledge (declassified information) that the US spy satellites had 1m resolution capabilities back in the late '60s. As far as useful life, the X37B does refuelling runs*, so no big deal there.
*"facts grabbed from thin air.
Diego Garcia airport is a designated emergency airport for trans-Indian-Ocean flights. An unknown plane approaching the island would not be shot at.
Any aircraft not on the ground should be in direct contact wit the ground traffic controllers – no switch – no exceptions!
You're answering your own question. Transponders are turned off when the plane is on the ground. No need for a transponder signal when the plane is in a hangar, or when it is in maintenance, or at the gate planing and deplaning passengers.
Why wouldn't the Iranians simply build a nuke here, rather than try to fly one in?
Why would any country dedicate valuable spy satellite time and resources to searching for an airliner?
Why wouldn't they? I can think of nothing that says "We can see everything you do" better than finding aircraft debris in a case like this.
Why didn't they use a UAV to home in on the pings like a missile, rather than gridding in on the source using a passive device?
Wrong! The world produces more than enough food, and agricultural output grows four times for every three times the population grows. World hunger is a distribution problem, not a production problem. In fact, fully a third of the food produced in the world is wasted.
We still don't know what was in the cargo hold or if there was a billionaire on board. Did that plane have a richer suite?
We do know that Freescale Semiconductor, a US technology company having ties to both the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, had 20 senior staff on board Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. They had just launched a new electronic warfare device for military radar systems in the days before the Boeing 777 went missing, which caused it's stock prices to nearly double in the month prior to the crash; stock prices which have been steadily declining towards their previous levels since the bluefin failed to find wreckage.
Does that count?
Inmarsat also has a satellite over the pacific which (according to the picture) covers the southern arc. Why couldn't they triangulate from both satellites?
Further, the Jindalee Operational Radar Network in Australia is an over the horizon radar capable of sensing a four seater airplane like a cessna from 2600km away. Why didn't they see a plane 6-8 times larger and several hundred kilometers closer?
What, like they can't track the person in the green coat with the blue scarf?
What about wearing a scarf because it's cold outside? With a bad enough windchill in the wintertime, you need to completely cover up your face unless you want frostbite. Are they going to make laws prohibiting cold weather?
Of course. Why do you think they're warming up the globe?
they'd probably have to do some restoration, and that's crazy expensive.
Thanks for the great observations, I agree with all of them- including this one.
But even though it's crazy expensive it also seems like that cost is nothing compared to what they would earn.
The crazy expensive part could be a blocker for a company without enough capital but Disney is anything but lacking capital.
The problem is that Fox, not Disney, owns the rights to the movies themselves. Disney bought the franchise from Lucas, but Lucas sold the movie rights to Fox long ago. The only way Disney's capital can come into play on Episodes 1-6 was if they acquired the rights from Fox, or went into a partnership of some sort.
And you can't even write "I will can")
I will can the peaches tonight. What's the problem?
I thought huge arrays of massively parallel computation were done on GPUs these days.
Please... spelt is a grain.
APL-family languages should be even more popular than Fortran!
Probably would be if it wasn't a write only language.
I believe the return profile is to aim at the ocean and use the engines to slow down and laterally transition over land. Thus, if there are any failures, the rocket ends up in the drink and not in somebodies basement via the roof.
The problem is that if they launch over the sea and then try to recover a first stage back to land it is going to burn a lot of fuel reversing course before it falls out of the sky. That extra fuel will eat into payload-to-orbit, as will the landing leg system and all the other gubbins needed to soft-land it meaning that it can only be realistically used on small-payload launches which means less financial return on such flights.
Seriously, do you think that SpaceX hasn't crunched those numbers? Do you not think that SpaceX has looked at historical payload mass patterns and the anticipated market, and designed the rocket accordingly? Do you not know that SpaceX has done a tank stretch on the Falcon 9 to accommodate the extra fuel needed for the legs and the turnaround? Do you suppose that if a customer needs extra payload to orbit that they cannot choose to leave the legs off and switch back to an expendable launch profile?
Yes, it takes a full test, in addition, the extra weight of building it to soft land reduces the performance of the system.
True, and if it can already outperform its intended use, then nothing is lost.
retrophrenology at it's finest!
So it's not the bumps, it's the divots?
"Can someone explain to me exactly what is so marvelous about what this dude can supposedly "see"?"
He sees dead people, all the time.
So does a mortician. Big deal!
When I swear off a technology, it usually means it's about to take over and nobody is going to even be given the choice of not using it any more. You heard me right: everything from Windows to Blu-ray is my fault. At some point I'll figure out how to use this power for good.
Okay. We need you to embrace Windows 8, and Apple, and ditch open source. Oh, and for the love of Sanity Itself, please never abandon Slashdot Beta.
What makes a 3D TV "proper"?
It only gets wholesome channels. It'll show Little House on the Prairie, but you'll get a blank screen if you try to watch Game of Thrones.
it means phones that do more than basic calling, and often have installable applications, but aren't based on the iPhone/Android touchscreen designs
Ah! So Blackberrys then.
I found it odd that the plane's axis was on a perfect north / south line.
Yeah. That was a big "get real" indicator for me as well.