Posts by Degats 8 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Apr 2016
Not to mention when said library has a critical must-patch-yesterday vulnerability, you're now reliant on *every single* application application developer that uses it to quickly update their package (assuming they're organised enough to even know it's been inherited 5 levels deep) rather than just 1 maintainer.
Except, in Outlook, you do actually kind of have to do this. If you search for an email *it only tells you the folder it's in and not where that folder is*.
It's possible they've fixed this in later versions, or have it buried under some convoluted series of options, but this has come up several times where users have accidentally put something in the wrong folder and can't find it.
SpaceX have approval for the tower (including from the FAA regarding height, markers for aircraft etc), just not the approval to use it for more than sub-orbital testing/development.
Based on the wording of the letter, SpaceX are going to be using the Integration Tower as a crane (to integrate the rocket) and it will not actually be involved with orbital launches themselves. The launch is all handled by the launch mount, not the tower.
I do wonder if this is the FAA misinterpreting (deliberately or otherwise) what the tower is actually going to be used for in the near-term. If it turns out that the environmental report says that SpaceX can't use it for launches, that doesn't mean they can't keep on using it as a crane.
Also worth noting that this letter is from *May*; who knows what the situation is now.
I'll combine my replies to your two posts into one, because they're related:
> "There's actually footage where you can see people who waited until the flaming structure hit the ground and then ran away unhurt while those who jumped died."
Yes, which is why I said "The flammable part is pretty negligible compared to the high-pressure gas part."
I saw a clip on imgur the other day (no, I'm not going to post it here) in a reply to something about H2, taken from CCTV of a CNG car tank failing at a filling station. It destroyed the rear half of the car, killing one person and seriously injuring at least one other (a bystander).
Wikipedia tells me that the pressure would have been max 250bar. If there were any flames (I didn't particularly want to watch it again to study it), they were gone in a fraction of a second.
In northern Europe a while back, an H2 filling station exploded, injuring the occupants of a passing car (a Tesla ironically).
Pressure vessels may not necessarily fail themselves, but even if only the valve blows out (and the vessel itself doesn't fail as a result), that huge amount of pressure will go somewhere, incredibly quickly. Do you think a car's structure will safely contain a torpedo powered by 700 bar H2?
H2 storage really is no joke and if it does get popular in passenger cars, you'd better hope that people maintain them waay better than they typically do ICE cars.
"On the face of it, sitting in a car with a steel tank of 700 Bar flammable gas sounds like a bad idea. But we happily accept sitting next to an un-pressurised tank of flammable liquid. Is that better or worse?"
The flammable part is pretty negligible compared to the high-pressure gas part. You do not want to be in (or close to) a car if the H2 tank fails, and it's not pretty when a fuelling station goes either.
Petrol & battery fires are pretty tame in comparison.
BTW, it's 500,000/yr in the US factory alone. No mention of the EU factory's output when it's up and running. I have no idea where the 50,000 number came from, but it seems to be floating around in the media for some reason.
Screen dump from the presentation: http://i.imgur.com/9hd8TjY.png
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
