Rhenium, also used in turbine blades, goes for about $2500/kg... so, $1/gram for hafnium doesn't seem like much at all.

It's interesting as the unique tail section was actually touted as a "safety feature" by the company. I'm not necessarily saying it can't be the case, but like any feature, even a safety feature (see: exploding airbags), defects or improper use can cause more harm than in it's absence.

An improperly implemented safety feature (emergency ballast blow system) contributed to the loss of USS Thresher... In the same way, the Apollo 1 crew died (in part) because of a system (a well locked down hatch) that had been installed to prevent a repeat of an earlier accident. (Which, by morbid coincidence, one of the crew had been involved in.)
 

It's a bit strange, as it seems like such a fundamental error - not some obscure feature that could be overlooked. What pilot would say to himself "Hey, I know I'm supposed to unlock the tail at time X, but what the hell, why not just do it now?" It seems really strange that they wouldn't have precise procedures for this, since it's such a critical part of the entire design.

It's not so much that, as the pilot appears to have become confused due to a) the simulator not properly conditioning them, b) lack of recent and overall experience with the vehicle, and c) high cockpit workload at that point in the flight compounding a) and b). At least that's how I read the report. (The abstract and summary of which is not clearly linked of the summary or TFA but which can be found here.)

From my experience in the Navy, I can say that obtaining those reflexes isn't easy, and neither is maintaining them (regardless of experience).

If there was a criteria for safe unlocking of the hinged tail section then why wasn't it interlocked until the criteria was satisfied?

There are problems with interlocks that aren't often appreciated by the armchair engineer. They add weight and complexity to a system. They themselves can fail. They add to the maintenance burden. They add to training, Etc... etc... TANSTAAFL.
 

A bigger error here is reliance on operator training. It's the least reliable form of ensuring a certain outcome.

Yet, for being the least reliable, it's a method that works very well - presuming the operator is properly trained.

For all that, you can spend 290 dollars more!

On a side note, NFC hasn't been used much, but I see that changing. That is a huge disappointment.

Obamacare has brought down health care costs in the US. It's also brought down the number of uninsured, and seems to be part of the economic recovery. (when small business owners can get health coverage, it removes a dis-incentive to start a business, and thus create new jobs). some stats, and some more stats. or you can just peruse through a tags search on dailyKOS

Strange thing is that the left is all over stats about stuff -- but if you only go to Fox for your news, you won't hear much about hard numbers.

The right was forecasting massive price increases, but California only saw a 4% increase in premiums, compared to a historical (pre-ACA) trend of about 10% per year.

There is no such thing as an idiot proof flat tax.

Businesses by their nature have very complicated taxes. We'll let them write off a $45,000 truck to deliver product but not a $45,000 mercedes (unless you are in the limo business in which case, you might be able to after all).

Wealthy people, by their nature, have very complicated taxes. Is this a business trip or a holiday? Is this a business lunch or a personal lunch?

We can reduce the loopholes (temporarily) but corporate bought representatives will put them right back in. The flat tax by it's nature is either regressive OR has a massive deduction for everyone which means many of the poorest won't be paying taxes (just like now).

Each share of the national spending last year was $10,000 for every baby, child, senior, and working person. It's about $20,000 if you restrict it to adults who have earnings. That means- unless people can earn well over $20,000 there is not point in working under a totally flat tax. Which means it must be progressive (you have to take money from those who have money to pay).

AND it ignores state and local taxes which are currently higher on the poor than the middle class and higher on the middle class than on the wealthy in every single state. In some states, it's 12.9% for the poorest but under 1% for the wealthiest.

It's pretty simple. Do you want to vote for corporate sock puppet #1 or #2?

But the republican sock puppets are very much against my self interest. The party has drifted a long way from when I voted for three republican presidents in a row.

Taxes are regressive. CapGains is probably the worst of the regressive taxes. Why are we punishing people who invest?

While the right calls Obama a socialist, he's really a capitalist corporate servant.

To be fair, the system has been so rigged at this point, that unless you are an independently wealthy socialist, you are going to have to sell out to capitalistic corporate interests to be elected.

And that's why we vote. To come to a democratic, collective decision.

And each of us tolerates the decisions we were in the minority on.

I don't like subsidizing sports stadiums but they got 51% of the vote.

I voted republican for Reagan and Bush Sr. and then the republicans went bat shit crazy (measurably so on 528.com) with reagan republicans having a '32" conservative ranking while Ted Cruz has a over 60 ( I think it's "68"). Democrats have stayed about the same in the 20's.

So now, I vote democratic. I don't like all they stand for but no way I'm voting for the extreme right wing conservative party the republicans have become. But... if 51% of the country elects a republican candidate then I'll tolerate it for 4 years because that's the collective decision of our democratic republic.

Aye, and if you count the two trillion dollars we spent to protect oil fields, the subsidies are much higher than people realize for oil.

Imagine ... if we didn't do that. And oil went to $300 a barrel. We would have automatically gone to less expensive cars, solar would have surged into demand along with other alternative energies. We might have even worked on smaller, safer self contained- no human intervention nuclear power.

But since we engage in massive subsidies for sports stadiums, oil companies, banking companies-- I think the benefit (much lower cost solar panels) of subsidizing the early expensive iterations of solar panels will be a good bang for the buck. And reduce our need to spend two trillion dollars again in the future.