Program's photos on Flickr

2014 - Copper Canyon -Batopilas - One Street by Ted McGrath

30 3

A typical Batopilas Centro street upgraded with Pueblo Magico money. Improved sidewalk and street finishings and characteristic rich colour treatment of the buildings are the kind of enhancements provided by the program.

Pueblos Magico:

With tourism being Mexico’s third major industry, the country’s government has developed several programs to support this important, dollar-generating sector. One of them, called Pueblos Magicos (Magical Towns), aims to increase tourism to towns that are of particular historic or religious value, or that are located near large cities or other tourist sites.

Founded in 2001 by the Tourism Secretariat (Sectur), the Pueblos Magicos program coordinates local, state, and federal efforts, channeling funds for diversification and improvement of the towns’ tourism infrastructure.

The idea behind this Sectur’s project is to show that Mexico is much more than just sun and beach. Converting quaint, culturally rich towns into visitor-friendly destinations, the government wants to make sure they retain their authentic Mexican charm, which is ultimately what sets them apart from other destinations.

One of the program’s most important challenges is to maintain the town’s historical accuracy throughout the modernization process, and because of that all participating towns must comply with architectural and visual guidelines.

Florence Shelly Preserve in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania by Chesapeake Bay Program

1

Florence Shelly Preserve in Susquehanna County, Pa., on Aug. 2, 2016. The 357-acre preserve is owned by the Nature Conservancy and features forest, fields, a stream, and glacial pond surrounded by a floating bog. (Photo by Will Parson/Chesapeake Bay Program)

USAGE REQUEST INFORMATION

The Chesapeake Bay Program's photographic archive is available for media and non-commercial use at no charge. To request permission, send an email briefly describing the proposed use to requests@chesapeakebay.net. Please do not attach jpegs. Instead, reference the corresponding Flickr URL of the image.

A photo credit mentioning the Chesapeake Bay Program is mandatory. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way or used in any way that suggests approval or endorsement of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Requestors should also respect the publicity rights of individuals photographed, and seek their consent if necessary.

Messerschmitt Me 163B-1a Komet by Skip Plitt

23 3

This photo may not be used in any form without permission from the photographer. None of my images are in the Creative Commons. If you wish to use one of my images please contact me at: skipplittphotography@gmail.com

One of the most remarkable of the Wunderwaffen (wonder weapons) produced by the Nazi Germany during World War II, the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet holds the distinction of being the first and only tailless rocket-powered interceptor to see operational service. Like the other advanced weapons fielded by Germany during the final year of World War II, the Me 163 had little actual effect on the outcome of the war. Considering the conditions under which it was developed and deployed, however, the Me 163 can be rightly considered a significant technological accomplishment.

The concept for the Komet originated during the late thirties, when rocket propulsion for aircraft became increasingly attractive to a number of air planners in Nazi Germany. Although rockets potentially offered astounding performance advantages for an interceptor, their high fuel consumption posed seemingly insurmountable design difficulties. In spite of this, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium or RLM (Reich Air Ministry) supported the work of rocket engine designer Hellmuth Walter, issuing a contract in 1936 for the development of an 882 lb. thrust motor designated the R I-203. The engine was to be fueled by a mixture of T-Stoff (80 percent hydrogen peroxide with oxyquinoline or phosphate as a stabilizer and 20 percent water) and Z-Stoff (an aqueous solution of calcium permanganate) and intended to power the Heinkel He 176 aircraft then under development. Because the He 176, which had been designed solely as a high-speed aircraft with no military potential, the RLM ordered the Deutsches Forschungsinsitut für Segelflug (German Research Institute for Gliding Flight or DFS) to produce a second prototype of the DFS 39, a tailless aircraft designed by Dr. Alexander Lippisch. It was also to be a rocket-powered design under a top-secret program designated Project X. DFS was to build the aircraft's wings while Heinkel, which was already working on the He 176, was to manufacture the rest of the airframe. It soon became apparent to Lippisch, however, that the DFS 39's wingtip-mounted rudders would likely cause unacceptable flutter and that a central fin and rudder would offer better control. It was replaced by a new design, designated the DFS 194, with a single large vertical stabilizer mounted on the fuselage. Like the DFS 39, it was initially intended only to be a conventionally powered flying test bed for later rocket-powered designs.

Difficulties arising from the division of work between DFS and Heinkel and the secrecy surrounding the project led Lippisch to request that he be allowed to leave DFS and join Messerschmitt AG. The RLM granted his request on January 2, 1939, and shortly after Lippisch, his design team, and the partially completed DFS 194 arrived at the Messerschmitt works in Augsburg, it was decided to adopt rocket power for the aircraft. The airframe was completed at the Messerschmitt works in Augsburg and shipped to Pennemünde West early in 1940 for installation of a Walter R I-203. Flight-testing revealed that despite the unreliability its motor, the aircraft had excellent performance characteristics, reaching a speed of 342 mph in level flight during one test.

The move to Messerschmitt brought a change in the program's designation to Me 163. The success of the DFS 194 spurred development of the first prototype Me 163, designated the Me 163 V1, which was completed during early 1941. Flight testing commenced in the spring of 1941, comprising a series of unpowered flights before the Me 163 V1 was shipped to Peenemünde West for installation of a 1,653 lb. thrust Walter RII-203 rocket motor and its first powered flights. Despite a series of accidents and explosions involving the unreliable motor, on October 2, 1941, the Me 163 V1 set a new world speed record of 1,004.5 kph (623.8 mph). Impressed by the aircraft's performance, the RLM instructed Lippisch was to design an improved version of the Me 163 around a more powerful rocket motor under development by Walter. The new design, designated Me 163 B, was to be an operational interceptor and represented an almost complete redesign of the aircraft. Its landing gear remained similar to the earlier design, employing a wheeled trolley that was jettisoned after takeoff and an extendable skid for landing. Additional prototypes based on the Me 163 V1 configuration were designated Me 163 A.

The first Me 163 B prototype, the Me 163 V3, was completed in April 1942, but it was not until early fall that the first Walter 109-509A motors were ready for installation. The new motor used a more volatile fuel mixture of T-Stoff (80 percent hydrogen peroxide and 20 percent water) and C-Stoff (hydrazine hydrate, methyl alcohol, and water), which provided a maximum thrust of 1,500 kg (3,300 lb.). Unlike the earlier cold principle motor which directed all of the oxygen and water vapor produced by the decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide out of the engine's nozzle, the new motor employed a hot system in which the oxygen was ignited for additional thrust and better fuel efficiency. Flight testing of the first series of Me 163 B-0 preproduction aircraft proceeded through 1942 and demonstrated the dangers of the Me 163's unproven propulsion system. As fuel passed through the Walter motor's pumps, areas of vacuum sometimes formed in the liquid. This cavitation often caused a catastrophic explosion when the motor was started. Once in the air, the aircraft's climb rate proved remarkable, but compressibility problems limited its safe speed in a dive to below Mach 0.82. The Komet's landing gear also proved troublesome, with numerous pilots suffering back injuries as a result of the skid failing to extend properly or failing upon touchdown. Even when the skid operated properly, landings were always without power and at high speed, requiring the utmost care on the part of the pilot to prevent the aircraft from overturning on soft ground. Such mishaps often led to an explosion or the pilot being severely burned by leaking fuel.

Despite the problems encountered during testing, plans proceeded during 1943 to equip the first operational units with the operational version of the Komet, designated the Me 163 B-1a. Production began at dispersed facilities by the Klemm concern, but was later transferred to Junkers as the result of quality control problems. An operational training unit, Erprobungskommando 16 or EK 16 was formed during July 1943 at Pennemünde West, but moved to Bad Zwischenahn before the first group of pilot trainees arrived as the result of allied bombing of Pennemünde. The unit finally received its first group of 30 pilot trainees in the fall of 1943. By May 1944, organization of Jagdgeschwader 400 or JG 400, the first operational Me 163 wing, began in earnest with the formation of the unit's first group (I./JG 400) under the command of Hauptmann Wolfgang Späte. Späte planned to deploy Me 163s from a string of bases, each close enough that the short range of the Me 163 overlapped. The plan was never realized, owing in part to the special facilities needed for the aircraft. Instead, I./JG 400 was to provide protection for the synthetic oil refineries at Leuna, some 90 km (55 miles) from its base at Brandis. Two additional Me 163 groups, II. And III./JG 400 were formed before the end of the war, but saw limited combat.

The unit made its first interception of Allied bombers on August 16, 1944 without success. Early combat experiences demonstrated a number of problems that prevented the Me 163 from ever becoming an effective weapon. Although the aircraft's two MK 108 30mm cannons were capable of downing a four-engine bomber with only three or four hits, the Komet's high speed, coupled with the cannons' slow rate of fire and short range made effective gunnery nearly impossible against the slow moving bombers. As a result, Me 163 pilots recorded a total of only nine kills. Although capable of reaching its service ceiling of 12,100 m (39,690 ft) in just under three-and-a-half minutes, the Me 163 carried only enough fuel for eight minutes of powered flight. After one or two firing passes, the pilot had to glide back to base with no means of escaping Allied escort fighters. In response to pilots' combat reports, alternative weapons, including vertically firing 50mm cannons triggered by a photocell as the Me 163 passed through a bomber's shadow were tested but not produced in quantity. An improved variant of the aircraft with a greater endurance and a tricycle landing gear, designated the Me 163 C, was also produced in small numbers before the war's end, but was not flown operationally.

The operational history of the National Air and Space Museum's Me 163 B-1a, Werk-Nummer (serial number) 191301, remains obscure. One of five Me 163s brought to the United States after the war, it arrived at Freeman Field, Indiana, during the summer of 1945. There it received the foreign equipment code FE-500. On April 12, 1946, it was flown aboard a cargo aircraft to the U.S. Army Air Forces facility at Muroc dry lake in California for flight testing. Testing began there on May 3, 1946 in the presence of Dr. Alexander Lippisch and involved towing the unfueled Komet behind a B-29 to an altitude of 9,000 to 10,500 m (30,000 to 35,000 ft) before it was released for a glide back to earth under the control of test pilot Major Gus Lundquist. Powered tests were planned, but not carried out after delamination of the aircraft's wooden wings was discovered. It was then stored at Norton AFB, California until 1954, when it was transferred to the Smithsonian Institution. The aircraft remained on display in an unrestored condition at the museum's Paul E. Garber Restoration and Storage Facility in Suitland, Maryland, until 1996, when it was lent to the Mighty Eighth Air Force Heritage Museum in Savannah, Georgia. It is currently displayed at the Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA.

airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/messerschmitt-me-16...

Ned Smith Center for Nature & Art in Dauphin, Pa. by Chesapeake Bay Program

Fungi grow in the forest at the Ned Smith Center for Nature and Art near Millersburg, Pa., on Oct. 28, 2016. Fungi play a major role in regenerating the forest by digesting fallen trees and plant matter, effectively recycling the nutrients back into the soil. (Photo by Leslie Boorhem-Stephenson/Chesapeake Bay Program)

USAGE REQUEST INFORMATION

The Chesapeake Bay Program's photographic archive is available for media and non-commercial use at no charge.

To request permission, send an email briefly describing the proposed use to requests@chesapeakebay.net. Please do not attach jpegs. Instead, reference the corresponding Flickr URL of the image.

A photo credit mentioning the Chesapeake Bay Program is mandatory. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way or used in any way that suggests approval or endorsement of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Requestors should also respect the publicity rights of individuals photographed, and seek their consent if necessary.

Ares I-X Rocket Takes Off (NASA, 10/28/09) by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

27 29

With more than 23 times the power output of the Hoover Dam, the Constellation Program's Ares I-X test rocket zooms off Launch Complex 39B at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The rocket produces 2.96 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and reaches a speed of 100 mph in eight seconds. Liftoff of the 6-minute flight test was at 11:30 a.m. EDT Oct. 28. This was the first launch from Kennedy's pads of a vehicle other than the space shuttle since the Apollo Program's Saturn rockets were retired. The parts used to make the Ares I-X booster flew on 30 different shuttle missions ranging from STS-29 in 1989 to STS-106 in 2000. The data returned from more than 700 sensors throughout the rocket will be used to refine the design of future launch vehicles and bring NASA one step closer to reaching its exploration goals.

Image credit: Scott Andrews, Canon

Original image:

mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=43940

More about Ares I-X: www.nasa.gov/aresIX

p.s. You can see all of the Ares photos in the Ares Group in Flickr at: www.flickr.com/groups/ares/ We'd love to have you as a member!

Calvert Marine Museum in Calvert County, Maryland by Chesapeake Bay Program

4

The skipjack Dee of St. Mary's is docked on Back Creek, next to the Drum Point Lighthouse, at the Calvert Marine Museum in Solomons, Md., on May 7, 2017. (Photo by Will Parson/Chesapeake Bay Program)

USAGE REQUEST INFORMATION

The Chesapeake Bay Program's photographic archive is available for media and non-commercial use at no charge. To request permission, send an email briefly describing the proposed use to requests@chesapeakebay.net. Please do not attach jpegs. Instead, reference the corresponding Flickr URL of the image.

A photo credit mentioning the Chesapeake Bay Program is mandatory. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way or used in any way that suggests approval or endorsement of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Requestors should also respect the publicity rights of individuals photographed, and seek their consent if necessary.

Ares I-X Rocket: Power, Power, Power (NASA, 10/28/09) by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

9 10

With more than 23 times the power output of the Hoover Dam, the Constellation Program's Ares I-X test rocket zooms off Launch Complex 39B at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The rocket produces 2.96 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and reaches a speed of 100 mph in eight seconds. Liftoff of the 6-minute flight test was at 11:30 a.m. EDT Oct. 28. This was the first launch from Kennedy's pads of a vehicle other than the space shuttle since the Apollo Program's Saturn rockets were retired. The parts used to make the Ares I-X booster flew on 30 different shuttle missions ranging from STS-29 in 1989 to STS-106 in 2000. The data returned from more than 700 sensors throughout the rocket will be used to refine the design of future launch vehicles and bring NASA one step closer to reaching its exploration goals.

Image credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett

Original image:

mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=43944

More about Ares I-X: www.nasa.gov/aresIX

p.s. You can see all of the Ares photos in the Ares Group in Flickr at: www.flickr.com/groups/ares/ We'd love to have you as a member!

2016 Chesapeake Executive Council Meeting in Clarke County, Va. by Chesapeake Bay Program

The 2016 Chesapeake Executive Council meeting is held on Oct. 4, 2016 at the Blandy Experimental Farm in Boyce, Virginia. It was announced that Pennsylvania will have $28 million in the next year to combat agricultural pollution, with $12.7 million coming from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $4 million from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and $11.8 coming mostly from shifts within the Pennsylvania budget. (Photo by Leslie Boorhem-Stephenson/Chesapeake Bay Program)

USAGE REQUEST INFORMATION

The Chesapeake Bay Program's photographic archive is available for media and non-commercial use at no charge.

To request permission, send an email briefly describing the proposed use to requests@chesapeakebay.net. Please do not attach jpegs. Instead, reference the corresponding Flickr URL of the image.

A photo credit mentioning the Chesapeake Bay Program is mandatory. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way or used in any way that suggests approval or endorsement of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Requestors should also respect the publicity rights of individuals photographed, and seek their consent if necessary.

Dark pattern...Pull to refresh...Bait-and-switch...Misdirection...Hijack If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices...Where does technology exploit our minds weaknesses? by Hughes Songe

15

A dark pattern is "a user interface that has been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things, such as buying insurance with their purchase or signing up for recurring bills." The neologism dark pattern was coined by Harry Brignull on July 28, 2010 with the registration of darkpatterns.org, a "pattern library with the specific goal of naming and shaming deceptive user interfaces.Bait-and-switch patterns advertise a free (or greatly reduced) product or service which is wholly unavailable or stocked in small quantities. After it is apparent the product is no longer available, they are exposed to other priced products similar to the one advertised. This is common in software installers, where a button will be presented in the fashion of a typical continuation button. It is common that one has to accept the program's terms of service, so a dark pattern would show a prominent "I accept these terms" button on a page where the user is asked to accept the terms of a program unrelated to the program they are trying to install. Since the user will typically accept the terms by force of habit, the unrelated program can subsequently be installed. The installer's authors do this because they are paid by the authors of the unrelated program for each install that they procure. The alternative route in the installer, allowing the user to skip installing the unrelated program, is much less prominently displayed or seems counter-intuitive (such as declining the terms of service).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern

This pattern is also used by some websites, where the user is shown a page where information is asked that is not required. For example, one would fill out a username and password on one page, and after clicking the "next" button the user is asked for their email address with another "next" button as the only option. It is not apparent that the step can be skipped. When simply pressing "next" without entering their personal information, however, the website will just continue. In some cases, a method to skip the step is visible but not shown as a button (instead, usually, as a small and greyed-out link) so that it does not stand out to the user. Other examples that often use this pattern are inviting friends by entering someone else's email address, uploading a profile picture, or selecting interests.

”This is a civilizational moment in a way I’m not sure we’re all reckoning with,” Harris said on stage. “It’s a historical moment when a species that is intelligent builds technology that ... can simulate a puppet version of its creator, and the puppet can control the master. That’s an unprecedented situation to be in. That could be the end of human agency, when you can perfectly simulate not just the strengths of people but their weaknesses.”

Where does technology exploit our minds weaknesses?

I learned to think this way when I was a magician. Magicians start by looking for blind spots, edges, vulnerabilities and limits of people’s perception, so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons, you can play them like a piano.

That’s me performing sleight of hand magic at my mother’s birthday party

And this is exactly what product designers do to your mind. They play your psychological vulnerabilities (consciously and unconsciously) against you in the race to grab your attention.

I want to show you how they do it.

Hijack #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices

1-kW01thCZaWQyq0A08hSj5Q (1)

Western Culture is built around ideals of individual choice and freedom. Millions of us fiercely defend our right to make “free” choices, while we ignore how we’re manipulated upstream by limited menus we didn’t choose.

This is exactly what magicians do. They give people the illusion of free choice while architecting the menu so that they win, no matter what you choose. I can’t emphasize how deep this insight is.

When people are given a menu of choices, they rarely ask:

“what’s not on the menu?”

“why am I being given these options and not others?”

“do I know the menu provider’s goals?”

“is this menu empowering for my original need, or are the choices actually a distraction?” (e.g. an overwhelmingly array of toothpastes)

Photo by Kevin McShane

How empowering is this menu of choices for the need, “I ran out of toothpaste”?

For example, imagine you’re out with friends on a Tuesday night and want to keep the conversation going. You open Yelp to find nearby recommendations and see a list of bars. The group turns into a huddle of faces staring down at their phones comparing bars. They scrutinize the photos of each, comparing cocktail drinks. Is this menu still relevant to the original desire of the group?

It’s not that bars aren’t a good choice, it’s that Yelp substituted the group’s original question (“where can we go to keep talking?”) with a different question (“what’s a bar with good photos of cocktails?”) all by shaping the menu.

Moreover, the group falls for the illusion that Yelp’s menu represents acomplete set of choices for where to go. While looking down at their phones, they don’t see the park across the street with a band playing live music. They miss the pop-up gallery on the other side of the street serving crepes and coffee. Neither of those show up on Yelp’s menu.

Yelp subtly reframes the group’s need “where can we go to keep talking?” in terms of photos of cocktails served.

The more choices technology gives us in nearly every domain of our lives (information, events, places to go, friends, dating, jobs) — the more we assume that our phone is always the most empowering and useful menu to pick from. Is it?

The “most empowering” menu is different than the menu that has the most choices. But when we blindly surrender to the menus we’re given, it’s easy to lose track of the difference:

“Who’s free tonight to hang out?” becomes a menu of most recent people who texted us (who we could ping).

“What’s happening in the world?” becomes a menu of news feed stories.

“Who’s single to go on a date?” becomes a menu of faces to swipe on Tinder (instead of local events with friends, or urban adventures nearby).

“I have to respond to this email.” becomes a menu of keys to type a response (instead of empowering ways to communicate with a person).

1-LsgYHAM-xhnkYGSkocOmew

All user interfaces are menus. What if your email client gave you empowering choices of ways to respond, instead of “what message do you want to type back?” (Design by Tristan Harris)

When we wake up in the morning and turn our phone over to see a list of notifications — it frames the experience of “waking up in the morning” around a menu of “all the things I’ve missed since yesterday.”

A list of notifications when we wake up in the morning — how empowering is this menu of choices when we wake up? Does it reflect what we care about? (credit to Joe Edelman)

By shaping the menus we pick from, technology hijacks the way we perceive our choices and replaces them new ones. But the closer we pay attention to the options we’re given, the more we’ll notice when they don’t actually align with our true needs.

Hijack #2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets

If you’re an app, how do you keep people hooked? Turn yourself into a slot machine.

The average person checks their phone 150 times a day. Why do we do this? Are we making 150 conscious choices?

How often do you check your email per day?

One major reason why is the #1 psychological ingredient in slot machines:intermittent variable rewards.

If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do is link a user’s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward. You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate of reward is most variable.

Does this effect really work on people? Yes. Slot machines make more money in the United States than baseball, movies, and theme parkscombined. Relative to other kinds of gambling, people get ‘problematically involved’ with slot machines 3–4x faster according to NYU professor Natasha Dow Shull, author of Addiction by Design.

But here’s the unfortunate truth — several billion people have a slot machine their pocket:

When we pull our phone out of our pocket, we’re playing a slot machineto see what notifications we got.

When we pull to refresh our email, we’re playing a slot machine to see what new email we got.

When we swipe down our finger to scroll the Instagram feed, we’replaying a slot machine to see what photo comes next.

When we swipe faces left/right on dating apps like Tinder, we’re playing a slot machine to see if we got a match.

When we tap the # of red notifications, we’re playing a slot machine to what’s underneath.

Apps and websites sprinkle intermittent variable rewards all over their products because it’s good for business.

But in other cases, slot machines emerge by accident. For example, there is no malicious corporation behind all of email who consciously chose to make it a slot machine. No one profits when millions check their email and nothing’s there. Neither did Apple and Google’s designers want phones to work like slot machines. It emerged by accident.

But now companies like Apple and Google have a responsibility to reduce these effects by converting intermittent variable rewards into less addictive, more predictable ones with better design. For example, they could empower people to set predictable times during the day or week for when they want to check “slot machine” apps, and correspondingly adjust when new messages are delivered to align with those times.

Hijack #3: Fear of Missing Something Important (FOMSI)

Another way apps and websites hijack people’s minds is by inducing a “1% chance you could be missing something important.”

If I convince you that I’m a channel for important information, messages, friendships, or potential sexual opportunities — it will be hard for you to turn me off, unsubscribe, or remove your account — because (aha, I win) you might miss something important:

This keeps us subscribed to newsletters even after they haven’t delivered recent benefits (“what if I miss a future announcement?”)

This keeps us “friended” to people with whom we haven’t spoke in ages (“what if I miss something important from them?”)

This keeps us swiping faces on dating apps, even when we haven’t even met up with anyone in a while (“what if I miss that one hot match who likes me?”)

This keeps us using social media (“what if I miss that important news story or fall behind what my friends are talking about?”)

But if we zoom into that fear, we’ll discover that it’s unbounded: we’ll always miss something important at any point when we stop using something.

There are magic moments on Facebook we’ll miss by not using it for the 6th hour (e.g. an old friend who’s visiting town right now).

There are magic moments we’ll miss on Tinder (e.g. our dream romantic partner) by not swiping our 700th match.

There are emergency phone calls we’ll miss if we’re not connected 24/7.

But living moment to moment with the fear of missing something isn’t how we’re built to live.

And it’s amazing how quickly, once we let go of that fear, we wake up from the illusion. When we unplug for more than a day, unsubscribe from those notifications, or go to Camp Grounded — the concerns we thought we’d have don’t actually happen.

We don’t miss what we don’t see.

The thought, “what if I miss something important?” is generated in advance of unplugging, unsubscribing, or turning off — not after. Imagine if tech companies recognized that, and helped us proactively tune our relationships with friends and businesses in terms of what we define as “time well spent” for our lives, instead of in terms of what we might miss.

Hijack #4: Social Approval

Easily one of the most persuasive things a human being can receive.

We’re all vulnerable to social approval. The need to belong, to be approved or appreciated by our peers is among the highest human motivations. But now our social approval is in the hands of tech companies (like when we’re tagged in a photo).

When I get tagged by my friend Marc (above), I imagine him making aconscious choice to tag me. But I don’t see how a company like Facebook orchestrated him doing that in the first place.

Facebook, Instagram or SnapChat can manipulate how often people get tagged in photos by automatically suggesting all the faces people should tag (e.g. by showing a box with a 1-click confirmation, “Tag Tristan in this photo?”).

So when Marc tags me, he’s actually responding to Facebook’s suggestion, not making an independent choice. But through design choices like this,Facebook controls the multiplier for how often millions of people experience their social approval on the line.

Facebook uses automatic suggestions like this to get people to tag more people, creating more social externalities and interruptions.

The same happens when we change our main profile photo — Facebook knows that’s a moment when we’re vulnerable to social approval: “what do my friends think of my new pic?” Facebook can rank this higher in the news feed, so it sticks around for longer and more friends will like or comment on it. Each time they like or comment on it, I’ll get pulled right back.

Everyone innately responds to social approval, but some demographics (teenagers) are more vulnerable to it than others. That’s why it’s so important to recognize how powerful designers are when they exploit this vulnerability.

Hijack #5: Social Reciprocity (Tit-for-tat)

You do me a favor, now I owe you one next time.

You say, “thank you”— I have to say “you’re welcome.”

You send me an email— it’s rude not to get back to you.

You follow me — it’s rude not to follow you back. (especially for teenagers)

We are vulnerable to needing to reciprocate others’ gestures. But as with Social Approval, tech companies now manipulate how often we experience it.

In some cases, it’s by accident. Email, texting and messaging apps are social reciprocity factories. But in other cases, companies exploit this vulnerability on purpose.

LinkedIn is the most obvious offender. LinkedIn wants as many people creating social obligations for each other as possible, because each time they reciprocate (by accepting a connection, responding to a message, or endorsing someone back for a skill) they have to come back through linkedin.com where they can get people to spend more time.

Like Facebook, LinkedIn exploits an asymmetry in perception. When you receive an invitation from someone to connect, you imagine that person making a conscious choice to invite you, when in reality, they likely unconsciously responded to LinkedIn’s list of suggested contacts. In other words, LinkedIn turns your unconscious impulses (to “add” a person) into new social obligations that millions of people feel obligated to repay. All while they profit from the time people spend doing it.

Imagine millions of people getting interrupted like this throughout their day, running around like chickens with their heads cut off, reciprocating each other — all designed by companies who profit from it.

Welcome to social media.

After accepting an endorsement, LinkedIn takes advantage of your bias to reciprocate by offering *four* additional people for you to endorse in return.

Imagine if technology companies had a responsibility to minimize social reciprocity. Or if there was an “FDA for Tech” that monitored when technology companies abused these biases?

Hijack #6: Bottomless bowls, Infinite Feeds, and Autoplay

YouTube autoplays the next video after a countdown

Another way to hijack people is to keep them consuming things, even when they aren’t hungry anymore.

How? Easy. Take an experience that was bounded and finite, and turn it into a bottomless flow that keeps going.

Cornell professor Brian Wansink demonstrated this in his study showing you can trick people into keep eating soup by giving them a bottomless bowl that automatically refills as they eat. With bottomless bowls, people eat 73% more calories than those with normal bowls and underestimate how many calories they ate by 140 calories.

Tech companies exploit the same principle. News feeds are purposely designed to auto-refill with reasons to keep you scrolling, and purposely eliminate any reason for you to pause, reconsider or leave.

It’s also why video and social media sites like Netflix, YouTube or Facebookautoplay the next video after a countdown instead of waiting for you to make a conscious choice (in case you won’t). A huge portion of traffic on these websites is driven by autoplaying the next thing.

Facebook autoplays the next video after a countdown

Tech companies often claim that “we’re just making it easier for users to see the video they want to watch” when they are actually serving their business interests. And you can’t blame them, because increasing “time spent” is the currency they compete for.

Instead, imagine if technology companies empowered you to consciously bound your experience to align with what would be “time well spent” for you. Not just bounding the quantity of time you spend, but the qualities of what would be “time well spent.”

Hijack #7: Instant Interruption vs. “Respectful” Delivery

Companies know that messages that interrupt people immediately are more persuasive at getting people to respond than messages delivered asynchronously (like email or any deferred inbox).

Given the choice, Facebook Messenger (or WhatsApp, WeChat or SnapChat for that matter) would prefer to design their messaging system to interrupt recipients immediately (and show a chat box) instead of helping users respect each other’s attention.

In other words, interruption is good for business.

It’s also in their interest to heighten the feeling of urgency and social reciprocity. For example, Facebook automatically tells the sender when you “saw” their message, instead of letting you avoid disclosing whether you read it(“now that you know I’ve seen the message, I feel even more obligated to respond.”) By contrast, Apple more respectfully lets users toggle “Read Receipts” on or off.

The problem is, while messaging apps maximize interruptions in the name of business, it creates a tragedy of the commons that ruins global attention spans and causes billions of interruptions every day. This is a huge problem we need to fix with shared design standards (potentially, as part of Time Well Spent).

Hijack #8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons

Another way apps hijack you is by taking your reasons for visiting the app (to perform a task) and make them inseparable from the app’s business reasons(maximizing how much we consume once we’re there).

For example, in the physical world of grocery stories, the #1 and #2 most popular reasons to visit are pharmacy refills and buying milk. But grocery stores want to maximize how much people buy, so they put the pharmacy and the milk at the back of the store.

In other words, they make the thing customers want (milk, pharmacy) inseparable from what the business wants. If stores were truly organized to support people, they would put the most popular items in the front.

Tech companies design their websites the same way. For example, when you you want to look up a Facebook event happening tonight (your reason) the Facebook app doesn’t allow you to access it without first landing on the news feed (their reasons), and that’s on purpose. Facebook wants to convert every reason you have for using Facebook, into their reason which is to maximize the time you spend consuming things.

In an ideal world, apps would always give you a direct way to get what you want separately from what they want.

Imagine a digital “bill of rights” outlining design standards that forced the products that billions of people used to support empowering ways to navigate towards their goals.

Hijack #9: Inconvenient Choices

We’re told that it’s enough for businesses to “make choices available.”

“If you don’t like it you can always use a different product.”

“If you don’t like it, you can always unsubscribe.”

“If you’re addicted to our app, you can always uninstall it from your phone.”

Businesses naturally want to make the choices they want you to make easier, and the choices they don’t want you to make harder. Magicians do the same thing. You make it easier for a spectator to pick the thing you want them to pick, and harder to pick the thing you don’t.

For example, NYTimes.com let’s you “make a free choice” to cancel your digital subscription. But instead of just doing it when you hit “Cancel Subscription,” they force you to call a phone number that’s only open at certain times.

NYTimes claims it’s giving a free choice to cancel your account

Instead of viewing the world in terms of choice availability of choices, we should view the world in terms of friction required to enact choices.

Imagine a world where choices were labeled with how difficult they were to fulfill (like coefficients of friction) and there was an FDA for Tech that labeled these difficulties and set standards for how easy navigation should be.

Hijack #10: Forecasting Errors, “Foot in the Door” strategies

Facebook promises an easy choice to “See Photo.” Would we still click if it gave the true price tag?

People don’t intuitively forecast the true cost of a click when it’s presented to them. Sales people use “foot in the door” techniques by asking for a small innocuous request to begin with (“just one click”), and escalating from there (“why don’t you stay awhile?”). Virtually all engagement websites use this trick.

Imagine if web browsers and smartphones, the gateways through which people make these choices, were truly watching out for people and helped them forecast the consequences of clicks (based on real data about what it actually costs most people?).

That’s why I add “Estimated reading time” to the top of my posts. When you put the “true cost” of a choice in front of people, you’re treating your users or audience with dignity and respect.

In a Time Well Spent internet, choices would be framed in terms of projected cost and benefit, so people were empowered to make informed choices.

TripAdvisor uses a “foot in the door” technique by asking for a single click review (“How many stars?”) while hiding the three page form behind the click.

Summary And How We Can Fix This

Are you upset that technology is hijacking your agency? I am too. I’ve listed a few techniques but there are literally thousands. Imagine whole bookshelves, seminars, workshops and trainings that teach aspiring tech entrepreneurs techniques like this. They exist.

The ultimate freedom is a free mind, and we need technology to be on our team to help us live, feel, think and act freely.

We need our smartphones, notifications screens and web browsers to be exoskeletons for our minds and interpersonal relationships that put our values, not our impulses, first. People’s time is valuable. And we should protect it with the same rigor as privacy and other digital rights.

Tristan Harris was Product Philosopher at Google until 2016 where he studied how technology affects a billion people’s attention, wellbeing and behavior.

For more information and get involved, check out timewellspent.io. This piece is cross-posted on Medium.

MARCH 7, 2016 by TRISTAN HARRIS

Tech Companies Design Your Life, Here’s Why You Should Care

UNCATEGORIZED

5 COMMENTS

Four years ago, I sold my company to Google and joined the ranks there. I spent my last three years there as Product Philosopher, looking at the profound ways the design of screens shape billions of human lives – and asking what it means for them to do so ethically and responsibly.

What I came away with is that something’s not right with how our screens are designed, and I’m writing this to help you understand why you should care, and what you can do about it.

I shouldn’t have to cite statistics about the central role screens play in our lives. Billions of us turn to smartphones every day. We wake up with them. We fall asleep with them. You’re looking at one right now.

Of course, new technologies always reshape society, and it’s always tempting to worry about them solely for this reason. Socrates worried that the technology of writing would “create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they [would] not use their memories.” We worried that newspapers would make people stop talking to each other on the subway. We worried that we would use television to “amuse ourselves to death.”

hFKu8yj

“And see!” people say. “Nothing bad happened!” Isn’t humanity more prosperous, more technically sophisticated, and better connected than ever? Is it really that big of a problem that people spend so much time staring at their smartphones? Isn’t it just another cultural shift, like all the others? Won’t we just adapt?

Invisibility of the New Normal

I don’t think so. What’s missing from this perspective is that all these technologies (books, television, radio, newspapers) did change everything about society, we just don’t see it. They replaced our old menus of choices with new ones. Each new menu eventually became the new normal – “the way things are” – and, after our memories of old menus had faded into the past, the new menus became “the way things have always been.”

gold-fish-in-waterASK A FISH ABOUT WATER AND THEY’LL RESPOND, “WHAT’S WATER?”

Consider that the average American now watches more than 5.5 hours of television per day. Regardless of whether you think TV is good or bad, hundreds of millions of people spend 30% of their waking hours watching it. It’s hard to overstate the vast consequences of this shift– for the blood flows of millions of people, for our understanding of reality, for the relational habits of families, for the strategies and outcomes of political campaigns. Yet for those who live with them day-to-day, they are invisible.

So what best describes the nature of what smart phones are “doing” to us?

A New “Perfect” Choice on Life’s Menu

If I had to summarize it, it’s this: Our phone puts a new choice on life’s menu, in any moment, that’s “sweeter” than reality.

If, at any moment, reality gets dull or boring, our phone offers something more pleasurable, more productive and even more educational than whatever reality gives us.

And this new choice fits into any moment. Our phone offers 5-second choices like “checking email” that feel better than waiting in line. And it offers 30-minute choices like a podcast that will teach you that thing you’ve been dying to learn, which feels better than a 30-minute walk in silence.

Once you see your phone this way, wouldn’t you turn to it more often? It always happens this way: when new things fill our needs better than the old, we switch:

When cheaper, faster to prepare food appears, we switch: Packaged foods.

When more accurate search engines appear, we switch: Google.

When cheaper, faster forms of transportation appear, we switch: Uber.

756612-b6f6919a-555a-11e3-b451-c2835887c2f5

So it goes with phones.

But it also changes us on the inside. We grow less and less patient for reality as it is, especially when it’s boring or uncomfortable. We come to expect more from the world, more rapidly. And because reality can’t live up to our expectations, it reinforces how often we want to turn to our screens. A self-reinforcing feedback loop.

And because of the attention economy, every product will only get more persuasive over time. Facebook must become more persuasive if it wants to compete with YouTube and survive. YouTube must become more persuasive if it wants to compete with Facebook. And we’re not just talking about ‘cheap’ amusement (aka cat videos). These products will only get better at giving us choices that make every bone in our body say, “yeah I want that!”

So what’s wrong about this? If the entire attention economy is working to fill us up with more perfect-feeling things to spend time on, which outcompete being with the discomfort of ourselves or our surroundings, shouldn’t that be fantastic?

wall-e

Clearly something is missing from this picture. But what is it?

Maybe it’s that “filling people up,” even with incredible choices on screens somehow doesn’t add up to a life well lived. Or that those choices weren’t what we wished we’d been persuaded to do in the bigger sense of our lives.

With design as it is today, screens threaten our fundamental agency. Maybe we are “choosing,” but we are choosing from persuasive menus driven by companies who have different goals than ours.

And that begs us to ask, “what are our goals?” or how do we want to spend our time? There are as many “good lives” as there are people, but our technology (and the attention economy) don’t really seem on our team to give us the agency to live according to them.

A Whole New Persuasive World

And it’s about to get a lot worse. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality will offer whole new immersive realities that are even more persuasive than physical reality.

zuck-virtual-reality

When you could have sex with the person of your dreams, or fly through jungles in the Amazon rainforest while looking over at your best friend flying next to you, who would want to stick with reality?

By the way, this isn’t your usual “look, VR is coming!” prediction. This is the real deal. Facebook recently spent $2 billion to buy Oculus Rift, and hopes to put them in every home for this holiday season. Just like the late 1980’s when suddenly everyone you knew had a Nintendo.

Acknowledging the Problem

So we have a fundamental misalignment– between what the attention economy is competing to produce (more perfect, persuasive choices that fit into any moment), the design of our phones, and the aspirations people have for their lives (their definition of “the good life”).

AttentionEconomyMisalignment

So what’s missing from the design of our phones? I like to use the metaphor of ergonomics. When you think of ergonomics, you might think of boring things like how a cup fits into someone’s hand, but it’s way more than that.

If regular design is about how we want things to work, ergonomics is concerned with failure modes and extremes: how things break under repetition, stress or other limits. And the goal of ergonomics is to create an alignment between those limits, and the goals people have for how they want to use it.

10 Handle diameter

For example, an ergonomically designed coffee mug aligns the natural fatigue of forearm muscles during use (as a person “lifts” it to sip) with how frequently people want to use it, so they still can lift it successfully with repetition.

What does this have to do with phones?

Our minds urgently need a new “ergonomics,” based on the mind’s limited capacities, biases, fatigue curves and the ways it forms habits. The attention economy tears our minds apart. With its onslaught of never-ending choices, never-ending supply of relationships and obligations, the attention economy bulldozes the natural shape of our physical and psychological limits and turns impulses into bad habits.

Just like the food industry manipulates our innate biases for salt, sugar and fat with perfectly engineered combinations, the tech industry bulldozes our innate biases for Social Reciprocity (we’re built to get back to others), Social Approval (we’re built to care what others think of us), Social Comparison (how we’re doing with respect to our peers) and Novelty-seeking (we’re built to seek surprises over the predictable).

Millions of years of evolution did a great job giving us genes to care about how others perceive us. But Facebook bulldozes those biases, by forcing us to deal with how thousands of people perceive us.

This isn’t to say that phones today aren’t designed ergonomically, they are just ergonomic to a narrow scope of goals:

for a single user (holding the phone)

for single tasks (opening an app)

for individual choices

And a narrow scope of human physical limits:

how far our thumb has to reach to tap an app

how loud the phone must vibrate for our ear to hear it

So what if we expanded the scope of ergonomics for a more holistic set of human goals:

a holistic sense of a person

a holistic sense of how they want to spend their time (and goals)

a holistic sense of their relationships (interpersonal & social choices)

an ability to make holistic choices (including opportunity costs & externalities)

an ability to reflect, before and after

…and what if we aligned these goals with a more holistic set of our mental, social and emotional limits?

A New Kind of Ergonomics

Let’s call this new kind of ergonomics “Holistic Ergonomics”. Holistic Ergonomics recognizes our holistic mental and emotional limits [vulnerabilities, fatigue and ways our minds form habits] and aligns them with the holistic goals we have for our lives (not just the single tasks). Holistic Ergonomics is built to give us back agency in an increasingly persuasive attention economy.

Joe Edelman and I have taught design workshops on this, calling it EmpoweringDesign.org, or designing to empower people’s agency.

It includes an interpersonal ergonomics, to “align” our social psychological instincts with how and when we want to make ourselves available to others (like in my TED talk), so that we can reclaim agency over how we want to relate to others.

Just like an ergonomic coffee mug is safe to live by, even under repetition, over and over again, without causing harm to ourselves or others, in a Time Well Spent world our phones would be designed with Holistic Ergonomics, so that even under repetition, over and over again, our phones do not cause harm to ourselves or others — our phones become safe to live by. They support our Agency.

How to Change the Game

Android.Apple_.001

Right now, two companies are responsible for the primary screens that a billion people live by. Apple and Google make the two dominant smartphone platforms. Facebook and Microsoft make leading Virtual and Augmented Reality platforms, Oculus and Hololens.

You might think that it’s against the business models of Apple and Google to facilitate people’s agency, which might include making it easier to spend time off the screen, and use apps less. But it’s not.

Apple and Google, like all companies, respond to what consumers demand.

When Privacy became important to you, they responded. They developed new privacy and security features, and it sparked a whole new public conversation and debate. It’s now the most popular concern about technology discussed in media.

When Organic food became important to you, they responded too. Walmart added it to their stores.

We need to do the same thing with this issue. Until now, with this experience of distraction, social media, and this vague sense that we don’t feel good when we use our phones for too long, there’s been nothing to rally behind. It’s too diffuse. We receive so many incredible benefits from tech, but we’ve also been feeling like we’ve been losing ourselves, and our humanity?

But we’re naming it now.

What’s at stake is our Agency. Our ability to live the lives we want to live, choose the way we want to choose, and relate to others the way we want to relate to them – through technology. This is a design problem, not just a personal responsibility problem.

If you want your Agency, you need to tell these companies that that’s what you want from them– not just another shiny new phone that overloads our psychological vulnerabilities. Tell them you want your Agency back, and to help you spend your time the way you want to, and they will respond.

I hope this helps spark that bigger conversation.

www.tristanharris.com/essays/

No Big Bird today on Sesame Street by Jim Griffin

8 33

The intersection of West 63rd Street and Broadway — where the Sesame Workshop offices are located — has been renamed as part of the program's 50th anniversary celebration.

-- CNN

Australia F-35s leave in historic launch by Robert Sullivan

13 1

A Royal Australian Air Force Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II "Joint Strike Fighter" taxis at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., Dec. 3, 2018. Two F-35s were preparing to take off and fly to Hawaii as part of their multi-day journey to Australia.

To RAF as A 36-009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-35 "Lightning II" is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the "Joint Strike Fighter" (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official "Lightning II" name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

Development

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the "Joint Strike Fighter" (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 "Raptor", intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

Design

Overview

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 "Raptor", drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E "Strike Eagle" in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 "Raptor", and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

Improvements

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms.

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes.

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's "Super Hornet".

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system.

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft.

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency.

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

Costs

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.

F-35 Netherlands Arrival by Lockheed Martin

19

Two F-35s completed the program's first East-bound trans-Atlantic crossing on May 23, 2016. The jets, the first two for the Netherlands, known as AN-1 and AN-2, departed NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and were greeted by an eager crowd at Leeuwarden Air Base in the Netherlands. Photo credit: Frank Crebas. Learn more: bit.ly/27QRvdp

Croce di Casale (AP): una vista sul Monte Vettore (2016) by Orarossa

1

Ph.: Orarossa - Ascoli Piceno, Italy

Make: NIKON

Model: D810

Data Time: 10/01/2016 - 14:09

Shutter Speed: 1/250 sec

Exposure Program: S

F-Stop: f/16

ISO Speed Ratings: 80

Focal Length: 85 mm

Flash: OFF

Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II fighter jets on board HMS Queen Elizabeth by Robert Sullivan

13

BF-4 Flt 508 Mr. Peter Wilson and BF-5 Flt 370 Sqn Ldr Andy Adgell fly from HMS Queen Elizabeth on 27 Sep 2018

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.

The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.

The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.

As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".

The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.

The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.

Development

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.

By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.

Design

Overview

Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.

Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".

Improvements

Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms

Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes

High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.

The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.

Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system

A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft

Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.

Costs

A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.

Light at the end of the tunnel by Gavin Woolnough

22 4

A grafitti and rubble strewn corridor in an abandoned hotel.

Two Xenia hotels were built within the walls of Acronafplia, overlooking the Palamidi in Nafplio Greece. One of these hotels is still operating, the other is abandoned and dilapidated. With an easy climb of a fence, you can wander round what's left of the hotel.

The Xenia (Ξενία) was a nationwide hotel construction program initiated by the Hellenic Tourism Organisation (Ελληνικός Οργανισμός Τουρισμού, E.O.T.) to improve the country's tourism infrastructure in the 1960s and 1970s. It constitutes one of the largest infrastructure projects in modern Greek history.

Until the 1950s, Greece featured only a few major hotels, mostly situated in the country's great cities, and a few smaller ones in islands like Corfu or Rhodes. In 1950, EOT began a program to construct and operate hotels across the country, especially in the less-travelled areas. Locations were specially selected and the architecture combined local knowledge with standardized elements. The buildings were embedded in the landscape, but at the same time followed a modernist style.

The first manager of the project was the architect Charalambos Sfaellos (from 1950 to 1958) and from 1957 the buildings were designed by a team under Aris Konstantinidis. Many private hotel projects in Greece were inspired by the Xenia hotels and the program had reached its aims in the early 1970s. In 1974 the construction program was complete. The Xenia program itself was officially terminated in 1983, and the hotels were given over to private operators or eventually sold off.

Some hotels are still operated privately under the Xenia name. Many of the program's hotels have been designated as historic monuments for their architectural value. Three have been demolished, while other surviving examples have been substantially altered or are in a dilapidated state.

Lockheed Martin F-35B "Lightning II" fighter jet. by Robert Sullivan

13

Two Lockheed Martin F-35B "Lightning II" fighter jets have successfully landed on board HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time, laying the foundations for the next 50 years of fixed wing aviation in support of the UK’s Carrier Strike Capability.

Royal Navy Commander, Nathan Gray, 41, made history by being the first to land on board HMS Queen Elizabeth, carefully maneuvering his stealth jet onto the thermal coated deck. He was followed by Squadron Leader Andy Edgell, RAF, both of whom are test pilots, operating with the Integrated Test Force (ITF) based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

Shortly afterwards, once a deck inspection has been conducted and the all-clear given, Cmdr Gray became the first pilot to take off using the ship’s ski-ramp.