Lately I've been pulling stuff off of cds I burned 15, 16 years ago, no problems.
It's a damn shame they didn't do it with the shuttle external fuel tanks. Those things were huge. How many would we have in use now if that was part of the design?
They didn't do it because the ET would have become the cargo - the Orbiter itself couldn't carry much beyond it's crew. On top of that, the altitude they would have been delivered to would have required regular reboosts. (Any tank launched before the turn of the century and not reboosted would be gone by now.) On top of *that* it required a number of dedicated Shuttle flights to lift all the stuff needed to outfit the interior.
In the end, using external tanks was very, very expensive for very little functionality.
Shuttle ETs never got up to a stable orbit. It would have been possible to use the OMS to take them up there, but then the Shuttle would have had basically no payload capacity on that mission.
And even then, the tanks would be low enough to require regular reboosts. Without reboosts, any tanks launched before around the turn of the century would already have re-entered.
Sounds to me like you where using a crappy adaptor. I've been using several midrange audio head phones, and some high end head phones for several years over blue tooth 2.1+ and I've never seen any kind of issues like that. I've used everything from low end mp3 to high end aac, even flac and they all sound fine based on the hiead phone I'm using.
I image you have a cheap adaptor or your mp3 encoding sucks.
She is not a witch.
How can you be sure she is not a witch? Are you preview to dark gods or goddesses that might or might not worship when we are all fast asleep? It is not far stretch to believe that dances naked (sorry about that mental image guys) around some pagan alter in the dead of the night. We will never be 100% sure till she passes the water test.
From the interview: "The reason that Skylab wasn't build like this is kind of a strange story: [NASA] had fewer Saturn IBs than they had Saturn Vs, so von Braun just decided to use a Saturn V and fly up a "dry" lab, with all of the equipment aboard it already."
Um, not quite. When a 'spare' Saturn V became available (because a lunar mission was cancelled), they swapped from a IB 'wet' lab to a V 'dry' lab because the 'wet' labs were very expensive for their very low capability. The expense came from needing to have considerable amounts of structure and infrastructure designed to survive inside the cryogenic conditions inside the tank, from redesigning the tanks to serve a dual role, and then re-certifying the whole deal for flight. The low capability came from the requirement that everything that couldn't survive a bath in deep cryogens having to be manhandled into place via the very narrow docking hatch. While a dry lab was more expensive than a wet one - the leap in capability was far greater than the leap in cost.
That's also why NASA built their ISS modules with the large CBM hatches - manhandling large amount of stuff through tiny hatches (like those the Ixion will use) simply isn't very efficient. (And that's without considering the headaches that splitting all your equipment down into tiny chunks brings. Not just handling - but installation and integration too.) All of the ISS cargo craft that NASA is responsible for uses CBM, as does the Japanese HTV.
"In the commercial sector, it's getting interesting, because people are taking more risks. Not unnecessary risks, but acceptable risks to reduce costs."
Moving your man hours (outfitting the module) from expensive ones on the ground to hellishly expensive ones on orbit is not a recipe for cutting costs. Especially since you still have to pay for the launch of the module (Centaur) *and* the launch of the stuff to go inside it. (You can't piggyback because no Centaurs are headed anywhere near the ISS.) Even in lower inclination orbits, the mission module, the rendezvous systems, and outfitting the Centaur to survive years on orbit are all going to cost money and cut into it's payload - which will make piggybacking unattractive to Centaur's usual customers.
"We want to keep hardware costs as low as possible: it's not about building something on the ground that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do that when you have perfectly good hardware going to space, paid for already?"
You don't have perfectly good hardware going to space already. You have a vehicle designed for a completely different purpose and completely lacking the "stuff" customers will pay you for going to orbit.
Or, in short, nothing in the article or interview leaves me with a warm fuzzy that they've solved any of the well known problems with 'wet' systems.
The system itself worked correctly, as the containment system properly contained the leak.
o.0 A huge chunk of the storage facility is contaminated because a supposedly stable drum exploded - no, the system emphatically did not work correctly. It was never supposed to blow up in the first place.