Posts by I ain't Spartacus

Re: change of requirements

Britain spent the 1950s desperately trying to find a new tech for submarines. We kept (and always planned to) some diesel/electric ones for shallow water work and defence of choke-points. But spent lots of money on looking at nuclear and peroxide. The peroxide subs were based on the German Walther cycle engines developed (but not fielded) during the war - but were rejected on the grounds of being a horrible death-trap. The prototype, HMS Explorer (nicknamed by the crew HMS Exploder) took so long to get working that her first captain never even got to sail in her before being promoted. When they finally got it going, starting the engines created so much smoke in the boat that the control room once failed to notice that they were actually on fire - and the Chief Engineer had to the shut-down because they were being overcome by fumes.

So we did a technology deal with the US. Apparently our reactor designs were interestingly different to theirs - but theirs were now developed enough to actually use. So we were given the US designs to play with, in exchange for our data. If I remember rightly we built HMS Dreadnought with a copy of the US Westinghouse reactor, but later subs actually used a Rolls Royce design - which I'm guessed nicked some bits from that, but was actually different. For details see Peter Hennessy's excellent 'The Silent Deep'.

Also as part of that treaty we apparently swapped plutonium, which our nuclear power industry provided lots of, with US enriched uranium that we used to fuel our submarines.

I guess the US didn't need this deal, but having the Royal Navy build a decently sized fleet of excellent quality nuclear submarines was defintely in their interests too. Given the alternatives, I suspect the Rolls Royce reactor would have been finished anyway, just a bit later.

I suspect one thing we also really benefited from was getting to look at the USA's SUBSAFE program. Without having to have a submarine accident ourselves (the loss of USS Thresher) - we were able to learn from the US's mistakes - and they were keen to share their experience. For which I believe we have Admiral Rickover to thank in large part.

France has sold a nuclear reactor to Iraq before, why wouldn't they sell them to Australia - with their submarines? Or didn't the Aussies want nuclear before?

Re: A hint at the UK's future

It's interesting that the UK is involved in this, rather than just the US. In general I believe Aussie military kit is interoperable with the US first and any other potential partners next. Because that's the navy they expect to be in their waters. So the Aussies are buying our type 26 ASW frigate design for example, as are a few other allied nations (Canada + can't remember). But they Aussies aren't having the decent air defence system we're fitting - but are going for the US AEGIS system - so they can fully integrate with US ships. Which clearly makes sense for them.

I'm sure they don't need technological help from both the US and UK. But there is an advantage to asking both, because they can then play Rolls Royce off against the US manufacturers for the reactors - which I'm going to guess they won't build domestically. Although on checking I see the US have already got 3 of their own manufacturers, so I'm surprised they're bothering. but I guess it also helps with buying in the sonars and other plant, if they don't have their own from previous subs.

Advancing one of the only industries that the UK still has and is extremely successful. (Weapons)

This is utter balls though. People really do need to get a sense of perspective about their own country. The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. It's the second largest exporter of services in the world and the 9th (last time I checked, let's just say top ten) largest exporter of manufactured goods.

We have a massive and hugely successful pharmaceutical industry. We've also actually got a large (and growing in the last two decades) car industry. Admittedly nationalisation didn't do a lot for the domestic companies, so we're doing manufacturing of other cars. But the reason the UK is top in world motor racing design and manufacture is that we've also got a lot of car research and design going on here - or possibly the big car companies have come here for design because of the motor racing? Or both. Add in aircraft. Weapons, as you mentioned. But also lots of other engineering stuff goes on in Blighty.

Then we come on to services. Where we're a huge exporter of architecture and building design services. I've worked on loads of projects in the Middle East and North Africa where the first question you ask will be, is this being done to US or UK building regulations? ARM, is of course a UK company - again selling design services. Much of global insurance, currency and commodities trading happens in London. Plus we're a rather large exporter of legal services - lots of international contracts get done under UK law or have UK arbitration clauses - thus keeping London full of lawyers and bankers. Ooh, lucky us...

Oh and to mention the bloody pandemic, much of the research on what treatments to use came from the UK. Most of that was what pre-existing drugs to use, but UK pharma has also come up with a few new drugs that also help. Not to mention a certain vaccine that's now been given to a billion or so people with 3 billion doses planned this year. I understand that the UK only had one vaccine factory (other than ones for test doses) before all this kicked off - which was for cat vaccines. Although the government was in the process of building one, to come on stream next year, so they could start taking advantage of the Jenner institute's process, presumably for the malaria vaccine. However we now do have a vaccine industry, because it's not just AZ that set up factories, so that should be another export area. Though I can imagine much of that might end up being paid for by us taxpayers, as the UK has been buying vaccines made in India for various global programs for twenty years - and I guess we might start buying those here.

Re: Airstrip Two is much bigger than Airstrip One

I hope they welcome their new star-spangled overlords.

There's a huge difference between the US and China (or Russia). Which is that countries actually want US troops to be based there. It's generally a sign of security.

The Iraqi government kicked US troops out ten years ago, and the US left willingly. They were soon desperate to get them back when ISIS attacked - and even though Iraq's government are ideologically much closer to Iran, they still seem to want the security of the US presence. I'm sure the Taliban are glad the US have left Afghanistan, but nobody else is. And those are the the two controversial places.

When Trump talked about removing US troops from Germany - the German government were shocked, and wanted them to stay. Equally the Japanese government are very keen to maintain US troop as part of their defence - despite the fact that in both cases those troops arrived as conquerors 70 years ago.

The Polish government tried to bribe Trump with $2 billion a year to base troops there permanently - and tickle his ego by calling it Camp Trump.

Ukraine wants to join NATO and have US troops there. Of course they've already tried hosting Russian troops in a leased base - and it didn't turn out so well - as they came right out of those bases and ilegally annexed Crimea. Not that they had a choice, Russia had to force them to give a lease on those bases a few years before by shutting off their gas supplies in December.

For all the rude things said about the USA - when it comes to it, people want their help. And complain just as loudly when the US military doesn't get involved. There's no long queue of countries desperate for Chinese or Russian troops.

The story is actually similar with the UK and France - although to a lesser extent. Both have sent a carrier battle group to Asia in the last few months. Both were welcomed with open arms by the countries there, who wanted to train with them and have goodwill visits, in the hope that their navies would stick around and bolster regional stabilty. Both have smaller detachments of troops in trouble spots around the world helping to keep places secure and are asked by governments to help them maintain security.

SpaceX is not a public company so maximising profit is much less of an issue for it.

James Ashton,

SpaceX has investors. Presumably they are smart enough to know that Musk isn't entirely in it for the money. But I seriously doubt if they'd have invested if he hadn't promised them a certain return on their cash. Depending on what the ownership percentages are, they could even be in a position to out-vote him - if he annoyed them all at once?

Plus, I'm guessing here, Musk probably believes that the only way to a colony on Mars is to have a viable and self-sustaining space industry. Seeing as we can't realistically go straight from struggling with getting to low Earth orbit to regular Mars trips, that means some at least reasonably self-sufficient outposts in Earth orbit, or on the Moon or on asteroids. Mining / satellite repair / space manufacturing / other. Which means profits from more than just satellite launch. Government is currently happy with a bit of astronomy/science, satellites for communications, spying and environmental monitoring and a minimal amount of human spaceflight. So Musk needs to generate more demand for space industry, which he can partly do by making satellites cheaper. But it's going to take the lure of profits from some actually space-based industry to attract the kind of long-term investment into the space industry he wants to see.

So he also needs profits to fulfill his dream. Just ideally not the short-term small extra ones you might get by cutting corners on safety. But big, fat juicy ones you might get from space mining or manufacturing of clever stuff in low-gravity and with limitless solar energy - if that's even possible / worthwhile.

Re: “ the university's vaccine worked safely and would be made available cheaply across the world”

It’s coming on amazingly fucking superbly thanks.

New vaccines developed in record time - thanks to good scientific work on speeding up vaccine development, plus work on SARS and MERS. And now we’re dosing about 1.5 billion people per month worldwide and have already saved a few hundred thousand lives. As I said, bloody brilliant.

Even better, lack of funding, paperwork, natural caution and lack of prioritisation meant that these new vaccine techniques were still a few years from frontline use. And would be very expensive to manufacture at scale. Although the UK government was already building a mid-sized vaccine plant to start producing them. And a trial for a malaria vaccine was due to start. The biggest killer disease in the world, and the vaccine trial was successful this year!

We now have the tools, the supply chain and the political impetus to create vaccines for many of the worlds' diseases and save millions of lives a year. Vaccines are cheap, and even governments that can’t afford good healthcare are already extremely effective at delivering them. Global vaccination rates for measles and a few other diseases are now around 90%.

This new vaccine tech will be seen by future historians as one of the great advances in human history, saving millions of lives a year. It’s fucking awesome.

Re: Who was the developer?

JohnG,

I used to know a missionary who was returning from New Guinea in the 90s. I've had dysentery and lost 50 pounds. As I paid for this return ticket when I weighed more, you should let me bring two suitcases back free to make up for it.

I still know several missionaries, and they are all experienced and talented excess baggage blaggers. Including one who got a brand new washing machine from Heathrow to Lagos as well as an extra two suitcases without paying. But flights to Africa always go with loads of unpaid excess baggage - presumably because the airlines can't sell the hold space for air-freight - and know it's easier to put a bit extra on the ticket prices than argue with every single passenger.

Re: Automation Issue

The "meat-bags" who "cause" avoidable accidents are usually blamed because blaming all the other organisational (bosses who bully crews into working to the max for the least pay/rest) or systemic (broken equipment, faulty 737-MAXs...) is much, much harder to do

This simply isn't true. And hasn't been (if it was ever anything more than a crude caricature) for decades.

The chain of errors that cause any accident are studied - and management or processes are often blamed where appropriate.

When BA had that windscreen come out in flight, partially sucking out the pilot, back in the 90s, it was maintenance management that got the blame. Even though it was a mechanic who decided to check the bolts were the right size by eye - rather than look up the manual. This being because some of the bolts already installed on the aircraft were a size too small - from someone else doing the same thing before. And the report blamed unrealistic schedules and disorganised spares - the mechanic had to drive between 3 or 4 different dimly lit parts stores at 3am to get the 20-odd bolts he needed for the windscreen change.

A steward ran into the cockpit and held the pilots legs. He'd mashed his head on the side of the plane and so was unconscious - and the co-pilot managed to get the plane down on oxygen and with no windscreen, quickly enough that he didn't die of hypothermia either.

in a an extremely complex and hazardous transportation system that only pays for advancements in safety when a huge pile of bodies forces them to.

An air transport system that's so shoddily managed and ignores safety so much that in 2018 we had a whole year of commercial aviation where there was not a single fatal crash involving a large passenger aircraft. An industry that's I believe safer per passenger mile than walking, cycling or train travel. You might want to have a look at your preconceptions a bit and compare them with actual reality.

If I remember rightly one of the late WWII underground plane factories (Me262?) had a short tunnel you could fly the finished plane out from. The only problem is that a lot of these underground factories never got finished in time - so I don't recall if it ever got used.

The Swedish airforce used to hide their Saabs underneath road bridges and in tunnels - given that if things kicked off with Russia their airfields weren't going to be there for very long. So surely one of them's taken off from a tunnel, but I'm sure didn't get airborne until they were well out of it, unless the pilot has a death wish.

North Korea have lots of airbases buried in mountains. But I've no idea if they take off inside or out.

Re: Frequent occurrence?

Presumably they don't wake up with a "dead arm", because there's no weight bearing on it when they sleep. Also useful to know for space rumpy-pumpy - that your other half can sleep on your arm all she likes without that difficult 3am game of trying to withdraw said arm gently without waking them up...

On the other hand, waking up with a leg musle that's cramping is going to be a right bugger, because you can't just push your leg against the ground, it's going to be like dealing with a cramp while swimming - you need something to brace against.

Re: Others use ...

Hmmm. I like the idea of a nice leopardskin print airliner. Fly the kinky skies...

Re: Why not go the whole hog

G R Goslin,

The aircraft is insulated - so I doubt passenger screamage will be externally audible. So that's not a problem.

The problem is clearly operating engines at low level. So I think the solutions should borrow from existing, well understood, technology. I suggest we consider aircraft carriers.

In order not to have to slow the plane so much, we can dispense with slats and flaps, simply have a few arrestor wires - and that will slow the plane down nicely. You'd get some problem with tyre noise, carrier landings can be have significant tyre squeal. Maybe oil the runways, to make them extra-slippery?

Or another, long forgotten, piece of carrier tech as tested by Eric Brown. Simply remove the undercarriage entirely and have a rubber trampoline thingy fitted above the runway. Simply stall the aircraft above that - and have a nice bouncy landing. Extends aircraft range by saving weight as well - actually tested by the Royal Navy due to the pathetically short range of early jets.

We can also think further into this. Why must people put up with low level engine noise? Simply have catapult launch. With a decent length of runway, I'm sure you could get the plane up to takeoff speed, and with a nice ramp get the aircraft launched, and only turn the engines on, once above a certain height.

It all seems very sensible to me...

Re: Sumption is wrong

Well it was just called the church then. But still run locally - given that most the bishops were aristocrats rather than in it for God. So obviously the Pope is the big boss on Earth, but he'd struggle to get anything done in England without getting the Arch Bish of Canterbury onside.

However Magna Carta meant that the Kind couldn't interfere with the church courts for example. Justice for the clergy was an awful lot less rough, if they were even found guilty, than for everybody esle at the time. This created a lot of friction in university towns, where the whole thing being run by the church meant that if the students wrecked a bar, or stole from a shop, they were tried in the church's courts - not the towns. Which were rather notorious for taking the student's side - and handing out very lenient sentences, if they even did find them guilty. Very annoying. Very unpopular.

Re: Magna Carta there ...

Written in latin (not french). Revoked the year after by getting the Pope to rule that poor old John was forced into signing it - the precious little darling. But then re-introduced on behalf of Henry III by his regent William the Marshal. The coolest knight with the best back-story ever. Really, look the guy up.

Saved from execution at age 6, for being too cute to kill. He was a hostage for his father's castle. Daddy refused to hand it over to King Stephen and stood on his battlements with his arm round his wife and said, "I have both the hammer and the anvil to make more sons!" Which is a tad harsh. Sent off to Normandy to learn arms. Proved to be bloody amazing at the tournaments. Went on crusade. Kicked arse on behalf of Henry II's son Henry, joined him in rebellion against Daddy. Then fought for Henry II against the rebelling (again) Richard (soon to be the First and the Lionheart) - defeated and unhorsed Richard in single combat. Then served him after Henry II died. Got rid of by John. Then ended the civil war as regent to John's son Henry III while in his 70s.

Known, at the time, as the greatest knight in Christendom

Re: Sumption is wrong

Cederic,

It's much more complicated than that. Magna Carta was important. After all William Marshal (Earl of Pembroke, mentioned at the top) ended the civil war by re-issuing it on behalf of John's son Henry III (who was 9 at the time). John having conveniently snuffed it before his barons could get hold of him. Although he missed out the vital clause 61 about the 25 barons who could tell the king what to do.

Several subsequent kings then proclaimed it upon taking the throne as a way of saying they weren't going to be too nasty to the barons. On the other hand, Henry III wasn't exactly all that keen on it - and so there was another civil war with Simon de Montfort and co.

But after a while, it all got a bit forgotten. Obviously there was conflict between the king and the barons over power, but that changed in every reign. And so for a while, poor Magna Carta had died in vein - it was just another historical incident in an ongoing conflict over power between elites. Until memory of it was revived much later, as a rallying cry or a historical precendent for people to look to. For a long while it was actually bigger in American poliltics - since it was talked about a lot by the people who wrote the constitution. I believe the monument to it at Runnymede was actually paid for by an American historical society, rather than by us.

So while I think it's a bit glib to say that it was immediately forgotten, it has periodically waxed and waned in importance - sometimes being used as an important example or ideal to emulate, at others pretty much irrelevant. There's probably a professor of the study of mentions of Magna Carta throughout history somewhere, who's got a very long and dull book they could sell you about it.