Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 231

Clearly, you have lost the narrative. Human beings are terrible and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for existing. Therefore, anything we do is also wrong. It's particularly wrong when is it done by Western civilization .

          This is what has been pounded into people's heads for years, with elements of it starting with the ludicrous "noble savage" concept. Now, we are "thoughtlessly destroying the planet".

      Human beings are the only species that destroys it's own environment. Except for all the others that do the same thing dating back 2+ billion years. One species wantonly spewed out a deadly poison, killing almost all incompatible species. That was that dastardly blue-green algae, that spewed out the deadly poison oxygen.

Comment Re:"Computer glitch" (Score 1) 58

You might be surprised to learn that people managed to get on airplanes before computers existed, and that they used to run entire airlines without a computer or an internet.

        The point being that by using centralized control via computer, you create single point failures or at least are vulnerable to single point issues that cripple the entire system, or at least slow it down. If they did it all with typewriters and ink pens, they wouldn't have a single point failure (power interruption) that inconvenienced a lot of people.

Comment Re:Failure on the *pad* not the rocket (Score 1) 338

Right. The guys who built the Atlas did it for years, too, with *far* more missiles. Then they stopped because there's not much upside. AND, importantly, they usually didn't do it with the *payload* at risk in an accident. They didn't say, "hey, John Glenn, climb up in the capsule while we do a test to see if it will blow up". In this case, that's exactly what happened, they did the static test with the payload on board and at risk from any problem.

Comment Re:Failure on the *pad* not the rocket (Score 3, Interesting) 338

It blew during or shortly after a static firing - that is, a test run of the engine with the rocket restrained. That's a *very* unusual procedure in the modern world, but they used to do it all the time. The reason they don't do it any more is that it tends to reduce overall reliability, and the rocket was designed to work in flight, not necessarily with the back-pressure, or acoustic and thermal reflection from the pad/blast deflector/ground.

      In this case, I expect, that SpaceX brobdingagian hubris figured that they could get away with it, and it was "designed" for reuse, so it will encounter those effects anyway, and in any case, they have lots of fast computers so they know better than those dinosaur idiots back in the late 50's.early 60's.

       

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Working...