The 3 RS-25 (1860 kN each)[1] used for the Space Shuttles had 300,000 Gallons of water output per 41 seconds [2] when it launched. On landing, the Falcon Super Heavy used 5 or so [3] of the Raptor Engines (2750 kN each [4]). I'm making a few assumptions based on Napkin Math, but the parent comment seems about right since the engineering required (and the payload weight lost due to the weight/space requirements of landing feet for the FSH), would be too high to withstand the vibration reflection of landing on solid landing pad.
I only have about 3 YOE, working at a non-tech Fortune 50 in the US and job searching on the side. I’ve sent out over 100 applications and haven’t received a single interview. The only interviews I do get are through LinkedIn recruiters reaching out. I have used a few referrals to apply as well but no bites on those either.
Originally, I thought it may be a Resume issue, but after getting quite a bit of feedback on it, it doesn’t seem to be that either. Before I started my job searching process, my main worry was that I wouldn’t be able to get past technical screens, but Leetcode was fairly easy to pick up again and am able to solve most mediums optimally and some hards with a less than optimal approach.
You're spending an extra 8 hours to marginally (at best) improve safety? I'd be willing to bet good money that you partake in wildly more risky activity (such as driving or even walking down the street). This feels almost like virtue signaling without it being virtue signaling.
Statistically it might be safe, but the vast majority of people are still going to make decisions based on perceived risk.
As a customer, how else can you send your feedback to Boeing (and the airlines) that this level of perceived risk is unacceptable? It's clear there are issues at the company and Boeing is unlikely to respond unless there are financial consequences.
Call me a betting man, but I'd be willing to bet yet even more money that at least 95% of people don't even know what plane they're getting on during their trip. And of that 5% left, only a handful people would rebook their flights at an increased expense of money/time to signal to Boeing that 737 max is unsafe. The handful of people doing it are bordering on virtue signaling.
With that said, however, I really dislike Boeing's recent decisions and the safety issues that have come up. I do agree that Boeing needs to face financial consequences, but I don't believe that customers have any power in this situation. Realistically, airlines and governing authorities would have the most impact and if they don't see issues big enough with Boeing to stop ordering planes, there isn't much else to do.
Yeah, it's 100% a shitty situation for the customer. I personally haven't checked the plane ahead of time for any of my flights, but with all the recent failures/headlines I am much more inclined to do so. Not out of virtue signalling, but out of my own peace of mind.
I am unsure if this applied to all the flights, but most flights I booked showed the airplane model before I paid. I guess this is a good thing for customers, i.e., one can make an informed decision without too much hassle by manually checking the flight history.
Well, for me. I never care about this feedback thing. It is apparent from the situation that Boeing had enough feedback (and scrutinization) from everyone after lion air 610 and ethiopian 302.
The fact that they refuse to fix the problem after Lion 610, such that Ethiopian 302 faced the same fate, is, at least for me, horrendously wrong.
FWIW being involved in a commercial airliner accident is an order of magnitude more terrifying a prospect than getting in a car accident. If there's a one in a million chance that multiple of my worst nightmares could be realized-- plummeting from 30,000ft, being stranded in the middle of the ocean at night, enduring such things due to the hubris, greed, bullshittery of some shmucks currently warm and cozy in their mansions somewhere-- I will have that one in a million chance top of mind. especially when it makes the news multiple times within a few years!
100% agree. As a former airline employee at a major airline, I've given up flying altogether. I've heard the 'but driving to the airport is more dangerous than flying' argument a zillion times. That's not the point. The point is that flying has become incredibly intrusive and uncomfortable and the fact that in addition to being treated like cattle, having to endure the security theatre, the indignity of being rushed around only to sit and wait, cancels/delays, rude people and or belligerent or mentally disturbed flyers, ug... it's just not fun anymore.
THEN add on the fact that there's a one in a million chance your plane may open up and accidentally cast you into the abyss and I say, just give me a car, my snacks, my music, my full seat, and the ability to stop and use the washroom when I want and Im good to drive across the country. Flying bites.
> I've heard the 'but driving to the airport is more dangerous than flying' argument a zillion times. That's not the point.
That's not YOUR point. The head of this thread (although to be fair, didn't SAY, but implied) he was swapping planes for safety. And that he's still flying, just on a different plane model, seems to reinforce that it was THEIR point.
Well, avoiding a specific airplane model, especially one with a notorious history like the 737MAX, isn't about 'marginally improving safety'; it's about making an informed choice based on known risks.
I'm currently using Frigate for continuous recording and it's great and I don't feel like I'm missing any features. What are some features that are missing?
I think the issue is that Bank Accounts also need phone numbers linked to them and it seemed like only one phone number could be tied to an account. Having a secondary phone number used to combat spam also being the sole number tied to a Bank account could be bad. I could be wrong about the single phone number for an account, but that was what I experienced recently.
I'm guessing they've probably implemented baffles within the tank, but even if there wasn't it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Once they are able to get going and are not stopping quickly for emergencies, they should be as stable, if not more stable, compared to a regular bike.
Guessed wrong, they definitely found it to be an issue: "After a grueling 304-lap test, Acerbis found they needed to use sponges to combat the sloshing inside the tank at the expense of losing some volume. The final tank weighed 15.2 kg (33.5 lbs) and could hold 108 liters."
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_suppression_system#NASA [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIKI7y3DTXk&t=6850s
[4]https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/