XB-70A

While I agree with this on a global perception, it is also important to note that the sequence of events and decisions also plays, and that embedded systems (as on the ground) also have their share of "responsibility" in most cases. Often due to a simple error or non-consideration of the human factor when designing the system. Indeed, the case of the flight 296 was particular and was a good example of flying mistake and conception mistake. We can define the choices and actions of M. Asseline as incorrect (as well the absence of "proper" reactions from the F.O.), but Airbus also was responsible for some mistakes made at the time. Here are two notices for the flight operations at the time of the accident: - Operation Engineering Bulletin 19/1, noting that the CFM56-5B could be subject to a slow thrust rising at low altitude and high angle of attack. - Operation Engineering Bulletin 06/2: potential deficiency of the on-board altimeters leading to erroneous displays at low altitude. Another one is the choice by Airbus, for safety purpose, to have included a control inputs "limiter" on the sidesticks. Although the system seems justified in most cases to avoid stalls, it seems that it also had its share of responsibility in the accident, preventing the PIC to pitch up enough for a very short period of time. If the action could have been done, it might have saved the aircraft and the few passengers who passed through it. However, this flight is a good example that if in aviation the sequence of events is recognized as the main cause of incident and accident, the legal systems (and the manufacturers also) are privileging the choice of a single guilty. After all, if we were dwelling on the responsibility of everyone, we could very well blame a toilet cleaner for not doing her/his job properly, and so have played on the efficiency of the engineer who designed a failing system.

Really nice (if only I was not out of likes as usual...), the second one reminds me the 747 lying in the desert in Beyond Thunderdome. My last wallpapers were not really "artistic" or surprising. Here is the one I kept for two months: Then I replaced it a week ago, here is the current one.

One risk is the "50 % Rule" (a personal designation of the phenomenon I was able to observe for a few years); a second experience with the same person will be shorter of about half the time, and the third will be half of the second. There is some exceptions of course, but I cannot count how many of my friends have asked me if it was a good idea to go back with a person they already have been with. Every time I told them not to try, every time they went back to see their ex, and every time it ended sooner than the first time. And the worst in the story? I made the same mistake, not one, not two or even three, but four times with the same person...

This problem has been present for a long time, but the different reasoning and conceptions of ethics from all the societies make it a difficult point to deal with. However, the current over-automation will probably allow to consider new protocols. A bit out of topic, but I fall on this video yesterday, and found a bit fun: The case of these kind of client help robots is different and a bit ridiculous, not that they are running under popular OS (if I'm remembering well the MQ-9s ground controls are running under Linux), but simply that their manufacturers are pretty slow to consider a service pack, or even a patch.

Well, with the estimated range of the H-15 I would not laugh to much now...

Yes, two times, but it did not marked me so much. The user below me is a true devoted adept of SectX.

It should be, now it also depends of how "much" of the tank you want to cover. This kind of Long March 5 is nearly covered: Alas, they are only covering the small sized tanks, the hideous X200 were still visible at the center of the core. Another solution could be to leave just the minimum space between the tanks and the fairings, just like here for this Soyuz-wannabe: Here you can be sure that the tanks will not be visible, but... it also is deforming a bit the bottom shape of the model, alas. The third solution is to build the fairing offset from the part you want to cover, to close it, then to move it back to the center of the tank you want to cover, like here: However, it can also change the shape of the core. The best is to put a light angle toward the inside before closing it. I will give it a try during the next week; there will be a lot of fuel tanks and decouplers to change with the new models.

I've just installed 1.4.1 and gave it a quick look in the VAB and... the first fairing option now is totally blank!.. This... is... BEAUTIFUL!.. no, this is WONDERFUL!!! No more rings, nor more slots, it's just awesome. Thank you so much for all your work guys! I can't express all the fantasy I'm in right now () and that thanks to you. Again, thanks, thanks, thanks! (It's like a dream)

Stock too. It's hard to take a decision as I like the Thud (for the look and easiness to place) as much as the Terrier (surely not for the look...).

(Liked it, just for the theme song by Dokken)

Could not agree more with you. Every time I'm going to a market/super market I'm fulling the bags myself or asking the guys to put as much as possible in them, instead of placing just a single 300g/10oz pack of meat in its own bag. Every time they are looking at me like an alien coming from another world. Without talking about these peoples I'm seeing every days and who are washing their hands while leaving the tap open for many seconds while they are applying the soap... and it's not only where I'm living for now. I can remember seeing my grand-father constantly pouring water when shaving, what was the interest? None. Another good one is what I can see at the food court of the mall. Peoples constantly throwing away food, sometime more than 50 % of they took. I understand that our vision differs according to the local needs and resources, but for someone who grew up in a place where a pack of 6 bottles of water cost the price of 8 bottles of beer, and where we showered with rainwater from a tank, I still do not understand how much it can be spoiled by those who always had access to it.

Today I launched my tiniest launcher ever for a second test flight. Mr. Bill imposed to make the final check by himself and on the pad, defying all the safety rules established then. Anyway... what could happen? Nothing dangerous. This is KSP after all... these little green men are so lucky. Powered by its single Thud, the first stage is able to kick the system to approx 1.2 km/s at 33 km before running out of fuel. Then a small Twitch got the task to complete the job with a ridiculous TWR of 0.8. The 0.5 t ridiculous payload on its way to Minmus. A good encounter with the Mun gave a nice assist to save around 30 m/s. Final result after a five days long travel. What is fun? Yes. What is useful? No. Also, the Mercury IV arrived at Duna after more than two and a half years. Tomorrow will be THE day of this travel. I can't wait to try it "in live".

Well, inconveniently UA (with the courtesy of the USCBP) even found a way to make another blunder just some hours ago... this time a German shepherd got a trip to Tokyo Narita instead of Kansas City. http://www.kctv5.com/story/37719697/kansas-familys-dog-could-be-on-flight-to-japan-following-airline-mix-up

False. I simply hated him, and his name since the beginning, and kept him grounded, or alone in a station around Duna. The user BM is sacrificing a lot of her/his time on the KSP forum.

Of course. I'm naturally lazy but not to such a level... well, now I want to give it a try. TUBM did not take a shower for the last two days.

FAncy Inaugural Launch of Vanguard Rocket Experiment or FAILVRE.

, a better management

I guess the guys from Fairchild would have liked to see their strange flying package here BTW, you're lucky to have these good old H's with their T56s here. Where I am living, there is only KC/C-130J around.

Well, it's a bit messy for me. Here is how the payment page appeared at first: Being sure that is was due to the Chrome browser (now another reason to switch back to FF) I opened another window in incognito mode and all the data appeared clearly. However, I tried to pay with three different methods, without being in deficit in any of these, but still got the payment refused... I guess I'm good to try again tomorrow.