Even if we set aside for the moment the question of whether or not they're actually right about their claims that have no public evidence, there's also the question of materiality. When multibillion dollar businesses are audited they don't prove financial statements are accurate to the penny. There are 67 million people receiving some form of Social Security benefits. If say 67 of those are listed 150 years old in the database, so that this is literally a one-in-a-million issue, is that really an issue worthy of the amount of attention this has received?
Said binary is modified by me every time I change something while building (and I used to build with gdb-index but recently this caused crashes with another build flag so I had to disable it.. though maybe it's fixed with last gdb release?)
rr should work on any remotely modern Intel system, and generally on AMD's Zen CPUs too. Unless you're in a virtualized environment (some of which are supported) or a more esoteric architecture rr probably works on your silicon.
EMAS is designed to crush under the pressure of all of the aircraft's weight pushing down on the relatively narrow contact area of the tires. There were no tires in this case. I am unaware of an EMAS that has been designed or tested for the far more broadly distributed weight of a belly landing.
Thanks for the link. Nowhere it seems to indicate that the friction of the breaking would be greater than the friction of the hull, since the pages related to non-destructive braking.
Airplanes use disc brakes. These can provide pretty much unlimited friction and are very destructive to the brake pads. They are effectively limited by the static friction of the tire and how much waste heat they can dissipate without blowing the tire.
Look it feels like you want to win an argument. You can only win it for people who do not understand the difference between static friction of a tire on tarmac and kinetic friction of a hull on tarmac. I couldn't tell you off-hand which has more friction, but I'm ready to believe by example that the hull has bad properties when it comes to braking. It's made for low friction after all.
Except they are and they do. The quoted "air safety expert" in the BBC article essentially says the landing was "as good as can be" and that most or all of the people onboard would have survived if the localizer berm wasn't present.
Are you this "air safety expert" is part of the investigation team? Because otherwise, I don't think the actual investigators care about their opinion, or yours, or that of any media (mainstream or not)...
The full quote you're referencing but truncating is "as good as a flapless/gearless touchdown could be." This is, uh, light praise? "It's a pretty great shit sandwich."
None of these people are calling for not investigating the other factors.
> We modernized and rationalized the Space Shuttle to make the SLS and each SLS costs > $4B.
Except we didn't, because we took absurdly high-end engines (RS-25s) that were designed for reuse and refurbishment and now we drop them in the ocean after every launch.
And because we are using those engines, which lack sufficient thrust at liftoff, we have to use the Solid Rocket Boosters. Those were supposed to be recoverable but the SLS just drops them into the ocean now too.
So did the Shuttle; all of the Shuttle SRB's were recovered (with one obvious exception) and refurbished and reused at least in part. It wouldn't make sense for either Shuttle or SLS to drop them on the ground
The two solid rocket booster casings are dropped into the ocean and (usually) recovered with both the Shuttle and SLS.
RS-25s were the three main engines. They were very expensive, designed for reuse and were recovered with the rest of the orbiter they were bolted on to. Not in the ocean. Then refurbished with a much greater amount of effort and money than initially expected, and eventually reused on a future mission..
But the SLS first stage doesn't fly itself back to Cape Canaveral after 2 weeks like the Shuttle orbiter did. So those now FOUR very expensive "reusable" engines are now chucked into the ocean never to be seen again.
Simply having to maintain one or more ships (continuous expense, year round, year after year), to fish those tubes out of the ocean (once every few years) almost certainly ate up any cost savings they could possibly get from refurbing the tubes.
Lmao, do you have any idea how much ships cost? The spent SRBs being sunk are the least of SLS's problems. SRB shell refurbishment had dubious economic sense when Shuttle was flying several times a year, but for something that will fly as few times as SLS it would be an absolute farce.
If you want to allege election fraud, don't beat around the bush.
reply