1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

And that means zero in the world of clearances. It also means the set of rational numbers. There are all kinds of usages for the letter Q.

2
DeathRayDesigner 2 points ago +2 / -0

That would not be unusual for the Navy, which operates aircraft carriers and submarines propelled and powered by nuclear reactors.

3
DeathRayDesigner 3 points ago +4 / -1

Not true. I was in line for Q clearance, but the circumstances changed and it never came to pass. (I have held a Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information [CNWDI] clearance.) It was discussed in the clear. The characteristics of clearance levels are not necessarily classified, or one would have to be read into that level before they could know about it. This sort of obscuration is reserved for compartmented programs, not clearance levels per se.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep, I took you to mean future events, not even that this was a "DEW event." But my remark was that there first must exist such "events" before it makes sense to "prepare" against them. People have actually been killed by being hit with a meteor, but do we "prepare" against that? (Aside from the question about how it might be possible to do so.)

We have people already spooling up to raise the flag of "demolition charges," who see things that weren't there and believe the collapse of a truss structure is mysterious. All the intersection points in a truss structure are crucial, because they transfer loads and allow the structure to bear them. If a key support is taken out of the equation, those loads don't go away. They force the destruction of the remaining truss by unbalanced loads, and the whole structure unzips.

2
DeathRayDesigner 2 points ago +2 / -0

The requirements for a bridge are set by people farther up the expertise chain than we are. Should an airport be able to handle a direct hit by a crashing 747? Should every highway lampost be able to handle a direct hit by a semi-trailer? There comes a point where the trade study incorporates the cost of preventive measures instead of the cost of building a miniature fortress that would experience damage anyway. I expect more will come out about the criteria used for the bridge design.

5
DeathRayDesigner 5 points ago +5 / -0

That would be one scenario to produce the image. Another scenario would be that the ship was navigating across a current, and when the ship power went off the Diesel engines also went offline, the ship lost headway (steerage), then drifted into the bridge support. Commenters were remarking that there was a strong flow beneath the bridge, which would have the effect of aligning a drifting ship to be perpendicular to the bridge span.

2
DeathRayDesigner 2 points ago +2 / -0

What video are you watching? The basic view has a frontal image of the ship and maneuvering cannot be seen. Or are we seeing the effect of a crossing current that the ship was countering---until the propulsion power cut out?

3
DeathRayDesigner 3 points ago +3 / -0

Moreover, if the red light / flash was a demolition event, how does that explain the fact that this particular section of the bridge REMAINS INTACT while the rest of the bridge is pulling apart? Kind of violates the First Rule of Demolition (blow it apart).

7
DeathRayDesigner 7 points ago +7 / -0

Nope. The bridge did what any truss bridge would do if the support was kicked from beneath it: pull apart and collapse.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Reminds me of an on-air joke by Graham Kerr ("The Galloping Gourmet") about a wounded Vincent Van Gogh arriving at the doctor's office, and the doctor asking in an English accent, "What's this 'ere?" As usual, you had to be there. (Kerr is still living at 90, by the way.)

Let me cram in one more of his jokes, about a prim mother taking her innocent daughter someplace in a taxi. They happen to drive past some garish Parisian prostitutes and the daughter exclaims, "Mummy, who are those women?" The mother attempts haltingly to concoct a parlor-room answer, but to such pitiful effect that the impatient cabdriver bursts out with, "Zey are Scarlet Women!" There is a shocked silence, and the daughter sits back with an "oh." And then, "Mummy, what are Scarlet Women?" The mother, fuming, with venom in her voice, says, "My dear, they are mothers...of cabdrivers."

2
DeathRayDesigner 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would say the western world should at least observe higher moral standards than the people they attack. The U.S. is bloody with all the Ukrainian attacks on civilian populations---with U.S. weapons.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

The job was apparently "curated" by the Ukrainian embassy in Tajikistan. This is what prompted the recent declaration that a "state of war" exists. The U.S. is trying to wash its hands in public, but there is too much pitch on our palms.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Like the joke about the sunken liner with a thousand lawyers on board, this is a good start. Or at least a necessary start. It's one thing to remove people. It's another thing to remove bad policy, or reverse board strategy based on "shareholder value" (i.e., the self-serving wishes of the largest shareholders).

My concern now is that there will be no rethinking of corporate policy and strategy, but there will be an obsessive attempt to "inspect in" quality. At the higher management levels, they have become so used to "traveled work," that it would be traumatic to actually hew to the defined quality standards for program progress.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

That would make you a majority of the ignorant. I won't debate whether the post-merger Board of Boeing was "Deep State." Some of them individually were (ex-military or government office holders), but it is enough that they were partners. I would certainly hesitate to fly on any 737 MAX aircraft. Who knows what other flaw was allowed to slide on past any review process? 787s built in the Pacific Northwest are probably safe enough (mostly 787-9 models). All earlier models have an exemplary track record.

As for the Shuttle, you are out of your mind. NASA had permitted a long-standing flight anomaly to be "normalized," and it wound up killing the Columbia. The system flaw was so serious, there was no possibility of "fixing" it in either a timely or economical way. So, to prevent further loss of life, the system was retired. It would have had little operational significance under Trump. Obama was also "good" with canceling any government operational abilities, just as he canceled F-22 production. I thought so at the time.

This is funny. I am someone who knows Boeing from the inside and was familiar with all these systems. And somehow, you guys who don't know anything, are able to say things without any substantiation. Don't lecture me about making sense. Make good on your allegations.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which makes one wonder what is really driving Macron. This has the odor of a Really Big Favor, combined with terror of the alternative (what?). There is something Macron is scared of, to take such a drastic and fatal step.

2
DeathRayDesigner 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, and also no secret that the Russians have been systematically destroying them in the pockets where they are located. At least, to those who are not smelling the lotus-fumes of the Western media.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unfair. The Italian rifles were of good quality. (Read an article on the Carcano rifle in the latest NRA American Rifleman.)

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

That was the problem. The original plan for the Line was to go completely along the French border. But the diplomats in Paris protested that doing so would signify a complete lack of trust in Belgium, which could not be. So... To its credit, the Line was considered so impregnable by the Germans, they never considered the idea that they could punch through it.

2
DeathRayDesigner 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're welcome and thanks for the good regard. It was the Boeing Company. I started out in love with it. On my last day, I felt like Lot leaving Sodom, not looking back as I drove out the gate.

4
DeathRayDesigner 4 points ago +4 / -0

It may be a basic disposition to believe a desired fantasy, than be suspicious of that fantasy.

view more: Next ›