Testing on the ground and problems with what most people would call the payload (Apollo 1 & 13), sure.
But we're comparing to SpaceX launches. Plenty of Raptor engines have blown up on the ground too.
There were 13 Saturn V's launched and all of them basically performed their mission (Apollo 6 being a bit of an exception) with 0 rapid unplanned disassemblies...
Personally I'd rather buy one from IKEA and use the change left over from $12k to buy.. a used truck to drive the sofa home in.. but apparently there's a market.
You can certainly go much higher for smaller companies producing actual custom stuff, using exotic materials, for a giant sectional instead of a single sofa, etc.
You are NOT at all (legally) free to arbitrarily turn off your ADSB on an aircraft equipped with it. 91.225(f) [1].
> Except as prohibited in [unmanned aircraft section], each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless [authorized by FAA or ATC].
A common way to add ADSB to an aircraft not originally equipped is replacing one of the lights with a uAvionics skyBeacon[2], which has a LED light + ADSB-out transmitter. So the nav light switch would control it, but you'd also now be required to have them on at all times.
I know the FAA can, I was referring to the manufacture. If Boeing makes a software patch do they have any way of forcing everyone to install it other than asking the FAA to issue a directive?
They might be able to, but, if they are effectively saying "our product is broken and you can't use it until you do X" they could be responsible for massive contractual liabilities.
Based on aviation law they can notify the certification authority of a mandatory fix which will be then required to be applied for users to aircraft operators to apply. If necessary with 0 deadline, i.e. "if the plane is on the ground it's not flying till the following change is applied"
I read through the 787 Dreamliner manual for setting up the software for patch distribution to the planes, and there are checks and overrides at every step. The whole thing is physically controlled by the owning airline or maybe the leasing company, but not Boeing.
I wasn’t thinking a “we’re pushing an update too bad” kind of thing but more a “hey you have to do this to be allowed to fly, your choice” with the weight of law behind it.
That guide book was genuinely amazing, it was easily the best-written technical document of any kind that I had read.
The security is dialed up to 11 as well. It explicitly calls out the following scenario:
1) The plane is leased.
2) the maintenance is outsourced.
3) The plane at an airport in an "unfriendly" country.
4) The plane is not allowed to take off until it is patched due to an emergency directive.
That scenario is handled, securely!
There is encryption between the plane and the airport WiFi.
The maintenance crew can also plug in to an Ethernet port near the front landing gear.
There is a VPN back to the patch server managed by the airline.
The VPN host certificate is explicitly whitelisted in the plane.
The plane won't accept a patch unless it has been digitally signed by Boeing, the FAA, the Airline, and potentially the manufacturer and the local equivalent of the FAA!)
The pilot has to enter a 4-digit pin code in the plane.
Most of the associated wiring is only physically connected if there is weight on the front landing gear. You can't "hack" a plane in-flight and patch it with malware, the required cabling isn't connected.
JSX operates based on a loophole in the part 135 rules, but that only allows 30 seats. A CRJ doesn't have the range for (nonstop) transatlantic, bigger planes would be impractical, and smaller ones with the range won't hold 30 people.
TLS did "exist" (well, as SSL), but this was a time when you'd maybe see it used on a few websites that had it on just the specific pages that took a credit card.
It was well before most other protocols were worrying about the security or privacy of being intercepted at all. Decades before TLS by-default-because-why-not started becoming a thing (largely because of LetsEncrypt). Especially for an app that was mostly for pirating stuff. Your email and it's login/passwords, IRC, instant messaging, regular browsing, etc all happened in plain text.
And despite the physical networks being super vulnerable back then. Ethernet was mostly connected by hubs/ring/shared coax, so every device received every other's packets. WiFi was just coming around and is a shared medium. Several rounds of inept security schemes failed to even keep people who don't know the network password from intercepting nearby traffic. Most networks didn't have security on yet anyway.
> TLS did "exist" (well, as SSL), but this was a time when you'd maybe see it used on a few websites that had it on just the specific pages that took a credit card.
Indeed, I had forgotten about this. You'd go from the regular site on HTTP to the credit card page on HTTPS and back again. For a time, it was important to check that the page that you were actually entering the card details on was on HTTPS before you clicked the submit, and that the target was also HTTPS.
It's really sort of the opposite. You don't see 727s or MD-80s at the terminal anymore (freight somewhat excepted). Airliners are used constantly, wear out and get replaced/sent to other countries. Buying another computer is a negligible cost in a new 787 or retrofit into anything an airline currently flies.
But there are tons of flying general aviation planes that are from the 50s/60's, and a long tail going back even further than that. Some of them don't even have a radio to talk on. Or an electrical system to run it.
Mandating ADSB took many years, and still has exceptions carved out. And that's a fairly simple technology. There are companies that build it all into a replacement tail light LED "bulb" to provide compliance for ~$2000.
Still that might be 5-10% of the value of your 1977 Cessna 152. If you take the cheap airframes out of the sky, that makes new pilots getting their 1500 hours more expensive before they can go get a job on the big boy planes.
A lot of them don't. They work in nondescript windowless buildings controlling all the airspace that isn't right above an airport.
There have also been trials done with "virtual towers" at smaller airports, using a bunch of cameras and with controllers remotely monitoring them and communicating.
And as far as I can tell, representations are still projected on a 2D screen. Air traffic using 3d projections might lower the technical bar for controllers? VR + AI seems inevitable.
Group all resolutions returned that are the same +-5% together and choose the lowest one in the desired bucket.