I finally received a code for Google's Ingress. ![Smile :) :)]()
Just idly pooched another reentry, and had a glimpse of the afterlife:
View attachment 11198
. . . and . . . I dunno. The afterlife isn't quite what I expected.
I'll just sit here and eat my lembas bread.
Awesome ! That one seems absolutely obvious :
:rofl:
[img]http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Snowy-Trench-Run-by-Aaron-Dabelow-X-Wing-Blowing-Up-the-Death-Star-in-Real-Life..jpg[/img]
Your post appears to have an img tag in it that references a site that's throwing up a password prompt on my browser:
![]()
I was about to report it in the Site Support forum as a potential security bug until I took a closer look at the page source and found the image tag in your post.
The image tag is:HTML:[img]http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Snowy-Trench-Run-by-Aaron-Dabelow-X-Wing-Blowing-Up-the-Death-Star-in-Real-Life..jpg[/img]
I was getting the same and so confused! :lol: Thanks for pointing that out. I thought it was just me.
Reddit said:The NASA approach to safety is based on probablistic design risk analysis. It is only as accurate as our ability to anticipate every failure mode and assign it a precise probability based on a paper design. It pushes the designer to make every system redundant, adding weight and cost which often serve no purpose. This also explains why NASA feels "safer" putting a crew on the second SLS launch than on the tenth Falcon. But the NASA strategy is based on a false premise. In reality most launch vehicle losses are due to failure modes that are not anticipated anywhere in the design process and can be discovered only by repeated testing in actual flight. The solution is not redundancy, but correction of the original flaw in the design. In fact, the O-ring that failed in Challenger was redundant, and thus, by NASA methods, infallible. Thus for launch vehicles at least, the approach taken by SpaceX and ULA under SAAs for the Falcon and Atlas, to fly at least ten missions (and correct any design flaws that are revealed) before putting a crew on a launch vehicle is actually considerably safer, and the ASAP premise the "NASA quality control" strategy leads to safety and industry strategies do not, does not appear consistent with the historical record.
Well it's George Lucas...what do you expect?
In other ramblings...I just read this:
(Original Thread here)
http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflight/comments/16pyqm/i_read_this_in_a_nasa_watch_comment_it_is_the/
Dear Fred,
You deserve more of a life than sitting in my hard drive can provide. You deserve to be online.
Online you can have a much more varied, fulfilling life--oh, I know it's scary; people could do all sorts of things to you, but that's life.
So, get the hell out there and don't forget to call every once in a while.
Aeadar