The fact sheet [PDF Warning] on the current VHF system in use.

I just posted in the wrong thread. Synopsis:

I made a lot of money back in the 90's repairing NTFS installs. The similarity with it, back then, and EXT4 is they are/were young file systems.

Give Ted and company a break. Let him get the damn thing fixed up (I have plenty of faith in Ted). Hell, I even remember losing an EXT3 file system back when it was fresh out of the gate. And I'm sure there's plenty who could say the same for all those you listed, including ZFS.

And your comment about extended data caching. Is your memory short? Remember "laptop mode", specifically setup this way to keep the hard drive from having to spin up...

And I used to make my living repairing NTFS filesystems back in the 90's. Back then the smart folks had their boot drive formatted FAT for a reason. Of course, NTFS is much more mature now than back then. The same argument applies here, EXT4 was just released for general use. We should all give it, and Ted and company, a break.

I've followed Ted's work for many years on the FOSS front. I fully expect him to make EXT4 work best in both scenarios (data safety and performance optimized).

man mount

Look for data=journal

There's more than one mode of journaling in ext[3-4]...

Or if you're too lazy.

True, most only really think of oil as being the next big thing to cause mass hysteria, but few realize that potable water is a dwindling resource in certain regions. Even the giant Ogallala aquifer in the central United States is showing increased rate of depletion (not to mention pollution).

There are a few books on the subject.

Nice piece of sensationalist work.

SS-N-22s came online in 1984. Assuming the state of a lot of other Soviet tech, what level of combat readiness do you think they are in?

The fact that the Chinese are tweaking and modernizing them is really the biggest issue of threat.

The 60-70nm range of a 3K82 isn't a huge threat specifically. The BARCAP range around a carrier task group in a war time situation is much larger than that. Getting the SS-N-22 into a launching position might be difficult with an Aegis + SM-2ER umbrella.

That's not to say we're ignoring the threat. Upgrades such as the RIM-116 Block II are specifically targeted at threats like the SS-N-22 (flight testing began in 2008).

The simple fact that we have not fielded any super/hypersonic missiles in an offensive posture isn't a great concern. Having the offensive super/hypersonic cruise capability doesn't represent a _defense_ against a similar weapon fired in the opposite direction.

And if you're thinking Iranian? The last time they tangled with the USN the outcome wasn't pretty.

The scariest geo-political thing to come about, as of late, is the decoupling of US-China trade relations. This is putting China in hard economic situation as the US's consumer spending habits come back down to reality. It always seems like a good war breaks out whenever the world hits a large economic breakdown...

Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....

I'm not sure your definition of "cruise" in your post, but the idea that a 747 can't stay aloft on 2 engines isn't relatively true. You should be able to maintain FL150 or so, depending upong conditions and fuel load. And if things get hairy, dump fuel until you get below MLW.

Now, if by "cruise", you meant maintain 490 KTAS at FL350, you are correct. Not gonna happen on 2 engines. But you're talking double engine failures, I'd _much_ rather be on a 747 (4-2 = 2) than a 777 (2-2 = 0). 747's with double engine failures have returned safely on multiple occasions.

> So, a double engine failure on a 747 isn't
> really much better than a double engine failure
> on a 777.

I agree with the sentiment of your post. More parts/engines, more chances or failure. And high ETOPS rated twins are more economical to operate.

That was Tex Johnston and he actually did it twice.

FYI,

Standard cruise on a 747 is .85 Mach (567MPH) and a 777 is .84 Mach (560MPH).

Both of these planes are capable of much greater speeds, the limiting factor..... the sound barrier. They are not designed for the shock wave build up such speeds will generate.

If you were watching the NatGeo special on Air Force One, you'd of saw the interview with the Air Cap F-16 pilot who had to radio AF1 to actually slow down so he could limit his fuel burn. AF1 was cruising at .90 Mach at the time.

Don't think for a second these lumbering giants can't get up and move... Those cruise speeds are chosen for maximum efficiency and to limit air frame fatigue.