pluto77189I have always heard people tell me stories they heard from SR-71 pilots, laughing at, in a mocking sort of manner, the typically stated “Mach 3” figure.
IF an F-15 can do mach 2+, youd think something that looks like the SR-71 can do substantially more.
Either these pilots just enjoy messing with people, insinuating faster speeds just because they get a kick out of it, or the thing can really go faster…
I wonder…
pluto77189Then educate us all as to what Microsoft did that was so revolutionary?
DOS was ripped off, as was windows and GUI interfaces…
Look how successful they were. They managed to create an OS that was simple for anyone to use, and market it to the masses in such a way that everyone used it. MOST PC’s are operating on microsoft OS’s. Microsoft has becoem such a huge company because of it’s products and its marketing, and management.
Do they tick some people off because they out compete smaller companies? Sure. Does their market dominance cause the competition to create FAR superior products if they are to have any hope of success? Yup.
Look at the number of PC’s owned by people now, and compare to the number before windows. Look at the internet, and software, that runs on MS OS.
the “revolution” may or may not have occurred without MS. Saying MS wasn’t needed to get us where we are today is an absurd statement. Who the heck knows what would have happened. IF not MS, then some other company would have hit the nail on the head, and the success would have been THEIRS!
pluto77189cold war mentality…
Idiots…
It’s the “Next WAR Mentality”, or the “worst case-scenario” mentality that we’re preparing for.
It’s taken some 15 years to get the F-22 to a point where it could be ready in a year if needed. Imagine if we hadn’t started it back then, and in a couple years, “something” happens, and we NEED a replacement for the F-15 soon. Then what? Tell the threat to wait 5 years while we dust off some old plans?
Our entire armed forces, and that of our allies, DEPENDS on air superiority. It’s been what, 50 years since a US soldier has been attacked from the air? You’d think that would be a stat they’d like to extend.
If the air force is not as good as it could be(for example, f-15’s instead of f-22’s), then our soldiers are not as safe, and neither are our allies.
I like the F-15, but it’s older than me. It’s still effective, and probably would work in future combat just fine. Lessons learned in past wars have shown that you can’t rely on everything going the way you plan. We do our best to use AWACS, and get in the best firing position, and hit them before they know, form long range. But what if it’s a situation when we cannot control everything like that in the beginning. What if We can’t fly an AWACS there? What if we’re grossly outnumbered? what if, somehow, some day, an AWACS is lost? Sucks in a bird, engine blows up, long range sam, whatever? Then what.
With an AWACS,all we need is a missle carrier with high speed. Without, we need a fighter. With the AWACS, the F-15 is fine. WIthout, it is simply not as good as current threats.
The development of “anti-AWACS” Sams with 200+ mile ranges is something that must be considered. If someone were to buy one of these systems from Russia, then that could ruin the day of an AF planner. The Advantage would shift away from Attacking forces.
You can’t just plan on fighting the same war, the same way, with the same systems in place every time. You have to plan for the worst, and you can’t realistically expect an F-15 to come out with a 100-0 shoot down record if it’s faced with SU-30’s, or Mig1.44 derivitaves, WITHOUT an Awacs. So, you have to plan on having fighters that COULD perform under the “worst” possible situation–without AWACS support.
Anyone planning on putting F-15’s in such a situation without expecting severe losses is nuts.
pluto77189Look, despite what you may FEEL, big companies are that way for a reason. Money made from Microsoft went into SSO–big deal. It was a personal funding, made by a PERSON, and not taken from taxpayers.
The fact that they “ignored” heat shields does not detract from the project, which was never intended to, nor could ever, go high enough to REQUIRE such shields.
It’s far too small to carry enough fuel to enter orbit.
Be thankful that some people take the chance to risk their own money to advance science.
Mocking sso because it didn’t do anything that hasn’t been done demonstrates a lack of perspective.
It’s not so much a tech. demonstrator anymore–we know it all works. It’s a sign, proof that space flight can be done wihtout the hemmoraging of tax dollars, without government beurocratic mess and red tape.
Are they going for the Xprize? Yes. I sit because of the $10,000,000. No, it’s for the prize itself, regardless of how much it costs.
Are they hoping to make money off of SSO, yes, of course. There is no future in space flight if there is no money to be made by it. Space agencies will keep it up, but it will not be realized unitl it is used FOR profit, either colonization, travel, mineral harvesting, waste disposal, etc.
SSO is a first step in creating a truely practical, affordable spaceraft. One that MAKES money every time it takes off.
pluto77189As for the RCS, they use pressurosed dried air. If you want to get technical, there probably is a chemical formula for that. As for the hybrid engine, the biggest sticking point is when the last bit of Nitrous in the tank goes from liquid to gas, there is a severe loss of thrust.
My wife is a huge conservative. Whenever anything goes wrong with the government, her response is “privatize it!!!!!!!!” especially after spending 2 hours at the DMV. Sometimes this is not a good idea, but in the case of space travel, I think she is right on.
Hey, I work for the state gov. We spend MILLIONS on things that others do for profit. Privatization in the space inductry is not just a good idea, it’s the only way we’ll get there in any significant manner, within our lifetimes.
The Shuttle costs some $500,000,000 per launch(all the zeros has a better effect than just $500 million).
This thing costs a little over 20,000,000 to develop and launch.
While the shuttle’s abilities are far FAR greater than SSO, the cost difference is incredible.
Scaled composites was working with THEIR money.
The government works with other people’s money.
All the risks are the same except one. The potential to not have any more money if you screw things up.
pluto77189[QUOTE=Vortex]
Sorry to digress from a thread on what’s probably my favourite sort of vehicle, but the V-22 has got a poor payload for it’s size both as a plane AND as a helicopter. The Osprey puts CH-46 payload in a CH-53-sized airframe.
QUOTE]Arthur, what’s the size of the V22? What’s the size of the nearest military cargo plane in size, wingspan and fuselage length. What’s the payload capacity of the V22? You’ll be quite surprised for saying the above.
The point is that there isn’t ANYTHING like it. It does not matter if the payload is small, it can do things others cannot.
The Marines and special ops want the osprey not to replace the blackhark and chinook, but to replace them in certain missions where speed is important.
Fast action forces, or emergency operations, or long range actions are not suitable for a helicopter.
But the Osprey is perfect for it.
They just need to get things ironed out…
pluto77189The recent India competition was kept hush hush for the most part. They did leak out that, hardware wise, the Su-30 bested the F-15s hands down.
They actually blew it way out of proportion in front of congress, to press the “we NEED the F-22” issue.
Can’t say I disagree, since the F-22 vs. F-15 mock battles are very VERY ugly.
pluto77189Fair enough. However , you can’t solve each kind of problem with a war.
I agree that we should all be ashamed with those nasty genocides in Rwanda, Kosovo , Sudan etc…
This drives me to think that the UN DO need some armes forces in order to be able to rush everytime a genocide is pending somewhere.
Hwever the best way to solve those kinds of problems is to get rid of the poverty on this planet.
I read last week that with 150 billion $ , we could erase all the 3rd world debt.
Isn’t it the amount of money that GWB requested to the congress this year for Irak and Afghanistan? It makes me wonder…. Maybe I’m dreaming :rolleyes:
simply forgiving debt and providing massive social welfare to the rest of the world will solve nothing. Just like people who say that if the US killed all it’s cows and pigs, they cold feed the rest of the world’s starving with the corn used to feed the cows and pigs… And then what? Their kids go hungry, so we have twice as many starving as we did before.
Taking from the rich countries and giving to the poor ones will not “fix” the problem of poverty. It doesn’t do it in the US, and it won’t do it in the third world. the problem is getting these countres to be self sufficient. They can try as hard as they want, but with an evil dictatorship, or rampant militias, they will go nowhere.
Oil for food, the UN food shipments to Somalia… Money given to evil men does nothing for the people.
In MY opinion, investing billions of dollars in Iraq(by ridding it of a dictatorship) will do more for ending poverty than any other investment in the country.
In countries with governments that are not corrupt–or should I say LESS corrupt–investment in their well-being can be done differently. Investment is the key. Good will is fine, but without something to gain nobody’s going to INVEST–including the people of the country itself.
You will not end poverty without the cooperation of those living in it. If they simply take hand outs to get by–you’re just going to keep feeding them. If they want to learn how to survive without hand outs, they will.
pluto77189I don’t buy this. If the US administration was so active in searching evidences, why did Rumsfeld and Cheney deploy that much energy to to rid of Blix and the inspectors? It doesn’t make any sense!
I give Bush the credit that he followed what he said , since he always claimed , even during the campain that he would solve the Iraqi problem.You know what Pluto? I can bet here whatever you want that history will tell the truth to American people. In one year , 10 years , 30 years , who knows , people involved are gonna tell the truth. I can bet that American people will discovered who between GWB or Clinton disgraced the most the office.
I agree. that is something only history will prove…
The problem faced by a president is as follows:
No human should be given that amount of power, it is beyond the scope of any one
man.
As such, he has to decide when to take action–and when to NOT take action.
Bush has decided in several cases, to confront a problem, and deal with it, instead of
ignoring it.
In Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Rwada, clinton encountered several problems.
He chose to NOT follow through in these situations, leading to all kinds of genocide
and future problems. He stated he did not know Rwanda was going to turn out the
way it did. A few months ago, documents revealed that he knew ECACTLY what
was going to happen, but did nothing because he didn’t want to get invloved–a
million died.
Imagine havign the power to do something about a situation, and having to basivcally
decide who was to remain in oppression, and who was going to live, and die?
To have to send out americans to die to accomplish something.
Then look at why it was done. Iraq’s future will decide the way Bush will be viewed.
pluto77189The US is researching something similar. At leastis uses the same principle for lift–it flies close to the ocean, and the pressure generated beklow the wing causes the lift to be tremendous–even more efficient than high altitude flight. The US plan is for a massive air-lift machine, something that could transport heavy armor long distances.
there was a pop-sci article on it. They said the current nickname for it is the pelican, and they propose it could carry 12 or more M1 Abrams…
I think it’s supposed to fly a bit higher and slower than the caspian sea monster…
pluto77189I know muslims–quite a few. I am very aware of the fact that the terrorists do not represent muslims in general. Most of the muslims I know are some of the nicest people on earth, and they make a point of showing that terrosists are not representative of their religion.
unfortuntaly, we all too often see muslims dancing in the streets after an attack. The Neighborhood in Paterson NJ, where several of the 9-11 hijackers lived prior to the attacks, erupted in celebratuion when the towers fell. Palestinians cheered ad danced with the news, Muslims all over rejoiced when this guy got his throat cut.
While >I< know they are not representing ALL muslims, they are sure as heck making it look like it.
I ask, where the HE** is a muslim representative, a significant leader in the muslim world? Why are they NOt speaking out against this? Why has a group of muslim leaders nOT come forth to reject terror and murder?
It seems the ONLY muslims who actually reject the killings of hostages are Iraqis, every time an Egyptian or Saudi, or Jordanian is interviewed, they justify it.
I want to see very prominent muslims, in groups, denounce these attacks.
I’m starting to get HIGHLY disgusted with the leaders of Islam for their lack of ffort.
Seriously, after the prision photos, the PRESIDENT denounced it. People are being murdered,a nd nobody rejects it?
I know enough to understand the most muslims are like most christians, but I cannot see how others can come to the same conclusion, when all they see is the negative, because the “majority of muslims” don’t reject the bad stuff…
pluto77189don’t you just love quantum physics? What they said could be absolute BS, and nobody would know…
Interesting stuff, however.
pluto77189You don’t consider the “evidences” presented by Powell as a liar ?
Well, I think it is fairly obvious that Powell presented that evidence because he believed it to be true. We had lots of intelligence that reinforced it. There were IRaqi men at a site(just about to be inspected by th eUN) who mentioned “Nerve Agents”.
If Colin Powell and Bush were mistaken, and presented the evidence with the belief that it WAS TRUE, then it’s no lie at all. At the worst, they made a mistake.
Only if they KNEW it to be false intelligence would it be a lie.
Some of the intelligence on Iraq was probably wrong–it seems that we had too much faith in the Iraqi Exiles…
Some of it was accurate.
Even now, Putin has said that the Russian intelligence agencies gave the US evidence that Saddam was working to plan an attack IN THE US.
BEFORE the war in Iraq.
Unless Bush KNEW the intelligence was inaccurate, he is no liar.
In fact, Bush could not have BEEN more honest. He has followed through on everything he has said. Even Clinton praised him for that. Take that back–nothing Clinton says has any merit…he has zero credibility…. disgraced the office of the president.
pluto77189Anyway , that’a a challenge for Kerry to be as big liar as GWB 🙂
There is NO proof that Bush has lied about anything. I fanything he has spoken about intelligence that may(or may not be) less accurate than initially thought, but he has not lied.
Kerry has already been caught in more lies and flip flops and changes in idealogy than Clinton was. You should HEAR some of the things John Kerry has said, then hear what he says now—he is not fit for office.
EVERY single Democratic sign around my old campus has the words “get rid of Bush”–but NONE of them mention Kerry. The Liberals HATE GWB so much, saddam could run and they’d vote for him.
pluto77189Pluto ( :)) ,
However to be honest it’s quite the same in every country. The only way to work around this is to make your own opinion , getting information from different media , and from different countries. Not that easy I agree.
Many people–including my co-workers–seem to get their news from one source. TV. that’s bad for the most part. Fox news gets flak for being conservative, but at least they come out and say how they feel.
CNN and MSNBC claim to be unbiased, but they ARE biased.
If you JUST watch one source, you cannot possibly get all the info you really “need” to make up an accurate conclusion–the media is concerned with not simply the news, but the NEWS–they want the big story, the most dramatic event. The result is that only th spectacular stuff is really broadcast.
For instance: Kerry is running on the premise that Bush has destroyed the US economy. TV runs his speeches and ads, fine.
A poll done in the US shows that 57% of Americans believe that the US has lost jobs in the past 6 months. they think unemployment is very high.
In fact, onver 1.5 million jobs have been filed in the past 6 months, meaning that under GWB’s term, over 200,000 net jobs have been CREATED.
In recent months, John Kerry haas campainged by saying that 300,000 jobs have been lost under GWB’s term. People know this, because it’s on the news.
Well, he’s got a net GAIN of hundreds of thousands of jobs SINCE he took over. More than half of americans simply do not know this. They continue to beilieve Kerry’s statement as fact. Kerry is basically lying, and getting away with it, because people do not know.
Idiots.
GWB DESREVES to lose if he can’t get the message across. The US economy is in it’s greatest increase since Regan, and people still think our economy is bad. Because the mainstream media isn’t reporting this! Why? It’s not big NEWS, it’s nothing spectacular or catastrophic.
Sign In
