If you have been trying to buy MRNA in the last 12-18 month, you are an idiot:
The stock price clearly fell for a very long time; only teethgrindlingy I would see one or two entries for "lets-try-it-fingers-crossing"; the price went better in the last couple of month, though no really strong long-entry signal, maybe 2 in the last few month.
This is what I see in TradingView - for this,you shouldnt apply AI.
I haven't really put much thought into this, but now that I think back, in my experience also it's USB cables that are the most fragile and likely to fail over time.
How can you forget? Growing up in Australia, every computer I’ve ever owned has defaulted to “US Letter” as the paper size. (Even when your computer was set to use Australian localisations.) If you didn’t change the setting, you couldn’t print. The printer would complain that it was out of paper, because it didn’t have a tray with the requested us letter paper in it. It was one of those things you always had to check.
I don’t think I saw a “us letter” sized piece of paper until I was an adult.
> Growing up in Australia, every computer I’ve ever owned has defaulted to “US Letter” as the paper size.
I'm not sure how; the UK is an Anglosphere country that uses A4 and desktop machines as far back as I can remember (mid 90s) also correctly defaulted to A4 when printing. I suspect it's more likely to be that there's been English (UK) and English (US) options in OS's for a long time and Aus got defaulted to English (US) rather than English (UK) which carried some settings that weren't correct by default.
Every windows install I've ever done (in Australia) I picked "English (Australia)" when possible, and "English (UK)" before Microsoft provided that localisation option. I've never seen US letter as a default.
That's funny because (living in the US) I've noticed that many printers default to A4. Maybe 20 years ago, one printer at work would think A4 paper was loaded in it after every power-failure and we'd have to go through the menu and change it, or it would require you to clear a warning before it would print anything sized for US letter.
On page 52 (57 of the PDF), there’s a letter dated December 18th 1978 (Carter administration, not Reagan) from the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing adopting 8.5”x11”, effective January 1st 1980 so departments & agencies could use up their 8.5”x10.5” stock.
The government adopted 8.5”x10.5” to save money back in 1921 vs what was already the industry standard of 8.5”x11”, but this ended up backfiring and a General Services Administration report in 1972 recommended switching to 8.5”x11” would reduce by 5% the amount of times a secretary would need a second page. The Joint Committee of Printing estimated this change would save several million dollars.
> On hearing the news, one straight-faced bureaucrat in the Government Printing Office said of his colleagues' reaction to the news: "Some people think that this issue has been inadequately studied."
Apparently the American Forest & Paper Association is under the impression that it was the Reagan administration’s proclamation:
> Oddly enough, the United States used two different sizes - the 8" x 10.5" and the 8.5" x 11". Separate committees came up with separate standards, the 8" x 10.5" for the government and the 8.5" x 11" for the rest of us. Once these committees found out about each other a couple years later, they agreed to disagree until the early 1980's when Reagan finally proclaimed that the 8.5" x 11" was the official standard sized paper.
> Within the space of four seconds, the energy from the annulus gas flow accelerated the IP turbine past its critical speed, until centrifugal forces exceeded the ultimate strength of the nickel alloy disk. The red-hot, wildly spinning disk instantly fractured into several sections, which rocketed outward in multiple directions at incomprehensible speed.
The fact that it's assumed to have infinite energy when planning for this is crazy. Engineers saying yeah there is no material in the world that can stop it.
Maybe not stop it, but perhaps they can design it so that if it happens it's more likely to be directed away from the fuselage? Like with armor that does not block or absorb but deflect, which requires less energy. Perhaps even a small reactive armor strip? (dangerous as though that would be on a plane).
But then again I'm sure aviation engineers would have thought of this and rejected it for good reason.
I know we all like to hand wring about stuff like this but realistically it's "infinite" to prevent the same genius textbook engineers who cooked up the VMC procedure and the CMM procedure from cooking up equally half baked "with a plate of this thickness at this angle it will remove X energy from anything that penetrates it therefore we are good to put some super critical thing right in it's path" solution.
Infinite is a bit poetic there. For large enough n, n inches of (say) armor steel could stop it. But that suggestion got Sales talking about "commercially viability", and Finance sided with them, and we all know how that story goes.
It's not (purely) the sales and finance people, planes need to be able to get off the ground to be useful at all. I doubt even an A380 would still be able to lift off if you strap a dozen inches of armor plating to every part of the plane that could possibly be reached by shrapnel.
You'd put the containment armor directly around the engine. It wouldn't take dozens of inches. Whether you use Newton's rule of thumb (penetration ends when the mass of armor displaced equals the mass of the shell that hit it) or more modern rules - a failing turbine disk is neither a precision-engineered anti-armor weapon, nor a heavy battleship shell.
I'd bet the plane would still be able to take off, if it made it that far. But it never would - with the extra weight guaranteeing that no airline would buy it, Finance would never sign off on funding to even complete the design work.
(Yes, the reality behind my quips about Sales and Finance is more complex:)
Full containment is probably possible, but it would render the aircraft nearly useless, not just economically uncompetitive.
A 70kg chunk of nickel alloy is very dense, and at 800m/s , that’s 20 MJ. Thats about the same as 5kg of TNT, but focused on a small area.
For comparison, a modern 120mm artillery shell fired from a tank or similar field artillery has 10-20 MJ of kinetic energy.
A couple thousand kg of armour could likely contain that kind of energy, but it would also translate that energy to the engine mounts, wing, spar, and fuselage if it was not going to become a projectile itself. You could easily stop a fragment and critically damage a spar attachment, rupture a wing fuel tank, or end up with translational shock damage to any number of critical systems and structures. You’d probably have to double or triple your engineering margins of the entire aircraft, probably doubling the weight of the airframe.
So yeah, possible probably. But not on an aircraft designed to carry passengers or freight. It would be the biggest 6 seat aircraft ever built lol.
Interestingly, if you work backwards from that cargo capacity, you can arrive at a much smaller aircraft that could possibly feature full containment, because engine diameter and energy goes way down and containment starts to look much more practical. I would not be surprised if containment could be achieved in the small biz jet scale, with just significant sacrifices in cargo or range.
OTOH even the A10 warthog does not have full disk containment, and it’s probably the strongest candidate ever fielded for such a project… so, ymmv.
- which bear no resemblance to a failed turbine disk. And have about twice the muzzle velocity, which makes huge difference in penetrating a modern armour systems. Ditto their far greater density, vs. nickel alloy.
OTOH, your "A couple thousand kg of armour could likely contain..." seems too charitable. High-bypass jet engines are big. Beyond that, I'm more optimistic about mitigating shocks and such.
A critical parameter here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380#A380F The freight variant was to have a 6,400 mile range carrying 150t of payload. So we could squander 25t per engine on disk containment and shock mitigation, and still have a 50t payload. Or a 3-digit passenger headcount.
Bottom line, there is no real-world difference between your "nearly useless" and my "disastrously uneconomical". Neither one will be designed, let alone built.
For the A10, I'd say military priorities would always block full disk containment - because every pound used for that is a pound they don't have for more weapons or munitions or range or armour or fuel or runway length or electronics or whatever. And over most of the 360 which disk fragments could exit a warhog's engines, there's nothing critical which they could hit.
Good counterpoints all, I think. I’m impressed that we could write off 50t and still have an airplane. That seemed so preposterous that I did not consider it, honestly. Turns out big stuff is big.
Now we can go to the running of the bulls with our respective napkin backs, and see who attracts the bull!
Yes but on the warthog the discs are very far away from the pilot. Or pretty much anything else that matters. The fuselage can take a lot of a beating.
“It goes without saying that if any of the turbine fragments had entered the passenger cabin, there would have been injuries, if not fatalities, even if the plane later landed safely.”
I haven't checked the 12 factors for a while but feel proud to have worked on systems probably for a long old while where most or all have applied. To the point I'd naturally do these things without consciously thinking.
I think that says a lot about good practices spreading than anything else. To not do these things: maybe a startup moving fast, or a very isolated company or just some old legacy COBOL type thing where you want the thing to still work as the main concern.
reply