[url=https://kra26c.cc]kraken зеркало[/url]
Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.
The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kra26 cc
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.
So is that old adage and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane right after all?
In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.
Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?
According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.
“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”
“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”
[url=https://kra26c.cc]кракен[/url]
Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.
The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken официальный сайт
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.
So is that old adage and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane right after all?
In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.
Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?
According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.
“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”
“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”
Blue Origin had planned to launch a pair of Mars-bound satellites on behalf of NASA for the first flight of New Glenn.
But delays with the rocket’s development prompted the space agency to change course, moving that flight to this spring at the earliest. So for this inaugural flight, Blue Origin opted to instead fly a “demonstrator” that will test technology needed for the company’s proposed Blue Ring spacecraft which will aim to serve as a sort of in-space rideshare vehicle, dragging satellites deeper into space when needed.
[url=https://omgprice10.com]официальная ссылка на omg[/url]
The demonstrator on this New Glenn flight will remain aboard the rocket for the entire six-hour flight, Blue Origin said, and it will validate “communications capabilities from orbit to ground” as well as “test its in-space telemetry, tracking and command hardware, and ground-based radiometric tracking.”
The Blue Ring Pathfinder demonstrator is part of a deal Blue Origin inked with the US Department of Defense’s Defense Innovation Unit.
https://omgprice10.com
официальная ссылка на omg
Why Blue Origin wants to reuse rockets
Similar to SpaceX, Blue Origin is aiming to recover and refly its first-stage rocket boosters in a bid to make launches less expensive.
“Reusability is integral to radically reducing cost-per-launch,” the company said in a recent news release, using the same oft-repeated sentiment that SpaceX has touted since it began landing rocket boosters in 2015.
Bezos, however, has acknowledged the importance of reusing rocket parts since he founded the company in 2000 two years before Musk established SpaceX. And the company has already developed its suborbital New Shepard tourism rocket to be reusable.
“It’s not a copy cat game,” Henry said. “Blue Origin has been pursuing reusable vehicles since before reusable vehicles were cool. Now it’s much more of a mainstream idea (because of SpaceX). The difference is that it’s taken Blue Origin so much longer to get to orbit.”
If successful, returning the New Glenn rocket booster for a safe landing will be a stunning feat. After expending most of its fuel to propel the rocket’s upper stage to space, the first-stage booster will need to make a clean separation. The booster must then maneuver with pinpoint guidance and reignite its engines with precision timing to avoid crashing into the ocean or the Jacklyn recovery platform.
In some ways, New Glenn has already made its mark on the launch industry. Blue Origin has for years pitched the rocket to compete with both SpaceX and United Launch Alliance a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that buys engines from Blue Origin for lucrative military launch contracts.
[url=https://omgprice10.com]omg omg onion[/url]
The US Space Force selected Blue Origin, ULA and SpaceX in June to compete for $5.6 billion worth of Pentagon contracts for national security missions slated to launch over the next four years.
Blue Origin also has deals with several commercial companies to launch satellites. The contracts include plans to help deploy Amazon’s Kuiper internet satellites and a recently inked deal with AST SpaceMobile to help launch the Midland, Texas-based company’s space-based cellular broadband network.
New Glenn could also be instrumental in building Blue Origin’s planned space station, called Orbital Reef. Blue Origin and it commercial partners, including Sierra Space and Boeing, among others, hope the station will one day provide a new destination for astronauts as the International Space Station is phased out of service.
https://omgprice10.com
площадка оmg darkmarket
New Glenn vs. other powerful rockets
New Glenn packs significant power. Dubbed a “heavy-lift” vehicle, its capabilities lie between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and the more powerful Falcon Heavy launch vehicle.
SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9, for example, can haul up to 22.8 metric tons (50,265 pounds) to space. While New Glenn is capable of carrying about double that mass, it may also be roughly the same price as a Falcon 9: reportedly around $60 million to $70 million per launch.
“I think in order to compete with Falcon 9, you have to go head-to-head or better on price,” said Caleb Henry, the director of research at Quilty Space, which provides data and analysis about the space sector.
The question, however, is whether Blue Origin will be able to sustain a competitive price point, Henry added.
Still, one feature that makes New Glenn stand out is its large payload fairing, or nose cone. The component protects the cargo bay and is a whopping 23 feet (7 meters) wide nearly 6 feet (2 meters) larger than that of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.
Henry said Blue Origin likely opted to outfit New Glenn with such a large fairing in order to help fulfill Bezos’ vision of the future.
[url=https://krkns.cc]kra26 cc[/url]
Sunglasses, or dark glasses, have always guarded against strong sunlight, but is there more to “shades” than we think?
The pupils of our eyes are delicate and react immediately to strong lights. Protecting them against light even the brilliance reflected off snow is important for everyone. Himalayan mountaineers wear goggles for this exact purpose.
Protection is partly the function of sunglasses. But dark or colored lens glasses have become fashion accessories and personal signature items. Think of the vast and famous collector of sunglasses Elton John, with his pink lensed heart-shaped extravaganzas and many others.
When did this interest in protecting the eyes begin, and at what point did dark glasses become a social statement as well as physical protection?
The Roman Emperor Nero is reported as holding polished gemstones to his eyes for sun protection as he watched fighting gladiators.
We know Canadian far north Copper Inuit and Alaskan Yupik wore snow goggles of many kinds made of antlers or whalebone and with tiny horizontal slits. Wearers looked through these and they were protected against the snow’s brilliant light when hunting. At the same time the very narrow eye holes helped them to focus on their prey.
In 12th-century China, judges wore sunglasses with smoked quartz lenses to hide their facial expressions perhaps to retain their dignity or not convey emotions.
