Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Reminiscing about Boeing's old aircraft is not on topic unless it's directly relevant.

I think it is...its an experts opinion it is how Boeing got to the Starliner...and their philosophy

we dont let machines fly our planes :)

and I am an expert on that topic.
2
I meant what I said about being crisp about staying on topic. ATC is off topic. Some posts removed.
3
Quick note: I think D2 is taller/longer than D1 which may help clearing the TEL. On the other hand fitting both D1 and D2 would be advantageous, thinking late load items here, mice, fruit, etc.

Memory say D1 will be retired soon and D2 will have a crew version and a cargo version.

There will be a period of overlap IIRC. Having the CAA fit both is a pretty obvious thing to do.
4
You invest in a company (say Amazon) because you think it will be worth more later.  So the company has money to use, internally. This model works as long as the company is growing.  Once it stabilizes (1000 years from now, in the case of Mars) then it needs to be self sustaining.

Is that how you think business works? No, god no. Amazon's business model isn't selling things to Amazon's employees. They sell to external customers. And the price of each sale (on average) must exceed the product's COGS plus a due proportional of operating costs. (The true exception can be during a start-up phase when "sales" might be 90% brand-advertising.) With a "growth" company, the excess income of Sales over COGS+OpCost is turned into new investments, so the actual current admin/facilities/R&D/new-hires costs are higher than costs assumed in the actual current sales; the promise is that it will fuel larger future sales revenue, thus increasing the value of the company, thus increasing the value of the shares. In the case of Amazon, it's profit is running at around $2.5 billion per quarter and rising.

Note I said "profit". External revenue minus external expenses.

I can see what the external expenses are in a Mars colony. What's the external revenue?



Note that Amazon itself doesn't benefit from the increased value of its shares. It grows because of increased external revenue, not increased share value. I emphasise this because often I see the claim below and it bothers me...

You invest in a company (say Amazon) because you think it will be worth more later. So the company has money to use, internally.

...If you buy Amazon shares, Amazon doesn't see a cent of that transaction, because you aren't buying shares "from Amazon", you are buying them from an existing owner. In the same way that buying a house doesn't give money to renovate the house, it gives money to the now former owner. It's simply a sale of the title of ownership. (Similarly if the value of your shares drops, the company doesn't lose money. But of course you might be seeing the share price fall because the company is losing money. Note the direction of causation.)

Only when issuing new shares do those share sales directly fund a company. New shares dilute the share-value of the existing owners, but the promise is that the company will make more money if it gets new capital (same reasoning as reinvesting profits in growth), so the net value per share will still increase (or increase faster than it would have.) This applies even during the investor phase, two guys agree to start a business, they are agreeing to dilute their ownership from 100% of a hypothetical one-man-version to 50% of the partnership. They bring in an investor and they are agreeing to dilute their share from, for eg., 50% to 35% in order to issue 30% new "shares" to the investor. And so on. But when that investor sells his shares to you for 100 times his original investment, the original company sees nothing. Not one new cent.



Edit:

Bechtel grows on Mars

That's the part you haven't bothered to explain.
5
Reminiscing about Boeing's old aircraft is not on topic unless it's directly relevant.
6
Quick note: I think D2 is taller/longer than D1 which may help clearing the TEL. On the other hand fitting both D1 and D2 would be advantageous, thinking late load items here, mice, fruit, etc.

Memory say D1 will be retired soon and D2 will have a crew version and a cargo version.

D1 is scheduled for another year and a half.
7
According to their website, the Medium Launch Vehicle is already in development. The other two are under study.
8
Historical Spaceflight / Re: Project "Harvest Moon"
« Last post by TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 11:52 PM »
I did not know this existed...well done
9
He was kind and said "I have never done a walk around on a real Triple Seven" and my reply was "Fortunately for all of us, I have. many many many times. SAfe flights"

Starliner is going to be an amazing vehicle...it will always have a pilot :)

So now we need a pre-launch walk-around of the LV & SC?  Leave it behind; does not apply.  Yes, these SC will always have a "pilot" because someone has to be in command and ultimately responsible.  Don't conflate that responsibility with the actions you perform piloting an aircraft.  These are not aircraft, they are spacecraft.

Indeed. Some of the current experience is valid, but at some point your have to let go of the past when it no longer applies. Learn from the past, don't get stuck in it.

they are always hard

199X its been awhile we took the first Triple seven to the old Denver Stapelton airport for UAL the launch customer...to display...we had to put large pieces of plywood under the trucks so they would not sink into the asphalt that was covering the concrete while they built the new airport

anyway UAL had a great commercial where they had the Boeing 247 painted up in Boeing Air Transport colors (UAL's first guise) with period actors boarding in black and white...and rhapsody in blue playing as they boarded...and then the jet noise happened they all looked and here came the big twin

we had some of UAL's first Boeing 247 pilots/Captains on hand...and we got them in UAL TK's new triple sim...without any exception they did fine.  I was talking with them in the break room about the automation in the triple and Captain Ernie Lydall smiled and said something like "You know on the 247 we had the first autopilot, a lot of folks simply didnt trust it, but in the end well it made life a lot easier and (and this is the key) a lot safer"

it always does...

but anyone who wants to let a machine do the thinking...has missed the boat :) in my view safe flights

I was starting to wonder if your rambling was going to result in a point being made. Reading it twice, I'm still not sure. Brevity, man.

better then being boring :)

sorry you did not get it... as my Dad told a AJ of the SCOTUS one time "I am sorry you did not get it your honor, I truly am" he won the case :)

you are a bright person...sorry I missed...

fly safe
10
for all I know Musk has come onto the new thing with his touch screens...he is unique no airplane, nuclear control systems, oil field control (ie rigs off shore) or nuclear submarine...is using them...

Doesn't the F-35 use touch screens?

yeah and it also has the super helmet neither of which work well :)

Haven't seen any reported issues about F-35 touch screens. How about nuclear submarines. Looks like the Virginia Class uses them.

Back in the late 80's I was building flat panel plasma displays (4" thick), with touch panels, to be used in the engine rooms of the then future SSN-21 nuclear subs and the then upcoming DDG-51 naval destroyers.

Quote
"There's no helm, either. The pilot - known as a helmsman on older subs - steers the $2 billion vessel using a joystick that resembles the controller from an old Atari video game system. He can also punch instructions onto a touch-screen control panel and set the boat on auto-pilot"

From what I've been reading a lot of military systems are now using commercial game controllers for input devices because the current generation of recruits knows how to use them.

Of course those are not flight controls, but to your point control interfaces have changed since the days of sticks and rudders connected by cables.

they have and I am lucky to enjoy both worlds.  I fly the ultimate fly by wire machine but also a J3 cub and a Cessna UC78 both of which my grandfather learned to fly in, from my grandmother when they were just "dating" :)

the Shuttle training aircraft was fun to fly but really was not my peak :)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next