Sometimes you have to wonder what possesses a company to run the ads that they do. Did anyone at this briefcase company really think about whether it was a good idea to put a picture of someone stealing a briefcase on their website?
29 March 2006
That's Why They Call It "Running an Ad"
Sometimes you have to wonder what possesses a company to run the ads that they do. Did anyone at this briefcase company really think about whether it was a good idea to put a picture of someone stealing a briefcase on their website?
22 March 2006
Savannah on my Mind
The world's first nuclear-powered merchant ship is looking for a port. The Virtual Office of Acquistion of the Maritime Administration is trying to find a home for the decommissioned N.S. Savannah. This comes about as a result of MARAD's plan to remove the reactor and piping from the vessel in order to reduce its liability as a potential target for terrorist attack.
The Savannah was launched in 1962 and spent 1965-1971 sailing the oceans for the American Export Isbrandtsen Lines under a contract from the U.S. government. While a technological and aesthectic success, it was not financially practical, and was decommisioned in 1972 to save money for the war in Vietnam. The ship was built as a passenger/cargo hybrid, with thirty staterooms, but the size of the engineering plant and the space taken up by the passenger quarters meant that it could carry less than 10,000 tons of cargo. She was built with the knowledge that it could never be profitable, but it was hoped that she would demonstrate the benefits of atomic power.
The Savannah was fast, with a maximum speed of twenty-three knots and a sustained cruising speed of more than twenty knots. She was equipped with active roll stabilization and had rolling cargo cranes instead of the common kingposts. Her reactor was surrounded by armor designed to prevent a collision from rupturing the core. This included two feet of crushing material made up of high-strength steel and redwood, and concrete reactor shielding eighteen inches thick. The reactor containment vessel had a pair of spring-loaded manholes on the bottom, which were designed to open in the event of the ship sinking. These would allow seawater in, to balance the pressure as the vessel sank, in order to prevent it from being crushed. When the pressure equalized at the bottom, the springs would drive the hatches shut, sealing the reactor.
In reality, there wasn't any way to make a nuclear ship profitable. Imagine a tramp steamer with a crew of nuclear engineers. Only two other merchant ships have ever been nuclear powered: the N.S Otto Hahn in Germany, which was launched in 1964 and which served from 1970-1979 before it was converted into a conventionally powered ship; and the "Sevmorput", an icebreaker-freighter in Russia which was launched in 1988 and is still active. The "Sevmorput" has a bit of an unfair advantage though, as it is on a highly subsidized route across the Northeast Passage. Japan built a nuclear ship, the Mutsu, which was launched in 1969. Her reactor was a technical disaster and her career consisted of four voyages in 1991 before she was decommissioned the next year. The Japan Atomic Energy Institute emphasizes the success of her 1991 cruises, but doesn't mention the twenty-two year gestation period.
It's interesting to note that the U.S. Navy has decommissioned all nine of the nuclear-powered cruisers that it built, leaving only the carriers in service. Apparently, even they couldn't make the economics work in their favor.
As an aside, the Savannah's namesake was the first steam-powered ship to cross the Atlantic, in 1819. She carried enough fuel to run her boilers for eighty-nine of the 707-hour voyage.
The Savannah was launched in 1962 and spent 1965-1971 sailing the oceans for the American Export Isbrandtsen Lines under a contract from the U.S. government. While a technological and aesthectic success, it was not financially practical, and was decommisioned in 1972 to save money for the war in Vietnam. The ship was built as a passenger/cargo hybrid, with thirty staterooms, but the size of the engineering plant and the space taken up by the passenger quarters meant that it could carry less than 10,000 tons of cargo. She was built with the knowledge that it could never be profitable, but it was hoped that she would demonstrate the benefits of atomic power.
The Savannah was fast, with a maximum speed of twenty-three knots and a sustained cruising speed of more than twenty knots. She was equipped with active roll stabilization and had rolling cargo cranes instead of the common kingposts. Her reactor was surrounded by armor designed to prevent a collision from rupturing the core. This included two feet of crushing material made up of high-strength steel and redwood, and concrete reactor shielding eighteen inches thick. The reactor containment vessel had a pair of spring-loaded manholes on the bottom, which were designed to open in the event of the ship sinking. These would allow seawater in, to balance the pressure as the vessel sank, in order to prevent it from being crushed. When the pressure equalized at the bottom, the springs would drive the hatches shut, sealing the reactor.
In reality, there wasn't any way to make a nuclear ship profitable. Imagine a tramp steamer with a crew of nuclear engineers. Only two other merchant ships have ever been nuclear powered: the N.S Otto Hahn in Germany, which was launched in 1964 and which served from 1970-1979 before it was converted into a conventionally powered ship; and the "Sevmorput", an icebreaker-freighter in Russia which was launched in 1988 and is still active. The "Sevmorput" has a bit of an unfair advantage though, as it is on a highly subsidized route across the Northeast Passage. Japan built a nuclear ship, the Mutsu, which was launched in 1969. Her reactor was a technical disaster and her career consisted of four voyages in 1991 before she was decommissioned the next year. The Japan Atomic Energy Institute emphasizes the success of her 1991 cruises, but doesn't mention the twenty-two year gestation period.
It's interesting to note that the U.S. Navy has decommissioned all nine of the nuclear-powered cruisers that it built, leaving only the carriers in service. Apparently, even they couldn't make the economics work in their favor.
As an aside, the Savannah's namesake was the first steam-powered ship to cross the Atlantic, in 1819. She carried enough fuel to run her boilers for eighty-nine of the 707-hour voyage.
10 March 2006
Good News. Bad News
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter successfully entered orbit around the Red Planet this afternoon. Everything seems to be nominal at this point. We'll hear more at the press conference later this evening.
On the other hand, word on the wire is that NASA is going to change out the ECO sensor in the external tank, pushing the launch of Discovery to July at the earliest. That's for the best, as the first results from the wind tunnel testing of the reconfigured tank were not good. This could change as the complete series of tests is run, but it's better not to rush at this point. With the launch moved back, there will be plenty of time to run (and re-run, if necessary) all of the tests needed to be certain about the aerodynamics.
On the other hand, word on the wire is that NASA is going to change out the ECO sensor in the external tank, pushing the launch of Discovery to July at the earliest. That's for the best, as the first results from the wind tunnel testing of the reconfigured tank were not good. This could change as the complete series of tests is run, but it's better not to rush at this point. With the launch moved back, there will be plenty of time to run (and re-run, if necessary) all of the tests needed to be certain about the aerodynamics.
08 March 2006
Blackstar
There is a must-read piece at Aviation Now. The folks at Aviation Week and Space Technology have decided to release what they know about an ultra-black two stage to orbit system that was developed in the 1980's to launch a small manned craft into orbit.
What evidence exists for this program? I definitely recommend that you read the article.
For 16 years, Aviation Week & Space Technology has investigated myriad sightings of a two-stage-to-orbit system that could place a small military spaceplane in orbit. Considerable evidence supports the existence of such a highly classified system, and top Pentagon officials have hinted that it's "out there," but iron-clad confirmation that meets AW&ST standards has remained elusive. Now facing the possibility that this innovative "Blackstar" system may have been shelved, we elected to share what we've learned about it with our readers, rather than let an intriguing technological breakthrough vanish into "black world" history, known to only a few insiders. U.S. intelligence agencies may have quietly mothballed a highly classified two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane system designed in the 1980s for reconnaissance, satellite-insertion and, possibly, weapons delivery. It could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained by war costs, or it may not have met performance or operational goals.What's more, they claim that this system was operational in the 90's and has only recently been terminated, due to the high cost of the war in Iraq. It used a B-70-like mothership that was built out of pieces that had been purchased for the third (unbuilt) prototype of that Mach 3 bomber. The space capsule was derived from the X-20 Dynosoar (everyone has wondered why that technology hasn't been used for something).
What evidence exists for this program? I definitely recommend that you read the article.
07 March 2006
Here We Go Again
There is a report today from NASASpaceflight.com that an Engine Cut-Off (ECO) sensor in the shuttle's external tank is acting up again and that sources within Lockheed Martin and NASA have indicated that it must be changed. This involves entering the tank, which would guarantee a miss on the May launch window. NASA PR people are denying that any decisions have been made.
This is a reprise of last year's launch fiasco where an erratic ECO was giving erroneous signals. NASA issued a variance of their flight rules and flew with only three of the four ECOs operating then, under the explanation that the anomoly was intermittent. Reports from the Cape indicate that it was indeed intermittent, as it would disappear when the SIM circuit was shut off and reappear when it was turned back on. Unfortunately, the purpose of the SIM circuit is to detect failures in the ECO — signals that should only appear when the SIM is on.
Anyone with any doubts as to what NASA's internal politics are like should read Dragonfly, about the American astronauts on Mir. Managers from low-level up to the director are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep the money flowing. Astronauts know that to speak up means that they'll never fly in space, so they keep their mouths shut and hope that when their turns come, nothing will fall off or explode. It is not an environment designed to elicit clear rational thought.
Make no mistake: spaceflight is a terribly dangerous activity. People will die on the way to and from the heavens. If advances are to be made it is probably the case that people should die; for if not, we are probably not pushing the envelope hard enough. What is not necessary is that people die because of bureaucratic stupidity.
This is a reprise of last year's launch fiasco where an erratic ECO was giving erroneous signals. NASA issued a variance of their flight rules and flew with only three of the four ECOs operating then, under the explanation that the anomoly was intermittent. Reports from the Cape indicate that it was indeed intermittent, as it would disappear when the SIM circuit was shut off and reappear when it was turned back on. Unfortunately, the purpose of the SIM circuit is to detect failures in the ECO — signals that should only appear when the SIM is on.
Anyone with any doubts as to what NASA's internal politics are like should read Dragonfly, about the American astronauts on Mir. Managers from low-level up to the director are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep the money flowing. Astronauts know that to speak up means that they'll never fly in space, so they keep their mouths shut and hope that when their turns come, nothing will fall off or explode. It is not an environment designed to elicit clear rational thought.
Make no mistake: spaceflight is a terribly dangerous activity. People will die on the way to and from the heavens. If advances are to be made it is probably the case that people should die; for if not, we are probably not pushing the envelope hard enough. What is not necessary is that people die because of bureaucratic stupidity.
05 March 2006
Hephaestus' First Law
Any sufficiently unlikely event will immediately be siezed upon as a miracle by true believers.
I mention this because The New York Times Book Review has added a science fiction column by David Itzkoff. This event will immediately be forwarded to the Vatican as evidence of Octavia Butler's first miracle. For those of you who didn't notice, Ms. Butler died last week, far too young. The NYT did give her a decent sendoff.
Who knows what inspired the editors of the Grey Lady to rush into this move a mere sixty years or so after the beginning of science fiction's Golden Age. Still, we'll take what we can get.
Addendum: Itzkoff's list of his ten favorite science fiction books shows that he has promise. It's not my list, and I don't recognize some of the titles (I'll go look for the ones that I don't), but I can't argue with any of the selections that I do know.
I mention this because The New York Times Book Review has added a science fiction column by David Itzkoff. This event will immediately be forwarded to the Vatican as evidence of Octavia Butler's first miracle. For those of you who didn't notice, Ms. Butler died last week, far too young. The NYT did give her a decent sendoff.
Who knows what inspired the editors of the Grey Lady to rush into this move a mere sixty years or so after the beginning of science fiction's Golden Age. Still, we'll take what we can get.
Addendum: Itzkoff's list of his ten favorite science fiction books shows that he has promise. It's not my list, and I don't recognize some of the titles (I'll go look for the ones that I don't), but I can't argue with any of the selections that I do know.
Penultimate Failure
Airbus recently tested the wing of their new A380 to destruction. Unfortunately, it failed a little earlier than anticipated. The test that failed is known as the Ultimate Load test. It involves mounting a wing in a jig and bending the tip up to simulate the strain that the wing might face in service. The first series of tests are to the "Limit Load" — the maximum amount that the aircraft is to carry in service. The European aviation authorities then require the wing to withstand a strain of 1.5 times the Limit Load for three seconds before failing.
The A380 wing failed between 1.45 and 1.5 times the Limit Load. Airbus will attempt to convince the authorities to approve the wing based upon models of any changes, rather than testing another actual wing. This is in accordance with standard Airbus practice. The A330 wing also failed just short of the standard. Airbus actually points to the failure with pride, pointing out how it means that there is no wasted weight spent on excessive strength, as compared with the Boeing 777 which didn't fail until 1.54 times the Limit Load.
While there is something to be said for avoiding excessive conservatism and the fact that the wing did fail at precisely the point predicted by the models, I'd prefer to fly on a plane that had been designed with the extra little bit of strength built in.
The A380 wing failed between 1.45 and 1.5 times the Limit Load. Airbus will attempt to convince the authorities to approve the wing based upon models of any changes, rather than testing another actual wing. This is in accordance with standard Airbus practice. The A330 wing also failed just short of the standard. Airbus actually points to the failure with pride, pointing out how it means that there is no wasted weight spent on excessive strength, as compared with the Boeing 777 which didn't fail until 1.54 times the Limit Load.
While there is something to be said for avoiding excessive conservatism and the fact that the wing did fail at precisely the point predicted by the models, I'd prefer to fly on a plane that had been designed with the extra little bit of strength built in.
03 March 2006
One for the Visiting Teams
Yesterday, the heads of the Russian, Japanese, and European space agencies all met at NASA to announce the new IIS construction schedule. The transcript of the press conference is an interesting read. The European and Japanese science modules were all moved up in the assembly sequence. The Russians have agreed not to fly one of their power modules, instead taking power from an American module.
When Mike Griffin was asked whether any American modules would not be flown, he deferred the question, saying that the head of space operations would know better than he. This is disingenuous, as Griffin knows full well that the American habitation module, which would have provided living quarters for four astronauts, and the propulsion module, which would have given the station the ability to correct its own orbit have been cancelled, even though both have been built. The Centrifuge Accommodation Module, which was built by the Japanese to pay for their shuttle flights has been grounded as well. He knows all this because he was the one who cancelled all of these projects.
All-in-all, the partners sounded very pleased to have the schedule compressed and to have their components moved up in the schedule. There was much talk about the Americans leaving the ISS program after 2015 ("abandon in place" is NASA's unofficial motto) and the whole assembly schedule is based upon the shuttle launches matching their twenty-five year average of 4.56 flights per year.
Ad Astra Per Aspera
When Mike Griffin was asked whether any American modules would not be flown, he deferred the question, saying that the head of space operations would know better than he. This is disingenuous, as Griffin knows full well that the American habitation module, which would have provided living quarters for four astronauts, and the propulsion module, which would have given the station the ability to correct its own orbit have been cancelled, even though both have been built. The Centrifuge Accommodation Module, which was built by the Japanese to pay for their shuttle flights has been grounded as well. He knows all this because he was the one who cancelled all of these projects.
All-in-all, the partners sounded very pleased to have the schedule compressed and to have their components moved up in the schedule. There was much talk about the Americans leaving the ISS program after 2015 ("abandon in place" is NASA's unofficial motto) and the whole assembly schedule is based upon the shuttle launches matching their twenty-five year average of 4.56 flights per year.
Ad Astra Per Aspera
01 March 2006
The Schedule is Everything
The folks at NASA are working hard to get Discovery off the ground during the May launch window. For those of you who might not be following along at home, the space shuttles are doomed to the Sisyphean task of pushing space station parts into orbit. In order to maximize the loads they carry, they must launch when the station is properly positioned. After Columbia, it was decided that at least the first two shuttle flights had to take place when both the launch and the point where the external tank is discarded is in daylight, to allow for visual and photographic inspection. This inspection is what showed that huge chunks of foam were still falling off of the tank.
After both Challenger and Columbia, NASA officials were taken to task for creating an environment where adherence to schedule trumped concerns for safety. Now, with an launch window available in May, NASA is doing it again, rather than waiting for the July window.
The external tank that will fly has just left the construction facility outside of New Orleans, having been rushed out a week ahead of schedule. Even still, the normal preflight foam inspections and repairs will eat up every day of contingency time in the schedule. At the same time, leaking helium seals have been replaced in two of Discovery's engines. Unfortunately, three of the four seals don't meet specifications, despite being hand-picked as the best available in the inventory. There are also metal shavings that have been detected in a filter screen in the oxygen line of one engine. More have been found in one of Endeavour's engines. NASA has no idea of where this metal came from or what it's made of.
Even with all of these problems, the shuttle program manager remains very optimistic that there will be three shuttle flights this year. The launch director, Mike Leinbach, has said, "What we've done this time is, we've put together a schedule that has no contingency in it. Some people could call that an aggressive schedule. I like to call it an exciting schedule. It has a reasonable chance of success. If we run into a significant technical issue, we don't have much time to resolve it, obviously. But barring the big 'gotcha' in the processing, we feel pretty good about making that schedule."
There is a reason for all of this haste. Many of the remaining components of the space station have been built and have been sitting for years awaiting launch. For various technical reasons, these parts are reaching the end of their viable storage lives. If they are not put into service soon, they will require extensive (and expensive) refurbishing to replace seals, batteries, and other items. So, just as happened before Challenger and Columbia, NASA has become schedule-driven to meet arbitrary dates. It will be interesting to find out how many variances of the Flight Rules will be needed to get Discovery into the air in time for two more launches this year.
After both Challenger and Columbia, NASA officials were taken to task for creating an environment where adherence to schedule trumped concerns for safety. Now, with an launch window available in May, NASA is doing it again, rather than waiting for the July window.
The external tank that will fly has just left the construction facility outside of New Orleans, having been rushed out a week ahead of schedule. Even still, the normal preflight foam inspections and repairs will eat up every day of contingency time in the schedule. At the same time, leaking helium seals have been replaced in two of Discovery's engines. Unfortunately, three of the four seals don't meet specifications, despite being hand-picked as the best available in the inventory. There are also metal shavings that have been detected in a filter screen in the oxygen line of one engine. More have been found in one of Endeavour's engines. NASA has no idea of where this metal came from or what it's made of.
Even with all of these problems, the shuttle program manager remains very optimistic that there will be three shuttle flights this year. The launch director, Mike Leinbach, has said, "What we've done this time is, we've put together a schedule that has no contingency in it. Some people could call that an aggressive schedule. I like to call it an exciting schedule. It has a reasonable chance of success. If we run into a significant technical issue, we don't have much time to resolve it, obviously. But barring the big 'gotcha' in the processing, we feel pretty good about making that schedule."
There is a reason for all of this haste. Many of the remaining components of the space station have been built and have been sitting for years awaiting launch. For various technical reasons, these parts are reaching the end of their viable storage lives. If they are not put into service soon, they will require extensive (and expensive) refurbishing to replace seals, batteries, and other items. So, just as happened before Challenger and Columbia, NASA has become schedule-driven to meet arbitrary dates. It will be interesting to find out how many variances of the Flight Rules will be needed to get Discovery into the air in time for two more launches this year.
Stop the Presses!
Much to my amazement (and that of most of the rest of the world), not all American Olympic athletes are slimy, self-centered buffoons with the social graces of an enraged hippotamus and the myopic world view of the current occupant of the White House. Apparently, speedskater Joey Cheek actually spent his post-victory press conference talking about things other than himself and his sport. He also donated his winnings for the games (a $50,000 bonus for a gold medal and $25,000 for a silver, from the US Olympic Committee) to an organization called "Right to Play" that benefits third-world children.
This story in Sports Illustrated describes how he also encouraged corporate sponsors of the games to match his donation, raising a cool half-million dollars.
Of course, such selflessness won't go unnoticed in America. When the New York Times asked one of the principals of a large New York marketing firm about Cheek's potential as an advertising spokesman, he replied, "Has he won anything yet?"
This story in Sports Illustrated describes how he also encouraged corporate sponsors of the games to match his donation, raising a cool half-million dollars.
Of course, such selflessness won't go unnoticed in America. When the New York Times asked one of the principals of a large New York marketing firm about Cheek's potential as an advertising spokesman, he replied, "Has he won anything yet?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)