Tweet
Originally posted by Scott Dyer HPN/NY
View Post
"Kin I help you?"
"I need a tube,"
"A tubeuh whut?|"
-
I did mine at a corner grocery. Once, I was standing by the tester, dead tube in hand, and got a clerk's attention.
"Kin I help you?"
"I need a tube,"
"A tubeuh whut?|"Geology rocks, but geography is where it's at. -
Too bad you weren't in a band and playing tuba!Comment
-
-
WOW! Talk about being in the right place at the right time. I think this is going down with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge for classroom videos.Originally posted by Ralph Jones View Post
BTW, one of the YouTube channels mentioned there was a small earthquake around this time - it's likely that was the trigger for the event.Comment
-
Longer video here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...ables-snapped/
Interesting comment by a knowable person suggesting that the science/$ isn't encouraging for rebuilding.Comment
-
This is crazy. I saw an estimate of $350 million to rebuild/replace.Originally posted by Russell Holton View Post
That is about 3 F-35s.Comment
-
We're probably going to save that much on presidential travel in 2021, so funding found!Originally posted by Terry Carraway View Post
Comment
-
Maybe. I wonder what the real "variable" cost per airplane is. If you try to cut the program by 3 jets, the enormous fixed costs for development get spread across the remaining airplanes such that the cost savings are minimal.Originally posted by Terry Carraway View Post
Anyway, to quote a section of the comment I was referring too:I'll note that with the current economic situation, this isn't a good time to ask for niceties.So as always it comes down to choices. If congress were to say here is new money to rebuild Arecibo in addition to the other telescopes you want to build; scientists would jump up and down. There is really cool science Arecibo2 can do. But if congress were to repurpose other science money to rebuild Arecibo instead of the other telescopes we are currently designing and building, it would be a setback. On a science/$ basis a rebuilt Arecibo is not very competitive. This is really down to the cost of receivers and digitizers falling so much that arrays of equivalent cost have greater science range.Comment
-
Good analysis of the failure from multiple angles, including a drone about ten feet away from the cables which broke first. Too bad the drone didn’t record the sound, it would have been deafening that close.
Tom Tyson-A&P
Pilots without Mechanics are just Pedestrians with fancy watches . . .
( . . . and Mechanics without Pilots are Unemployed.)Comment
-
Ah, Scott Manley. He was the one that mentioned there was a earthquake at that time that was likely a trigger. See 1:44 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vchDbyIRP44Originally posted by Tom Tyson View PostComment
-
-
I don't have a basis, but I'm thinking the fixed (development) costs dwarfs the variable costs. Perhaps each airplane is only 10s of $M, not 100s of M.Originally posted by Terry Carraway View PostOK, cut 4 planes.
Comment
-
OK, so we need to cut 4.5 aircraft to rebuild a new Arecibo.The F-35A unit price, including aircraft and engine, is now $77.9 million in Lot 14.
They have already built over 595 aircraft.Comment
-
The Practical Engineering channel just put out an interesting video.
Two things I learned: it was originally built as a DoD cold war project. It also seems to have had a rather low safety factor in it's calculations.Comment
-
Probably why it only lasted 57 years.Originally posted by Russell Holton View PostThe Practical Engineering channel just put out an interesting video.
Two things I learned: it was originally built as a DoD cold war project. It also seems to have had a rather low safety factor in it's calculations.Comment
Comment