Where is my "Where is my flying car?" t-shirt?
Jesper Lauridsen
futuristic flying car and the text "where is my flying car?" in a
matching typeface. Does such a thing exist? If not, why not?
If rasfw had a gift shop, that would be the #1 seller.
Joseph Nebus
Not the _Sword of the Dragon Prince_ trilogy in fourteen books
and counting?
Oh, and while it doesn't fly, you can't be too upset with this
chocolate-fueled car, as long as you can grasp the concept of there
being 'leftover chocolate' somehow, which is itself science fiction:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6282JZ20100309
Chocolate-powered racecar makes sustainability sexy
Ros Krasny
Tue Mar 9, 2010 12:54pm EST
BOSTON (Reuters Life!) - Fueled by leftover chocolate and
with components made from carrots, potato starch and flax, the
world's first sustainable Formula 3 racing car has a top speed of
135 miles per hour and can go from zero to 60 in 2.5 seconds.
Sound nuts? Not yet -- brake pads made from cashews are
still under development.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Nicoll
handle it), the age of the jetpack looms:
http://www.gizmag.com/first-commercially-available-jetpack/14423/
And it's an ultralight so in many jurisdictions anyone who can get
their hands on one can legally fly it.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Michael Grosberg
wrote:
What you're looking for is cafepress.com.
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+flying_car_long_sleeve_dark_ts,411238831
And of course there's also
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+wheres_my_jetpack_dark_tshirt,123521021
To which one can now answer
http://www.martinjetpack.com/
Taemon
> Jesper Lauridsen <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> writes:
>> If rasfw had a gift shop, that would be the #1 seller.
> Not the _Sword of the Dragon Prince_ trilogy in fourteen books
> and counting?
:-)
> Oh, and while it doesn't fly, you can't be too upset with this
> chocolate-fueled car, as long as you can grasp the concept of there
> being 'leftover chocolate' somehow, which is itself science fiction:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6282JZ20100309
Oh, wow.
You made me smile. Thank you!
T.
David DeLaney
>Jesper Lauridsen <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> writes:
>>I have a vision of a t-shirt decorated with an image of a 50s-style
>>futuristic flying car and the text "where is my flying car?" in a
>>matching typeface. Does such a thing exist? If not, why not?
>
>>If rasfw had a gift shop, that would be the #1 seller.
>
> Not the _Sword of the Dragon Prince_ trilogy in fourteen books
>and counting?
Do you mean _Sword of the Dragon Prince: First Forging: The !Tan'g_?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Christopher Henrich
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> >Jesper Lauridsen <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> writes:
> >>I have a vision of a t-shirt decorated with an image of a 50s-style
> >>futuristic flying car and the text "where is my flying car?" in a
> >>matching typeface. Does such a thing exist? If not, why not?
> >
> >>If rasfw had a gift shop, that would be the #1 seller.
> >
> > Not the _Sword of the Dragon Prince_ trilogy in fourteen books
> >and counting?
>
> Do you mean _Sword of the Dragon Prince: First Forging: The !Tan'g_?
>
> Dave
What has Steve Jobs done NOW????
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Quadibloc
> as long as you can grasp the concept of there
> being 'leftover chocolate' somehow, which is itself science fiction:
It could be even further from reality. What if we lived in the
alternate universe of "Wasteland of Flint" and "House of Reeds"? Then,
this would be _sacrilege_!
John Savard
Jack Tingle
> Completely unrelated to your request (although surely cafepress could
> handle it), the age of the jetpack looms:
>
> http://www.gizmag.com/first-commercially-available-jetpack/14423/
The most astonishing thing about this is that it took so long for
someone to actually do it. The technology dates back to the 1960s. The
US Army lost interest when it became obvious there was no real use for
it, but still ... where were the overly-rich idiots all these years?
This is tailor made for a 20-something trust fund idiot with a really
good liability lawyer following him around paying off claimants.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Chris
> In article <slrnhpg7l7.rp1....@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > Joseph Nebus <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> > >Jesper Lauridsen <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk> writes:
> > >>I have a vision of a t-shirt decorated with an image of a 50s-style
> > >>futuristic flying car and the text "where is my flying car?" in a
> > >>matching typeface. Does such a thing exist? If not, why not?
>
> > >>If rasfw had a gift shop, that would be the #1 seller.
>
> > > Not the _Sword of the Dragon Prince_ trilogy in fourteen books
> > >and counting?
>
> > Do you mean _Sword of the Dragon Prince: First Forging: The !Tan'g_?
>
> > Dave
>
> What has Steve Jobs done NOW????
He's peddling the first e-kotex.
Chris
>
> --
> Christopher J. Henrich
> chenr...@monmouth.comhttp://www.mathinteract.com
Michael Grosberg
> On 3/10/2010 11:25 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > Completely unrelated to your request (although surely cafepress could
> > handle it), the age of the jetpack looms:
>
> >http://www.gizmag.com/first-commercially-available-jetpack/14423/
>
> The most astonishing thing about this is that it took so long for
> someone to actually do it. The technology dates back to the 1960s.
The gas turbine and ducted fans may have been available in the 60's
but the control software and hardware that makes flying it more than a
very costly suicide? No way.
Wayne Throop
:: The most astonishing thing about this is that it took so long for
:: someone to actually do it. The technology dates back to the 1960s.
: Michael Grosberg <grosberg...@gmail.com>
: The gas turbine and ducted fans may have been available in the 60's
: but the control software and hardware that makes flying it more than a
: very costly suicide? No way.
Hm. Well, two things. The article says it's powered by a 2 liter
v4 2-stroke engine, so not sure where "gas turbine" comes from.
And second, near as I can tell, it's mechanically stable, because naict
the rotors are supporting things from above the center of gravity of
the widget-plus-pilot. So I'm not sure where "control software that
makes it non-suicidal" comes in, either. See also the specs here
http://www.martinjetpack.com/technical-information.aspx
Martin Aircraft 2.0 L V4 2 stroke, rated at 200 hp (150 kw)
See also the "how to learn to fly it" page here
http://www.martinjetpack.com/how-do-i-learn-to-fly.aspx
Martin Aircraft Company have devised a unique training program which
all owners are required to pass. The program is modelled on the
standard helicopter training program with parts of the Bell Rocket
Belt and Harrier training programs incorporated.
which does not make it sound like there's sophisticated avionics involved.
Certainly there aren't in (simpler) helecopters, nor any at all in
the Bell Rocket Belt. Harriers, OK, but still.
On the other hand, carbon fiber and carbon/kevlar composites
weren't really available in the 60s, so quite possibly it would have
been tricky to do. The article says they went through 8 prototypes
over a period of years to get'er done, so it wasn't just trivial
mash-up of even off-the-shelf present-day tech, and certainly not
of-the-shelf 60s tech.
There was a mythbusters episode where they attempted to create one with
more mundane materials, like aluminum and foam plastic shrouds around the
fans, etc etc. Didn't work so well. Of course, the goal wasn't to
bust the notion that it could be done, just whether an average feller could
do it with readily available materials. Basically, it isn't exactly trivial.
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbusters_jetpack_pyramid_po.html
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Michael Grosberg
> :::http://www.gizmag.com/first-commercially-available-jetpack/14423/
> :: The most astonishing thing about this is that it took so long for
> :: someone to actually do it. The technology dates back to the 1960s.
>
> : The gas turbine and ducted fans may have been available in the 60's
> : but the control software and hardware that makes flying it more than a
> : very costly suicide? No way.
>
> Hm. Well, two things. The article says it's powered by a 2 liter
> v4 2-stroke engine, so not sure where "gas turbine" comes from.
Sorry, I was confused by something on their website that turned out to
refer to the Bell Jet pack form the 60's.
> And second, near as I can tell, it's mechanically stable, because naict
> the rotors are supporting things from above the center of gravity of
> the widget-plus-pilot. So I'm not sure where "control software that
> makes it non-suicidal" comes in, either. See also the specs here
Now that is surprising. I would assumed that, to make something like
this idiot proof (it is going to be purchased by rich idiots, after
all) and shield themselves from future lawsuits, they'd put some sort
of fly-by-wire system that takes the actual flying out of the hands of
the pilot, so pilots won't be able to crash it even if they did
something really stupid. I still can't believe they didn't put
something like a Segway's gyroscope system in it.
If it's as naturally stable as they say, though, doesn't it mean
flight is very restricted? you probably can't go all Iron-man with
this thing. According to the website the pack remains nearly vertical
at all times and you have to use the control vanes to direct thrust.
Mike Ash
wrote:
> ::: http://www.gizmag.com/first-commercially-available-jetpack/14423/
> :: The most astonishing thing about this is that it took so long for
> :: someone to actually do it. The technology dates back to the 1960s.
>
> : Michael Grosberg <grosberg...@gmail.com>
> : The gas turbine and ducted fans may have been available in the 60's
> : but the control software and hardware that makes flying it more than a
> : very costly suicide? No way.
>
> Hm. Well, two things. The article says it's powered by a 2 liter
> v4 2-stroke engine, so not sure where "gas turbine" comes from.
> And second, near as I can tell, it's mechanically stable, because naict
> the rotors are supporting things from above the center of gravity of
> the widget-plus-pilot. So I'm not sure where "control software that
> makes it non-suicidal" comes in, either.
I was curious to see that claim on the web site, and curious to see you
repeat it. The location of the thrust relative to the center of gravity
does not influence the stability of an aircraft. Robert Goddard made
this very same mistake, going through a lot of effort to put the engine
of his first rocket at the top, thinking it would be more stable.
It doesn't work this way, because it's not like holding a pencil by the
top versus the bottom. The force vector rotates with the object, so any
object which is pulled by gravity and suspended by thrust will be either
unstable (if the force vector doesn't pass through the CG) or neutrally
stable (if it does pass through the CG) no matter where the force is
mounted to the object in a vertical sense.
Stability for this thing will be purely aerodynamic, and I don't know
how that works out. It certainly could be mechanically stable, just not
for the reason given.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Wayne Throop
: I was curious to see that claim on the web site, and curious to see you
: does not influence the stability of an aircraft. Robert Goddard made
: this very same mistake, going through a lot of effort to put the engine
: of his first rocket at the top, thinking it would be more stable.
:
: It doesn't work this way, because it's not like holding a pencil by the
: top versus the bottom. The force vector rotates with the object, so any
: object which is pulled by gravity and suspended by thrust will be either
: unstable (if the force vector doesn't pass through the CG) or neutrally
: stable (if it does pass through the CG) no matter where the force is
: mounted to the object in a vertical sense.
Hm? Wouldn't that depend on the object being rigid?
A pilot dangling from it isn't rigid.
But maybe better to say that due to where the support is, instinctive
motions of the body wrt the harness stabilize it. Hm. Or maybe I'm still misthinking it.
But also... for the case of Goddard, isn't there an issue of aerodynamic
forces tending to amplify misalignment for a tail motor vs a head motor?
Eh, too early in the morning.
John F. Eldredge
> If it's as naturally stable as they say, though, doesn't it mean flight
> is very restricted? you probably can't go all Iron-man with this thing.
> According to the website the pack remains nearly vertical at all times
> and you have to use the control vanes to direct thrust.
I wonder how long it will be before someone manages to run out of fuel
close enough to the ground that the parachute doesn't have time to fully
deploy, yet still high enough for the fall to be fatal.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Greg Goss
Cafepress makes it ludicrously easy to make customized products. A
quick search for your phrase and "cafepress" yielded
http://www.cafepress.ca/+wheres_my_flying_car_long_sleeve_tshirt,140531321
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Dimensional Traveler
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:00:45 -0800, Michael Grosberg wrote:
>
>> If it's as naturally stable as they say, though, doesn't it mean flight
>> is very restricted? you probably can't go all Iron-man with this thing.
>> According to the website the pack remains nearly vertical at all times
>> and you have to use the control vanes to direct thrust.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before someone manages to run out of fuel
> close enough to the ground that the parachute doesn't have time to fully
> deploy, yet still high enough for the fall to be fatal.
>
--
Murphy was an optimist.
Mike Ash
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:00:45 -0800, Michael Grosberg wrote:
>
> > If it's as naturally stable as they say, though, doesn't it mean flight
> > is very restricted? you probably can't go all Iron-man with this thing.
> > According to the website the pack remains nearly vertical at all times
> > and you have to use the control vanes to direct thrust.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before someone manages to run out of fuel
> close enough to the ground that the parachute doesn't have time to fully
> deploy, yet still high enough for the fall to be fatal.
They don't think that there is such an altitude:
'Helicopters and other VTOL aircraft normally have an avoidance curve.
This is the height where an impact is not survivable but below which
other procedures like "autorotation" are not possible. Currently we
think that with good design and correct flying procedures the avoidance
curve can be eliminated.'
I'm skeptical that it can be eliminated altogether. Even a really
fantastic parachute system will take time to deploy. Engine failure at
30ft seems like a killer.
Mike Ash
wrote:
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : I was curious to see that claim on the web site, and curious to see you
> : repeat it. The location of the thrust relative to the center of gravity
> : does not influence the stability of an aircraft. Robert Goddard made
> : this very same mistake, going through a lot of effort to put the engine
> : of his first rocket at the top, thinking it would be more stable.
> :
> : It doesn't work this way, because it's not like holding a pencil by the
> : top versus the bottom. The force vector rotates with the object, so any
> : object which is pulled by gravity and suspended by thrust will be either
> : unstable (if the force vector doesn't pass through the CG) or neutrally
> : stable (if it does pass through the CG) no matter where the force is
> : mounted to the object in a vertical sense.
>
> Hm? Wouldn't that depend on the object being rigid?
> A pilot dangling from it isn't rigid.
>
> But maybe better to say that due to where the support is, instinctive
> motions of the body wrt the harness stabilize it. Hm. Or maybe I'm still
> misthinking it.
Depends on how the dangling bit is supported. If it's supported from
above, and your thrust line is through the CG in the normal position
then it will be neutrally stable. If you nudge it, the dangling bit will
deflect and then go back to where it was, leaving the thrust line
through the center, but with the vehicle tilted. If the dangling bit is
supported from below, then it will be unstable. If you nudge it, it
flops over, the CG moves, your thrust line doesn't line up, etc.
But note that this doesn't depend on the position of the thrust
regarding the center of gravity, just how the flexible bit is supported.
Also, the pilot had better be *very* securely attached to this craft,
and so is not going to move around much.
> But also... for the case of Goddard, isn't there an issue of aerodynamic
> forces tending to amplify misalignment for a tail motor vs a head motor?
> Eh, too early in the morning.
No, I don't think so. For a head motor, you do get exhaust running over
the rocket which will modify its aerodynamics, but there's nothing
inherently unstable about a tail motor. It all depends on how the rocket
is shaped. If the center of pressure is behind the center of mass then
it will tend to be stable, otherwise not, just like any other sort of
aircraft.
Par
> 'Helicopters and other VTOL aircraft normally have an avoidance curve.
> This is the height where an impact is not survivable but below which
> other procedures like "autorotation" are not possible. Currently we
> think that with good design and correct flying procedures the avoidance
> curve can be eliminated.'
>
> I'm skeptical that it can be eliminated altogether. Even a really
> fantastic parachute system will take time to deploy. Engine failure at
> 30ft seems like a killer.
ISTR reading about an advanced ejection seat that would (1) detect
orientation relative the ground and (2) altitude. So if you ejected 10 m
above the ground it would fly (some sort of steerable rocket) in a
curve, until the altitude was sufficient for the parachute. At which
point it would shut off the jet and deploy the parachute. I think this
might have been only on the pipe-dream or prototype stage when read
about it, many years ago. But theoretically it would be possible to
(probably for only a few hundred thousand dollars more...) get a jet-pack
with a survivable avoidance curve failure.
Hmm, a series of short burn solid fuel rockets, and a "AI" capable of
finding and implementing a firing solution that would lead to minimal
impact velocity? Probably implemented as "first solution within
acceptable parameters" rather than a true minimum.
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
Four wheel drive allows you to get stuck in places even more inaccessible
Mike Ash
Par <use...@hunter-gatherer.org> wrote:
That all sounds reasonable. I should clarify that I don't think the
claim is possible within their price range and with reasonably tested
technology. They're not using fancy attitude-detecting
computer-controlled ejection system, they're using a fairly standard
ballistic recovery parachute that handles the entire vehicle.
For a hypothetical future jetpack with fancier tech, yeah, ought to be
safe (well, as safe as a rocket-powered computer-driven ejection system
can be) for an engine failure at any altitude.
Cryptoengineer
> Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com>:
That was the 'Maximum Performance Ejection System' which the Navy
worked on in the 80s, but canceled. Photos here:
http://aafo.com/racing/tech/seats/part1.htm
...which also notes that a high-performance ejection seat costs a
quarter million dollars.
I suggest that a rather simpler mechanism might work for this
'jetpack', when you're below the minimum height for the parachute: an
airbag. Include an ultrasonic proximity detector such as you have in
the rear of modern cars, and if you're about to hit the ground at too
high a speed, pop the bag.
pt
Par
> That was the 'Maximum Performance Ejection System' which the Navy
> worked on in the 80s, but canceled. Photos here:
> http://aafo.com/racing/tech/seats/part1.htm
> ...which also notes that a high-performance ejection seat costs a
> quarter million dollars.
You mean my guess of a few hundred thousand dollars was in the right
ballpark? Neat.
> I suggest that a rather simpler mechanism might work for this
> 'jetpack', when you're below the minimum height for the parachute: an
> airbag. Include an ultrasonic proximity detector such as you have in
> the rear of modern cars, and if you're about to hit the ground at too
> high a speed, pop the bag.
I can now see the adrenaline junkies getting a bare airbag system and
jumping off (tallish) buildings...
Par
> > about it, many years ago. But theoretically it would be possible to
> > (probably for only a few hundred thousand dollars more...) get a jet-pack
> > with a survivable avoidance curve failure.
> >
> > Hmm, a series of short burn solid fuel rockets, and a "AI" capable of
> > finding and implementing a firing solution that would lead to minimal
> > impact velocity? Probably implemented as "first solution within
> > acceptable parameters" rather than a true minimum.
>
> That all sounds reasonable. I should clarify that I don't think the
> claim is possible within their price range and with reasonably tested
> technology. They're not using fancy attitude-detecting
> computer-controlled ejection system, they're using a fairly standard
> ballistic recovery parachute that handles the entire vehicle.
Agreed, thus my lite aside of "a few hundred thousand dollars more".
Doable: yes, doable at even remotely sane consumer prices: no.
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
The only man-made structure on the internet visible from sci.space.
-- Jake Kesinger
Dorothy J Heydt
Still no flying car, but in the current _Scientific American_
there's an article about a flying motorcycle that might be on the
market in a couple of years.
Personally, I shudder at the thought. Considering the loony
driving that people do in a mere two dimensions, the gore is
going to flow if they ever get up into three.
But it's on p. 24 of the March 2010 SciAm, if anyone wants to go
look at it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Robert Cheval
> Still no flying car, but in the current _Scientific American_ there's an
> article about a flying motorcycle that might be on the market in a
> couple of years.
>
> Personally, I shudder at the thought. Considering the loony driving
> that people do in a mere two dimensions, the gore is going to flow if
> they ever get up into three.
>
> But it's on p. 24 of the March 2010 SciAm, if anyone wants to go look at
> it.
Just think about how many of these loonies will kill themselves within 10
minutes of flying anything.
"Hey, look what I can..." *crash* *sound-of-head-ripping-off* *silence*
Wayne Throop
: Just think about how many of these loonies will kill themselves within
: 10 minutes of flying anything. "Hey, look what I can..." *crash*
: *sound-of-head-ripping-off* *silence*
That silence you hear is due to evolution inaction.
"He'e a platypus. They don't do much."
--- inspiration for the "Perry the Platypus Inaction Figure"
Jesper Lauridsen
>
> Oh, and while it doesn't fly, you can't be too upset with this
Oh great. They replace oil with something we have even less of.
Quadibloc
> Still no flying car, but in the current _Scientific American_
> there's an article about a flying motorcycle that might be on the
> market in a couple of years.
>
> Personally, I shudder at the thought. Considering the loony
> driving that people do in a mere two dimensions, the gore is
> going to flow if they ever get up into three.
A flying motorcycle? I have to agree that such a device does not
inspire me to think of it as useful; instead, it makes me think of
people like Evel Knievel.
John Savard
trag
That should be, "Hey Bubba, watch this...."
William December Starr
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> said:
> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> Still no flying car, but in the current _Scientific American_
>> there's an article about a flying motorcycle that might be on the
>> market in a couple of years.
>
> A flying motorcycle? I have to agree that such a device does not
> inspire me to think of it as useful; instead, it makes me think of
> people like Evel Knievel.
It's a motorcycle only by a technical/legal definition of the word.
Here's a bit of email I sent a friend about it:
----------
If you weren't aware of Sampson Motorworks' Switchblade concept, you
might want to take a look at the search results from:
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=switchblade&as_epq=samson+motorworks>
I learned about it from a short article in the latest issue of
Scientific American (March 2010), that doesn't seem to be online.
The article mentions that the design will technically be a
motorcycle (because it has three wheels rather than four,
apparently) and therefore will fall under different, more lenient,
road-based laws and regulations.
Among the search results, this one from December 2009:
<http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/status-of-flying-cars-parajet-samson.html>
is a brief "What's the current status" report on several flying car
concepts, including the Switchblade and the Terrafugia Transition.
The Switchblade seems to have made less progress so far in moving
from "vaporware" to "thing that actually exists and flies," but it
doesn't smell of crackpottery, impossibility, or scam to me.
-- wds
William December Starr
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> I suggest that a rather simpler mechanism might work for this
> 'jetpack', when you're below the minimum height for the parachute:
> an airbag. Include an ultrasonic proximity detector such as you
> have in the rear of modern cars, and if you're about to hit the
> ground at too high a speed, pop the bag.
Better yet, an all-surrounding tetrahedral configuration of airbags:
"Hey, look at me -- I'm Spirit and/or Opportunity landing on Mars!"
-- wds
David DeLaney
>all-surrounding tetrahedral configuration
BAND NAME
Dave "... ...what?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>ISTR reading about an advanced ejection seat that would (1) detect
>orientation relative the ground and (2) altitude. So if you ejected 10 m
>above the ground it would fly (some sort of steerable rocket) in a
>curve, until the altitude was sufficient for the parachute. At which
And right into the bridge, the pilot(?) was flying under.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Par
Is there any system -- short of slaver stasis cages -- that makes that
survivable?
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
"Don't think of it as being fired... think of it as leaving early to
avoid the rush." -- Thorfy (from the Netizen quotes file)