Seaboard Coast Line view taken from the U.S. # 301 overpass detailing the track configuration at Owensboro, near Trilby, Florida, January 1981. The single mainline track seen in the distance heading into the curve comes from Trilby and heads to the South. The mainline track to the left comes from Ocala and joins the other mainline track at the Owensboro switch seen near the center of the photo to head South. You can see the two mainline block signals that are provided for both directions to control the turnout to the Ocala mainline.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

Some background:

The Supermarine Spitfire became the backbone of RAF Fighter Command, and saw action in the European, Mediterranean, Pacific and the South-East Asian theatres during World War II. Much loved by its pilots, the Spitfire served in several roles, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber, carrier-based fighter, and trainer. It was built in many variants, using several wing configurations. Although the original airframe was designed to be powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine producing 1,030 hp (768 kW), it was adaptable enough to use increasingly powerful Merlin and later Rolls-Royce Griffon engines producing up to 2,035 hp (1,520 kW). It was exported and used by many countries, even after WWII, including Chile.

The fifties meant entry into the jet age for the FACh, and Grupo 7 was the first unit to receive them in 1954. As a consequence, the Chilean Spitfires were soon replaced by Lockheed F-80 fighters, procured from the United States of America, and the last Chilean Spitfire Mk 22s were retired in 1963.

[b][u]General characteristics:[/u][/b]

Crew: 1

Length: 32 ft 11 in (10.04 m)

Wingspan: 36ft 11 in (11.26 m)

Height: 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m)

Wing area: 243.6 sq ft (22.63 m2)

Empty weight: 6,900 lb (3.132 kg)

Gross weight: 8.500 lb (3,860 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 9.200 lb (4,176 kg)

[u]Powerplant:[/u]

1× Rolls-Royce Griffon 61 supercharged V12 with 2,050 hp (1,530 kW) at 8,000 ft (2,438 m)

driving a 5-bladed Jablo-Rotol propeller

[u]Performance:[/u]

Maximum speed: 454 mph (730 km/h; 395 kn.) at 26.000 ft.

420 mph (676 km/h; 365 kn.) at 12.000 ft.

Combat range: 490 mi (788 km; 426 nmi) with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 880 mi (1.417; 766 nmi) with three drop tanks

Service ceiling: 43,500 ft. (13,300 m)

Initial climb: 4,850 ft./min (24.79 m/sec.)

Time to 20.000 ft.: 8 min (at max. weight)

Wing loading: 32.72 lb/ft² (159.8 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.24

[u]Armament:[/u]

4× 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 175 RPG inboard, 150 RPG outboard

1× underfuselage and 2× underwing hardpoints for 1.000 lb (454 kg) and 500 lb (227 kg), respectively;

alternatively 6× underwing launch rails for unguided 60 lbs missiles

The kit and its assembly:

This build was inspired by a series of South American what-if profiles created by fellow member PantherG at whatifmodelers.com, posted there in February 2019. These included, among others, several Chilean Supermarine Spitfire Mk 22s, including exotic livery variants. I found one of them very attractive (yet ugly...), and when I found an appropriate Special Hobby kit in my stash I decided spontaneously to turn the profile into (model) hardware.

The Special Hobby kits for Griffon-powered Spitfires are excellent, and they all actually contain a vast collection of optional parts that allow LOTS of land- and sea-based late Spitfires to be built, including subtle fictional combinations. The parts are crisply molded, the styrene is easy to work with, fit is very good and surface details are just great – the kit almost falls together. The thing is pricy, but you get good value and lots of spares for future projects. In my case it is a proper Mk 22 kit, and this one even came with resin wheels and exhaust stubs as extras, plus a masking set for the canopy.

The kit was built almost 100% OOB as a Mk 22, I just modified the propeller with an axis so that it can spin freely (for the pictures). The drop tank comes from the kit, but otherwise I left the aircraft in clean condition, leaving away optional rocket attachment points under the wings or slipper tanks.

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, this build was inspired by a profile drawing, and I stuck as close as possible to this benchmark, even though I changed some details or filled some gaps.

The most striking feature of the specific profile (aircraft “213”) I chose was/is the experimental choice of colors: RAF Mid Stone and Ocean Grey on the upper surfaces, and Azure Blue underneath. I just slightly tweaked the pattern on the model, staying closer to the original RAF scheme and resulting in a slightly different pattern on the fuselage. Consequently, I gave the aircraft a different tactical code and “217” was born.

The basic tones I used are Humbrol 106, Modelmaster 2052 and Humbrol 157. The cockpit interior was painted in a post-WWII black (Revell 9) instead of the former pale green-grey. The interior of the landing gear wells became Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165); the idea behind this choice is that the late Spitfire types had their landing gear wells painted in the same color as the wings' undersides. In the case of this specific aircraft I thought that it originally carried the standard RAF scheme, but received a superficial overspray in the experimental Chilean colors at the UK workshop. For the same reason, some Dark Green shines through under the Mid Stone on the leading edges and around the cockpit, created through dry-brushing and thinned paint (acrylic Revell 65, Bronze Green). The propeller spinner became black - very simple, and in line with the benchmark profile.

The decals were puzzled together. The Chilean roundels on the wings actually belong to an EE/BAC Canberra, the tactical code was created with black RAF code numbers from an Xtradecal Lightning sheet and another post-war Spitfire (a Special Hobby Mk. 24, IIRC).

The flash on the rudder was created with paint (the blue tone was mixed to match the wing roundels) and a single, white star decal. The squadron emblem, which was not featured on the inspiring profile, was taken from an Xtradecal sheet for D.H. Vampire T.55s, which features two FACh options, one of them operated by Grupo 7. Most stencils come from the Mk 22’s OOB sheet.

Some soot stains were added around the exhaust stubs and very little dry-brushing with aluminum and light grey was done to the wings' leading edges, the propeller (spinner tip and blades) and around the cockpit hatch. And, finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

A simple project, and just an "operator travesty" whif. The kit went together easily, and the result is pretty exotic - but not unbelievalbe, despite the weird choice of colors.

How to disable Network Manager on Linux

If you would like to use this photo, be sure to place a proper attribution linking to xmodulo.com

Work is nearly complete on the southbound I-5 ramp that will take drivers between Harrison Avenue and Mellen Street. Contractor crews are putting the finishing touches before the switch in late-March. Drivers will exit southbound I-5 at Harrison Avenue to reach their destinations at Mellen Street. The new configuration will help reduce highway backups and improve safety. Project info www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/MellentoGrandMound/phase3

A standard "Kitsune" configuration Tanuki Corp. modular starfighter is accompanied by a Kitsune/Mujina Droid-controlled fighter variant on a deep space security patrol of a popular shipping lane.

The Tanuki Corp. modular starfighter system is easily adaptable to varying needs. By replacing the cockpit module with a droid control system, this otherwise standard Kitsune configuration becomes a very capable drone fighter.

It's not uncommon for strike wings of up to 6 Kitsune/Mujina Droid-controlled fighter (K/M-DCF) variants accompanying a single human-piloted standard configuration Kitsune fighter to be very effective in attack and defense missions. The AI necessary for such effectiveness is likened to that of a trained police dog, obeying the masters commands and actions with a series of pre-programmed algorithmic responses and analytical reactions to unforeseen situations.

Results of completely un-manned K/M-DCF flight wings have, however, ranged from disappointing to disastrous, depending on the amount of free will the AI is given. One account of a test flight of a group of K/M-DCFs with the standard "police dog" AI ended in a brawl over who would be the pack leader, inciting multiple attempts to "assert dominance" that caused multiple hull breaches and the loss of one Droid Control Module before safety measures could be enacted.

- I'm having a lot of fun coming up with names for these things. The modular nature of the concept makes it hard to pin down actual names, but the idea that certain configurations are popular enough to be 'standard' helped address that. Since the modules can cause the fighters to take on different shapes, I've been playing with shapeshifters of Japanese folklore - "Kitsune" being the Fox, "Mujina" being a type of spirit that can often take the shape of a faceless human (which gave birth to the idea of the droid control module in place of the cockpit). The corporation that builds these is Tanuki, yet another shapeshifter.

LEGO Digital Designer files

Droid Control Module

Check out my blog: marciabeckett.blogspot.com

The church dedicated to the Saviour's Configuration ("Metamorfosi tou Sotira") is built in the middle of "Palio Chorio" ("Old Village"). It was constructed in the 16th century (1520) and it has the same architectural style as the other two small churches of the village, that of "Panagia Theotokos" and that of Saint George "Perachoritis". Up until 1994, liturgies were conducted daily since it was considered as the village's main church.

It is a rectangular church of the Basilica style and with elements of the Byzantine style. It can accommodate up to 100-150 faithful. Externally it is made of stone and whitewashed.

The inhabitants built extensions to the church in 1880 and 1960 because the village was continuously growing. When they dug the floor they discovered many pieces of frescoes, which surely came from this church. Indeed, they were able to read the name of the hagiographer who was named Symeon Afxentis. He is known for his frescoes of the "Panagia Theotokos" and "Archangel" churches in the village of Galata.

The icon screen is woodcut, as also are the two Psalters that can be found in the church.

There are various remarkable representations dating back to the 16th and 17th century. The icon screen is of various different chronologies.

www.kakopetriavillage.com/churches.html

The settlement of Kakopetria, although mentioned by the mediaeval annalists, existed -at least- since the Frank domination era. The village's region was inhabited around the 6th - 7th century and the various excavations that have been conducted in 1938 around the old village of Kakopetria (in the Ailades venue) prove this. During the excavations a dispenser of an ancient shrine -most probably belonging to the goddess Athena- came to light. A large number of movable findings were found, mainly terra-cotta, many of which depict the goddess Athena, as well as small, limestone, statues and parts of statues and bronze and iron shafts from spearheads and arrows. The findings most probably date back to the Archaic and Classic eras of Cyprus. Other statuettes represent Hercules and are an indication that he was also worshiped in the area along with the goddess Athena. These findings are found in the Archaeological Museum of Nicosia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakopetria

Crews have installed a temporary concrete barrier to separate traffic during construction.

My new North American diesel engine in the Canadian Nation Railway scheme is the first Lego loco I have built since my childhood days and was strongly inspired by the EMD-GP 7, 9 and 20 diesel engines and other similar types that came in full high hood configuration, but I went on to building the model rather freely, leaving out things I didn’t want and not sticking to any particular real model.

Being 9+ studs wide, it’s quite a beast and fits very well to the “large city minifigure scale” preferred by ER0L and me. It drives on two 9V train motors from the 90s. The lighting is realized with materials from that time as well, energized by a separate battery box in the shorter section of the hood and thus illuminating the two fronts and cabin of the engine independently from the transformer. That way, the light can be on even when the model stands still.

I went for moving pilots, even though they don’t exist on such models in reality. This was mostly due to the prolonged bionicle trucks I wanted to use here, which would otherwise have made the stairs stand out too far from the trucks in curves and switches.

I have nearly finished building the first of several tank cars for it, so consider these pics an “opener” for more train equipment to come from me.

I had no idea what scrum or agile development was at the time, but this configuration of tables and chairs in the hallway of the 3rd floor of Microsoft's Building 114 just made sense to me.

I found these tables abandoned or stuck in hallways from other floors and dragged them here with my new team members. Then I ordered comfortable chairs from Microsoft's internal portal. We were set and took off and developed like mad.

The person, my friend, in the foreground found our environment to her liking, quiet, convenient yet friendly and joined us; as many travelers or consultants did from time to time. This worked for many reasons and gave MS full-timers the ability to find and interact with us without having to search around much.

Due to the location, our rules were straight forward; low tones, quiet, leave nothing in the room when leaving, push in your chair, and police your area. We had one phone for 18 + people. It rarely rang. The person being sought was nearly always there.

Twice in several months there was a slight disagreement about how open or closed the blinds should be but that environment worked very well for the team. We launched our project on time of course.

I absolutely loved working with them.

An Atlas-D rocket in Mercury-Atlas Configuration is on display at Kennedy Space Center.

Atlas LV-3B

The Atlas LV-3B, Atlas D Mercury Launch Vehicle or Mercury-Atlas Launch Vehicle, was a human-rated expendable launch system used as part of the United States Project Mercury to send astronauts into low Earth orbit. Manufactured by American aircraft manufacturing company Convair, it was derived from the SM-65D Atlas missile, and was a member of the Atlas family of rockets.

The Atlas D missile was the natural choice for Project Mercury since it was the only launch vehicle in the US arsenal that could put the spacecraft into orbit and also had a large number of flights to gather data from. But its reliability was far from perfect and Atlas launches ending in explosions were an all-too common sight at Cape Canaveral. Thus, significant steps had to be taken to human-rate the missile and make it safe and reliable unless NASA wished to spend several years developing a dedicated launch vehicle for crewed programs or else wait for the next-generation Titan II ICBM to become operational. Atlas’s stage-and-a-half configuration was seen as somewhat preferable to the two stage Titan in that all engines were ignited at liftoff, making it easier to test for hardware problems during prelaunch checks.

Shortly after being chosen for the program in early 1959, the Mercury astronauts were taken to watch the second D-series Atlas test, which exploded a minute into launch. This was the fifth straight complete or partial Atlas failure and the booster was at this point nowhere near reliable enough to carry a nuclear warhead or an uncrewed satellite, let alone a human passenger. Plans to human-rate Atlas were effectively still on the drawing board and Convair estimated that 75% reliability would be achieved by early 1961 and 85% reliability by the end of the year.

•General Specifications:

oFunction: Crewed Expendable Launch System

oManufacturer: Convair

oCountry of Origin: United States

•Size:

oHeight: 28.7 meters (94.3 ft)

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft); Width Over Boost Fairing: 4.9 meters (16 ft)

oMass: 120,000 kilograms (260,000 lb)

oStages: 1½

•Capacity:

oPayload to LEO: 1,360 kilograms (3,000 lb)

•Launch History:

oStatus: Retired

oLaunch Sites: CCAFS LC-14

oTotal Launches: 9

oSuccesses: 7

oFailures: 2

oFirst Flight: July 29, 1960

oLast Flight: May 15, 1963

•Boosters:

oNumber of Boosters: 1

oEngines: 2

oThrust: 1,517.4 kilonewtons (341,130 lbf)

oBurn Time: 134 seconds

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

•First Stage:

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft)

oEngines: 1

oThrust: 363.22 kilonewtons (81,655 lbf)

oBurn Time: 5 minutes

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

Quality Assurance

Aside from the modifications described below, Convair set aside a separate assembly line dedicated to Mercury-Atlas vehicles which was staffed by personnel who received special orientation and training on the importance of the crewed space program and the need for as high quality workmanship as possible. Components used in the Mercury-Atlas vehicles were given thorough testing to ensure proper manufacturing quality and operating condition, in addition components and subsystems with excessive operating hours, out-of-specification performance, and questionable inspection records would be rejected. All components approved for the Mercury program were earmarked and stored separately from hardware intended for other Atlas programs and special handling procedures were done to protect them from damage.

Propulsion systems used for the Mercury vehicles would be limited to standard D-series Atlas models of the Rocketdyne MA-2 engines which had been tested and found to have performance parameters closely matching NASA’s specifications.

All launch vehicles would have to be complete and fully flight-ready at delivery to Cape Canaveral with no missing components or unscheduled modifications/upgrades. After delivery, a comprehensive inspection of the booster would be undertaken and prior to launch, a flight review board would convene to approve each booster as flight-ready. The review board would conduct an overview of all prelaunch checks, and hardware repairs/modifications. In addition, Atlas flights over the past few months in both NASA and Air Force programs would be reviewed to make sure no failures occurred involving any components or procedures relevant to Project Mercury.

The NASA Quality Assurance Program meant that each Mercury-Atlas vehicle took twice as long to manufacture and assemble as an Atlas designed for uncrewed missions and three times as long to test and verify for flight.

Systems Modified

Abort Sensor

Central to these efforts was the development of the Abort Sensing and Implementation System (ASIS), which would detect malfunctions in the Atlas’s various components and trigger a launch abort if necessary. Added redundancy was built in; if ASIS itself failed, the loss of power would also trigger an abort. The system was tested on a few Atlas ICBM flights prior to Mercury-Atlas 1 in July 1960, where it was operated open-loop (MA-3 in April 1961 would be the first closed-loop flight).

The Mercury launch escape system (LES) used on Redstone and Atlas launches was identical, but the ASIS system varied considerably between the two boosters as Atlas was a much larger, more complex vehicle with five engines, two of which were jettisoned during flight, a more sophisticated guidance system, and inflated balloon tanks that required constant pressure to not collapse.

Atlas flight test data was used to draw up a list of the most likely failure modes for the D-series vehicles, however simplicity reasons dictated that only a limited number of booster parameters could be monitored. An abort could be triggered by the following conditions, all of which could be indicative of a catastrophic failure:

•The booster flight path deviated too far from the planned trajectory

•Engine thrust or hydraulic pressure dropped below a certain level

•Propellant tank pressure dropped below a certain level

•The intermediate tank bulkhead showed signs of losing structural integrity

•The booster electrical system ceased operating

•The ASIS system ceased operating

Some failure modes such as an erroneous flight path did not necessarily pose an immediate danger to the astronaut’s safety and the flight could be terminated via a manual command from the ground (e.g. Mercury-Atlas 3). Other failure modes such as loss of engine thrust in the first few moments of liftoff required an immediate abort signal as there would be little or no time to command a manual abort.

An overview of failed Atlas test flights showed that there were only a few times that malfunctions occurred suddenly and without prior warning, for instance on Missile 6B when one turbopump failed 80 seconds into the launch. Otherwise, most failures were preceded by obvious deviations from the booster’s normal operating parameters. Automatic abort was only necessary in a situation like Atlas 6B where the failure happened so fast that there would be no time for a manual abort and most failure modes left enough time for the astronaut or ground controllers to manually activate the LES. A bigger concern was setting up the abort system so as to not go off when normal, minor performance deviations occurred.

Rate Gyros

The rate gyro package was placed much closer to the forward section of the LOX tank due to the Mercury/LES combination being considerably longer than a warhead and thus producing different aerodynamic characteristics (the standard Atlas D gyro package was still retained on the vehicle for the use of the ASIS). Mercury-Atlas 5 also added a new reliability feature—motion sensors to ensure proper operation of the gyroscopes prior to launch. This idea had originally been conceived when the first Atlas B launch in 1958 went out of control and destroyed itself after ground crews forgot to power on the gyroscope motors during prelaunch preparation, but it was phased into Atlas vehicles only gradually. One other Atlas missile test in 1961 also destroyed itself during launch, in that case because the gyroscope motor speed was too low. The motion sensors would thus eliminate this failure mode.

Range Safety

The range safety system was also modified for the Mercury program. There would be a three-second delay between engine cutoff and activation of the destruct charges so as to give the LES time to pull the capsule to safety. The ASIS system could not terminate engine thrust for the first 30 seconds of flight in order to prevent a malfunctioning launch vehicle from coming down on or around the pad area; during this time only the Range Safety Officer could send a manual cutoff command.

Autopilot

The old-fashioned electromechanical autopilot on the Atlas (known as the “round” autopilot due to the shape of the containers its major components were housed in) was replaced by a solid-state model (the “square” autopilot) that was more compact and easier to service, but it would prove a serious headache to debug and man-rate. On Mercury-Atlas 1, the autopilot system functioned well until launch vehicle destruction a minute into the flight. On Mercury-Atlas 2, there was a fair bit of missile bending and propellant slosh. Mercury-Atlas 3 completely failed and had to be destroyed shortly after launch when the booster did not perform the pitch and roll maneuver. After this debacle, the programmer was recovered and examined. Several causes were proposed including contamination of pins in the programmer or perhaps a transient voltage. The autopilot was extensively redesigned, but Mercury-Atlas 4 still had high vibration levels for the first 20 seconds of launch which led to further modifications. Finally on Mercury-Atlas 5, the autopilot worked perfectly.

Antenna

The guidance antenna was modified to reduce signal interference.

LOX Boil-Off Valve

Mercury-Atlas vehicles utilized the boil-off valve from the C-series Atlas rather than the standard D-series valve for reliability and weight-saving reasons.

Combustion Sensors

Combustion instability was an important problem that needed to be fixed. Although it mostly only occurred in static firing tests of the MA-2 engines, three launches (Missiles 3D, 51D, and 48D) had demonstrated that unstable thrust in one engine could result in immediate, catastrophic failure of the entire missile as the engine backfired and ruptured, leading to a thrust section fire. On Missile 3D, this had occurred in flight after a propellant leak starved one booster engine of LOX and led to reduced, unstable thrust and engine failure. The other two launches suffered rough combustion at engine start, ending in explosions that severely damaged the launch stand. Thus, it was decided to install extra sensors in the engines to monitor combustion levels and the booster would also be held down on the pad for a few moments after ignition to ensure smooth thrust. The engines would also use a “wet start”, meaning that the propellants were injected into the combustion chamber prior to igniter activation as opposed to a “dry start” where the igniter was activated first, which would eliminate rough ignition (51D and 48D had both used dry starts). If the booster failed the check, it would be automatically shut down. Once again, these upgrades required testing on Atlas R&D flights. By late 1961, after a third missile (27E) had exploded on the pad from combustion instability, Convair developed a significantly upgraded propulsion system that featured baffled fuel injectors and a hypergolic igniter in place of the pyrotechnic method, but NASA was unwilling to jeopardize John Glenn’s upcoming flight with these untested modifications and so declined to have them installed in Mercury-Atlas 6’s booster. As such, that and Scott Carpenter’s flight on MA-7 used the old-style Atlas propulsion system and the new variant was not employed until Wally Schirra’s flight late in 1962.

Static testing of Rocketdyne engines had produced high-frequency combustion instability, in what was known as the “racetrack” effect where burning propellant would swirl around the injector head, eventually destroying it from shock waves. On the launches of Atlas 51D and 48D, the failures were caused by low-order rough combustion that ruptured the injector head and LOX dome, causing a thrust section fire that led to eventual complete loss of the missile. The exact reason for the back-to-back combustion instability failures on 51D and 48D was not determined with certainty, although several causes were proposed. This problem was resolved by installing baffles in the injector head to break up swirling propellant, at the expense of some performance as the baffles added additional weight reduced the number of injector holes that propellants were sprayed through. The lessons learned with the Atlas program later proved vital to the development of the much larger Saturn F-1 engine.

Electrical System

Added redundancy was made to the propulsion system electrical circuitry to ensure that SECO would occur on time and when commanded. The LOX fuel feed system received added wiring redundancy to ensure that the propellant valves would open in the proper sequence during engine start.

Tank Bulkhead

Mercury vehicles up to MA-6 had foam insulation in the intermediate bulkhead to prevent the super-chilled LOX from causing the RP-1 to freeze. During repairs to MA-6 prior to John Glenn’s flight, it was decided to remove the insulation for being unnecessary and an impediment during servicing of the boosters in the field. NASA sent out a memo to GD/A requesting that subsequent Mercury-Atlas vehicles not include bulkhead insulation.

LOX Turbopump

In early 1962, two static engine tests and one launch (Missile 11F) fell victim to LOX turbopump explosions caused by the impeller blades rubbing against the metal casing of the pump and creating a friction spark. This happened after over three years of Atlas flights without any turbopump issues and it was not clear why the rubbing occurred, but all episodes of this happened when the sustainer inlet valve was moving to the flight-ready “open” position and while running untested hardware modifications. A plastic liner was added to the LOX turbopump to prevent friction rubbing. In addition Atlas 113D, the booster used for Wally Schirra’s flight, was given a PFRT (Pre-Flight Readiness Test) to verify proper functionality of the propulsion system.

Pneumatic System

Mercury vehicles used a standard D-series Atlas pneumatic system, although studies were conducted over the cause of tank pressure fluctuation which was known to occur under certain payload conditions. These studies found that the helium regulator used on early D-series vehicles had a tendency to induce resonant vibration during launch, but several modifications to the pneumatic system had been made since then, including the use of a newer model regulator that did not produce this effect.

Propellant Utilization System

In the event that the guidance system failed to issue the discreet cutoff command to the sustainer engine and it burned to propellant depletion, there was the possibility of a LOX-rich shutdown which could result in damage to engine components from high temperatures. For safety reasons, the PU system was modified to increase the LOX flow to the sustainer engine ten seconds before SECO. This was to ensure that the LOX supply would be completely exhausted at SECO and prevent a LOX-rich shutdown.

Skin

After MA-1 was destroyed in-flight due to a structural failure, NASA began requesting that Convair deliver Atlases with thicker skin. Atlas 10D (as well as its backup vehicle 20D which was later used for the first Atlas-Able flight), the booster used for the Big Joe test in September 1959, had sported thick skin and verified that this was needed for the heavy Mercury capsule. Atlas 100D would be the first thick-skinned booster delivered while in the meantime, MA-2’s booster (67D) which was still a thin-skinned model, had to be equipped with a steel reinforcement band at the interface between the capsule and the booster. Under original plans, Atlas 77D was to have been the booster used for MA-3. It received its factory rollout inspection in September 1960, but shortly afterwards, the postflight findings for MA-1 came out which led to the thin-skinned 77D being recalled and replaced by 100D.

Guidance

The vernier solo phase, which would be used on ICBMs to fine-tune the missile velocity after sustainer cutoff, was eliminated from the guidance program in the interest of simplicity as well as improved performance and lift capacity. Since orbital flights required an extremely different flight path from missiles, the guidance antennas had to be completely redesigned to ensure maximum signal strength. The posigrade rocket motors on the top of the Atlas, designed to push the spent missile away from the warhead, were moved to the Mercury capsule itself. This also necessitated adding a fiberglass insulation shield to the LOX tank dome so it wouldn’t be ruptured by the rocket motors.

Engine Alignment

A common and normally harmless phenomenon on Atlas vehicles was the tendency of the booster to develop a slight roll in the first few seconds following liftoff due to the autopilot not kicking in yet. On a few flights however, the booster developed enough rolling motion to potentially trigger an abort condition if it had been a crewed launch. Although some roll was naturally imparted by the Atlas’s turbine exhaust, this could not account for the entire problem which instead had more to do with engine alignment. Acceptance data from the engine supplier (Rocketdyne) showed that a group of 81 engines had an average roll movement in the same direction of approximately the same magnitude as that experienced in flight. Although the acceptance test-stand and flight-experience data on individual engines did not correlate, it was determined that offsetting the alignment of the booster engines could counteract this roll motion and minimize the roll tendency at liftoff. After Schirra’s Mercury flight did experience momentary roll problems early in the launch, the change was incorporated into Gordon Cooper’s booster on MA-9.

Launches

Nine LV-3Bs were launched, two on uncrewed suborbital test flights, three on uncrewed orbital test flights, and four with crewed Mercury spacecraft. Atlas LV-3B launches were conducted from Launch Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

It first flew on July 29, 1960, conducting the suborbital Mercury-Atlas 1 test flight. The rocket suffered a structural failure shortly after launch, and as a result failed to place the spacecraft onto its intended trajectory. In addition to the maiden flight, the first orbital launch, Mercury-Atlas 3 also failed. This failure was due to a problem with the guidance system failing to execute pitch and roll commands, necessitating that the Range Safety Officer destroy the vehicle. The spacecraft separated by means of its launch escape system and was recovered 1.8 kilometers (1.1 mi) from the launch pad.

A further series of Mercury launches was planned, which would have used additional LV-3Bs; however these flights were canceled after the success of the initial Mercury missions. The last LV-3B launch was conducted on 15 May 1963, for the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9. NASA originally planned to use leftover LV-3B vehicles to launch Gemini-Agena Target Vehicles, however an increase in funding during 1964 meant that the agency could afford to buy brand-new Atlas SLV-3 vehicles instead, so the idea was scrapped.

Mercury-Atlas Vehicles Built and Eventual Disposition

•10D—Launched Big Joe 9/14/59

•20D—Backup vehicle for Big Joe. Reassigned to Atlas-Able program and launched 11/26/59.

•50D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 1 7/29/60

•67D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 2 2/21/61

•77D—Original launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 3, replaced by Atlas 100D after postflight findings from Mercury-Atlas 1

•88D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 4 9/13/61

•93D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 5 11/29/61

•100D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 3 4/25/61

•103D—Cancelled

•107D—Launched Aurora 7 (Mercury-Atlas 7) 5/24/62

•109D—Launched Friendship 7 (Mercury-Atlas 6) 2/21/62

•113D—Launched Sigma 7 (Mercury-Atlas 8) 10/3/62

•130D—Launched Faith 7 (Mercury-Atlas 9) 5/15/63

•144D—Cancelled, was planned launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 10

•152D—Cancelled

•167D—Cancelled

This is a photograph from the 4th and final round of the 2017 Pat Finnerty Memorial 5KM Road League which was held in Belvedere House and Gardens, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath, Ireland on Wednesday 24th May 2017 at 20:00. This is the final round and consequently some of the decisions around the final configuration of the category prizes are still open for resolution. The Road League is promoted and organised by Mulligar Harriers Athletic Club and sponsored by local sponsors including O'Brien's Renault dealership. This is a very well established as an annual event which takes place on every Wednesday night in the month of May. Tonight's weather was absolutely wonderful. Warm summer air filled the Belvedere area as the runners were treated to perfect summer weather. Just under 200 participants took part in the race which runs a traffic free course over a mix of road and hilly forest trail. Congratulations are due to all of the Mullingar Harriers club who put this excellent series together.

Timing and event management was provided by http://www.myrunresults.com/. Their website will contain the results to today's race.

The full set of photographs is available at: www.flickr.com/photos/peterm7/albums/72157684232399025

Can I use these photographs directly from Flickr on my social media account(s)?

Yes - of course you can! Flickr provides several ways to share this and other photographs in this Flickr set. You can share directly to: email, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, LiveJournal, and Wordpress and Blogger blog sites. Your mobile, tablet, or desktop device will also offer you several different options for sharing this photo page on your social media outlets.

BUT..... Wait there a minute....

We take these photographs as a hobby and as a contribution to the running community in Ireland. We do not charge for our photographs. Our only "cost" is that we request that if you are using these images: (1) on social media sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, Twitter,LinkedIn, Google+, VK.com, Vine, Meetup, Tagged, Ask.fm,etc or (2) other websites, blogs, web multimedia, commercial/promotional material that you must provide a link back to our Flickr page to attribute us or acknowledge us as the original photographers.

This also extends to the use of these images for Facebook profile pictures. In these cases please make a separate wall or blog post with a link to our Flickr page. If you do not know how this should be done for Facebook or other social media please email us and we will be happy to help suggest how to link to us.

I want to download these pictures to my computer or device?

You can download this photographic image here directly to your computer or device. This version is the low resolution web-quality image. How to download will vary slight from device to device and from browser to browser. Have a look for a down-arrow symbol or the link to 'View/Download' all sizes. When you click on either of these you will be presented with the option to download the image. Remember just doing a right-click and "save target as" will not work on Flickr.

I want get full resolution, print-quality, copies of these photographs?

If you just need these photographs for online usage then they can be used directly once you respect their Creative Commons license and provide a link back to our Flickr set if you use them. For offline usage and printing all of the photographs posted here on this Flickr set are available free, at no cost, at full image resolution.

Please email petermooney78 AT gmail DOT com with the links to the photographs you would like to obtain a full resolution copy of. We also ask race organisers, media, etc to ask for permission before use of our images for flyers, posters, etc. We reserve the right to refuse a request.

In summary please remember when requesting photographs from us - If you are using the photographs online all we ask is for you to provide a link back to our Flickr set or Flickr pages. You will find the link above clearly outlined in the description text which accompanies this photograph. Taking these photographs and preparing them for online posting takes a significant effort and time. We are not posting photographs to Flickr for commercial reasons. If you really like what we do please spread the link around your social media, send us an email, leave a comment beside the photographs, send us a Flickr email, etc. If you are using the photographs in newspapers or magazines we ask that you mention where the original photograph came from.

I would like to contribute something for your photograph(s)?

Many people offer payment for our photographs. As stated above we do not charge for these photographs. We take these photographs as our contribution to the running community in Ireland. If you feel that the photograph(s) you request are good enough that you would consider paying for their purchase from other photographic providers or in other circumstances we would suggest that you can provide a donation to any of the great charities in Ireland who do work for Cancer Care or Cancer Research in Ireland.

Let's get a bit technical: We use Creative Commons Licensing for these photographs

We use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License for all our photographs here in this photograph set. What does this mean in reality?

The explaination is very simple.

Attribution- anyone using our photographs gives us an appropriate credit for it. This ensures that people aren't taking our photographs and passing them off as their own. This usually just mean putting a link to our photographs somewhere on your website, blog, or Facebook where other people can see it.

ShareAlike – anyone can use these photographs, and make changes if they like, or incorporate them into a bigger project, but they must make those changes available back to the community under the same terms.

Above all what Creative Commons aims to do is to encourage creative sharing. See some examples of Creative Commons photographs on Flickr: www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

I ran in the race - but my photograph doesn't appear here in your Flickr set! What gives?

As mentioned above we take these photographs as a hobby and as a voluntary contribution to the running community in Ireland. Very often we have actually ran in the same race and then switched to photographer mode after we finished the race. Consequently, we feel that we have no obligations to capture a photograph of every participant in the race. However, we do try our very best to capture as many participants as possible. But this is sometimes not possible for a variety of reasons:

     ►You were hidden behind another participant as you passed our camera

     ►Weather or lighting conditions meant that we had some photographs with blurry content which we did not upload to our Flickr set

     ►There were too many people - some races attract thousands of participants and as amateur photographs we cannot hope to capture photographs of everyone

     ►We simply missed you - sorry about that - we did our best!

You can email us petermooney78 AT gmail DOT com to enquire if we have a photograph of you which didn't make the final Flickr selection for the race. But we cannot promise that there will be photograph there. As alternatives we advise you to contact the race organisers to enquire if there were (1) other photographs taking photographs at the race event or if (2) there were professional commercial sports photographers taking photographs which might have some photographs of you available for purchase. You might find some links for further information above.

Don't like your photograph here?

That's OK! We understand!

If, for any reason, you are not happy or comfortable with your picture appearing here in this photoset on Flickr then please email us at petermooney78 AT gmail DOT com and we will remove it as soon as possible. We give careful consideration to each photograph before uploading.

I want to tell people about these great photographs!

Great! Thank you! The best link to spread the word around is probably http://www.flickr.com/peterm7/sets

Dutch triathlon athlete performing full cardiopulmonary exercise testing with full configuration Quark CPET metabolic cart and stress testing ECG. Source: www.sportarts.org

HMMWVs can be designed to your specifications or they can be fitted with kits, depending on the intended use. Click the link to see more goo.gl/RicT3U

Lookit The MARX BROTHERS' HISTORY fer details, yes?

The Windows Boot configuration Data (BCD) store file contains some invalid information. WINDOWS 7

Answer from Google Gemini AI..

What does this mean on a failed reboot.... The Windows Boot configuration Data (BCD) store file contains some invalid information. WINDOWS 7

That message indicates that your computer's Boot Configuration Data (BCD) file has become corrupted or contains errors. The BCD is a critical file that tells your computer how and where to boot the Windows operating system. When it's invalid, the system can't find the necessary files to start Windows, leading to a failed reboot.

What is the BCD?

The BCD is a file that holds important boot-related information. Think of it as a map for your computer's startup process. . It tells the computer things like:

Which hard drive and partition to boot from.

The location of the Windows operating system files.

The boot menu options (if you have more than one operating system installed).

When the BCD file is "invalid," it means the map is unreadable or has wrong directions, so your computer gets lost during the boot process.

Why does the BCD get corrupted?

Several things can cause the BCD to become invalid:

Sudden power loss during a system update or file write operation.

Improper shutdown of the computer.

Hard drive failures or bad sectors.

Malware or virus attacks that target system files.

Installing a new operating system in a way that overwrites or corrupts the existing boot data.

How to Fix the Problem

The most common way to fix an invalid BCD is by using the Windows 7 installation or repair disc. Here's the general process:

Boot from the installation media. You may need to change the boot order in your computer's BIOS.

Choose "Repair your computer" from the installation screen.

Navigate to the System Recovery Options and select "Command Prompt."

In the Command Prompt, you can use specific commands to rebuild the BCD. The most common commands are:

bootrec /fixmbr

bootrec /fixboot

bootrec /rebuildbcd

These commands will scan your system for a Windows installation and rebuild the BCD file with the correct information, effectively creating a new, valid "map" for your computer to follow.

I just did a power reset....

When you perform a power reset, also known as a hard reset or power cycle, you're essentially clearing all temporary data from your computer's memory (RAM) and some peripheral devices. This is different from a simple restart or shutdown because it physically drains all power from the system, forcing it to reload everything from scratch.

How a Power Reset Works

A power reset involves three main steps:

Shut down the computer.

Unplug all power sources. This includes the AC power cord for desktops and the battery and AC adapter for laptops.

Hold down the power button for 15-30 seconds. This drains any remaining electrical charge from the capacitors on the motherboard and other components. .

Why do a Power Reset?

A power reset can fix various issues by clearing temporary glitches or corrupted data that a regular restart can't fix. It's often used when:

Your computer is frozen or unresponsive and a normal shutdown isn't possible.

Peripherals like USB devices, monitors, or keyboards are not working correctly.

The computer turns on but doesn't show anything on the screen (a "no POST" situation).

You are experiencing boot-related issues, as it can sometimes resolve minor conflicts that prevent the system from starting properly.

When NOT to do a Power Reset

While a power reset is a powerful troubleshooting tool, it's not a solution for every problem. It's not the same as a factory reset, which wipes your hard drive. A power reset won't erase your files, but it also won't fix software-level issues like corrupted drivers or a failing operating system. For those problems, you'd need to use software-based solutions like system restores or reinstallation.

given by a very specific Lie group, smooth and inter-continuous.

Wiki

The Arc is located on the right bank of the Seine at the centre of a dodecagonal configuration of twelve radiating avenues. It was commissioned in 1806 after the victory at Austerlitz by Emperor Napoleon at the peak of his fortunes. Laying the foundations alone took two years and, in 1810, when Napoleon entered Paris from the west with his bride Archduchess Marie-Louise of Austria, he had a wooden mock-up of the completed arch constructed. The architect, Jean Chalgrin, died in 1811 and the work was taken over by Jean-Nicolas Huyot. During the Bourbon Restoration, construction was halted and it would not be completed until the reign of King Louis-Philippe, between 1833 and 1836, by the architects Goust, then Huyot, under the direction of Héricart de Thury. On 15 December 1840, brought back to France from Saint Helena, Napoleon's remains passed under it on their way to the Emperor's final resting place at the Invalides.[8] Prior to burial in the Panthéon, the body of Victor Hugo was exposed under the Arc during the night of 22 May 1885.

The sword carried by the Republic in the Marseillaise relief broke off on the day, it is said, that the Battle of Verdun began in 1916. The relief was immediately hidden by tarpaulins to conceal the accident and avoid any undesired ominous interpretations[citation needed]. On 7 August 1919, Charles Godefroy successfully flew his biplane under the Arc.[9] Jean Navarre was the pilot who was tasked to make the flight, but he died on 10 July 1919 when he crashed near Villacoublay while training for the flight.

Following its construction, the Arc de Triomphe became the rallying point of French troops parading after successful military campaigns and for the annual Bastille Day Military Parade. Famous victory marches around or under the Arc have included the Germans in 1871, the French in 1919, the Germans in 1940, and the French and Allies in 1944[10] and 1945. A United States postage stamp of 1945 shows the Arc de Triomphe in the background as victorious American troops march down the Champs-Élysées and U.S. airplanes fly overhead on 29 August 1944. After the interment of the Unknown Soldier, however, all military parades (including the aforementioned post-1919) have avoided marching through the actual arch. The route taken is up to the arch and then around its side, out of respect for the tomb and its symbolism. Both Hitler in 1940 and de Gaulle in 1944 observed this custom.

By the early 1960s, the monument had grown very blackened from coal soot and automobile exhaust, and during 1965–1966 it was cleaned through bleaching.

In the prolongation of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées, a new arch, the Grande Arche de la Défense, was built in 1982, completing the line of monuments that forms Paris's Axe historique. After the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel and the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile, the Grande Arche is the third arch built on the same perspective.

Henry Parohl miniaturized almost every configuration of internal combustion engine that was invented, including this Wankel (Mazda type) rotary engine. It is a four-cycle engine that burns gasoline with oil mixed in for lubrication. The tank sits above the engine and the fuel is gravity fed into carburetor’s float bowl (cylindrical tank next to the carburetor. The float bowl retains a steady level of fuel and maintains constant pressure for the fuel available to the carburetor. The spark for the ignition is provided by an external battery and coil.

See More Henry Parohl Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157634219050453/

See Our Model Engine Collection at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157602933346098/

Visit Our Photo Sets at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets

Courtesy of Paul and Paula Knapp

Miniature Engineering Museum

www.engine-museum.com

The 3-cylinder (fan-configuration) Dual-Over-Head-Cam (DOHC) engine has all cylinders above the center line, but uses a master rod and 2 articulating rods like those used in a radial engine. Each cylinder has two valves (one for intake and one for exhaust) and the camshafts are belt driven 1:2 off of the crankshaft. Two camshafts operate the valves in each cylinder head. One camshaft operates the intake valves and the other the exhaust valves, thus “dual overhead cams.”

See More Schillings Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157650830753031/

See More Three Cylinder Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157651691030122/

See More Radial Engines at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157636169553994/

See Our Model Engine Collection at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157602933346098/

Visit Our Photo Sets at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets

Courtesy of Paul and Paula Knapp

Miniature Engineering Museum

www.engine-museum.com

INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR P558 SUPERDUTY - MULTIPLE CONFIGURATIONS

On September 24, 2015, Ford unveiled the 2017 Ford Super Duty line at the 2015 State Fair of Texas. he frame is made from 95% high strength steel and the body (like the contemporary F-150) is made from 6000 series aluminum alloy. For the first time since 1999, both the Super Duty and F-150 lines are constructed using the same cab.

For 2017 production, the Super Duty line shares its powertrain lineup with its 2016 predecessor: a 6.2L gasoline V8, 6.8L V10 (F-450 and above), with a 6.7L diesel V8 available in all versions. The 6.2L gasoline V8 engine remains at 385 hp but torque rises from 405 lb-ft to 430 lb-ft. Additionally, the gasoline V8 produces its max torque at over 700 rpm less than the previous 405 lb-ft engine. The 6.7L diesel engine also remains at the same 440 hp (323 kW) but torque increases from 860 lb-ft upwards to 925 lb-ft.

The 2020 Super Duty debuted at the 2019 Chicago Auto Show. It features a revised grille and tailgate design, new wheel options, and higher-quality interior materials for the Limited trim. A new 7.3-liter gasoline engine is available. Nicknamed "Godzilla", it makes 430 horsepower and 475 lb-ft of torque.

Cab configurations continue to be 2-Door Regular Cab, 4-Door Super Cab, and 4-Door Super Crew Cab, with Short Box (6' 9") and Long Box (8') bed lengths. The truck will be available in F-250, F-350, and F-450 pickup truck models, and F-350, F-450, and F-550 chassis cab models. All will be available in both 4X2 and 4X4 configurations. The F-350 will be the only model available in either Single Rear Wheel (SRW) or Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configurations, the F-450 and F-550 will only be available in a Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configuration, and the F-250 will only be available in a Single Rear Wheel configuration.

This configuration was manufactured between 1919 and 1924.

The following link takes you to my set with more photos of this camera and photos that I took with it:

www.flickr.com/photos/60348236@N07/sets/72157631861621266/

Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.

Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.

For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)

This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.

Website: www.battlecastle.tv/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle

YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle

Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle

Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.

Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.

As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.

Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.

But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.

This project is part of the Ars electronica Garden Lima. As we immerse ourselves in the network of alliances, approximations and relationships currently experienced through computers, we are enveloped in an innate need to connect / communicate and stay current in the virtual world; a simulacrum of life itself further established by a pandemic that has confined us to a “flat prison cell”. It is this virtual architecture precisely that makes it possible to place the world at a remove, shortening time and distances thanks to technologies that underpin an ecosystem for discussion and exchange with multiple agents.

For more informations please visit:

ars.electronica.art/keplersgardens/en/lima/

Credit: Edi Hirose

An Atlas-D rocket in Mercury-Atlas Configuration is on display at Kennedy Space Center.

Atlas LV-3B

The Atlas LV-3B, Atlas D Mercury Launch Vehicle or Mercury-Atlas Launch Vehicle, was a human-rated expendable launch system used as part of the United States Project Mercury to send astronauts into low Earth orbit. Manufactured by American aircraft manufacturing company Convair, it was derived from the SM-65D Atlas missile, and was a member of the Atlas family of rockets.

The Atlas D missile was the natural choice for Project Mercury since it was the only launch vehicle in the US arsenal that could put the spacecraft into orbit and also had a large number of flights to gather data from. But its reliability was far from perfect and Atlas launches ending in explosions were an all-too common sight at Cape Canaveral. Thus, significant steps had to be taken to human-rate the missile and make it safe and reliable unless NASA wished to spend several years developing a dedicated launch vehicle for crewed programs or else wait for the next-generation Titan II ICBM to become operational. Atlas’s stage-and-a-half configuration was seen as somewhat preferable to the two stage Titan in that all engines were ignited at liftoff, making it easier to test for hardware problems during prelaunch checks.

Shortly after being chosen for the program in early 1959, the Mercury astronauts were taken to watch the second D-series Atlas test, which exploded a minute into launch. This was the fifth straight complete or partial Atlas failure and the booster was at this point nowhere near reliable enough to carry a nuclear warhead or an uncrewed satellite, let alone a human passenger. Plans to human-rate Atlas were effectively still on the drawing board and Convair estimated that 75% reliability would be achieved by early 1961 and 85% reliability by the end of the year.

•General Specifications:

oFunction: Crewed Expendable Launch System

oManufacturer: Convair

oCountry of Origin: United States

•Size:

oHeight: 28.7 meters (94.3 ft)

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft); Width Over Boost Fairing: 4.9 meters (16 ft)

oMass: 120,000 kilograms (260,000 lb)

oStages: 1½

•Capacity:

oPayload to LEO: 1,360 kilograms (3,000 lb)

•Launch History:

oStatus: Retired

oLaunch Sites: CCAFS LC-14

oTotal Launches: 9

oSuccesses: 7

oFailures: 2

oFirst Flight: July 29, 1960

oLast Flight: May 15, 1963

•Boosters:

oNumber of Boosters: 1

oEngines: 2

oThrust: 1,517.4 kilonewtons (341,130 lbf)

oBurn Time: 134 seconds

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

•First Stage:

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft)

oEngines: 1

oThrust: 363.22 kilonewtons (81,655 lbf)

oBurn Time: 5 minutes

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

Quality Assurance

Aside from the modifications described below, Convair set aside a separate assembly line dedicated to Mercury-Atlas vehicles which was staffed by personnel who received special orientation and training on the importance of the crewed space program and the need for as high quality workmanship as possible. Components used in the Mercury-Atlas vehicles were given thorough testing to ensure proper manufacturing quality and operating condition, in addition components and subsystems with excessive operating hours, out-of-specification performance, and questionable inspection records would be rejected. All components approved for the Mercury program were earmarked and stored separately from hardware intended for other Atlas programs and special handling procedures were done to protect them from damage.

Propulsion systems used for the Mercury vehicles would be limited to standard D-series Atlas models of the Rocketdyne MA-2 engines which had been tested and found to have performance parameters closely matching NASA’s specifications.

All launch vehicles would have to be complete and fully flight-ready at delivery to Cape Canaveral with no missing components or unscheduled modifications/upgrades. After delivery, a comprehensive inspection of the booster would be undertaken and prior to launch, a flight review board would convene to approve each booster as flight-ready. The review board would conduct an overview of all prelaunch checks, and hardware repairs/modifications. In addition, Atlas flights over the past few months in both NASA and Air Force programs would be reviewed to make sure no failures occurred involving any components or procedures relevant to Project Mercury.

The NASA Quality Assurance Program meant that each Mercury-Atlas vehicle took twice as long to manufacture and assemble as an Atlas designed for uncrewed missions and three times as long to test and verify for flight.

Systems Modified

Abort Sensor

Central to these efforts was the development of the Abort Sensing and Implementation System (ASIS), which would detect malfunctions in the Atlas’s various components and trigger a launch abort if necessary. Added redundancy was built in; if ASIS itself failed, the loss of power would also trigger an abort. The system was tested on a few Atlas ICBM flights prior to Mercury-Atlas 1 in July 1960, where it was operated open-loop (MA-3 in April 1961 would be the first closed-loop flight).

The Mercury launch escape system (LES) used on Redstone and Atlas launches was identical, but the ASIS system varied considerably between the two boosters as Atlas was a much larger, more complex vehicle with five engines, two of which were jettisoned during flight, a more sophisticated guidance system, and inflated balloon tanks that required constant pressure to not collapse.

Atlas flight test data was used to draw up a list of the most likely failure modes for the D-series vehicles, however simplicity reasons dictated that only a limited number of booster parameters could be monitored. An abort could be triggered by the following conditions, all of which could be indicative of a catastrophic failure:

•The booster flight path deviated too far from the planned trajectory

•Engine thrust or hydraulic pressure dropped below a certain level

•Propellant tank pressure dropped below a certain level

•The intermediate tank bulkhead showed signs of losing structural integrity

•The booster electrical system ceased operating

•The ASIS system ceased operating

Some failure modes such as an erroneous flight path did not necessarily pose an immediate danger to the astronaut’s safety and the flight could be terminated via a manual command from the ground (e.g. Mercury-Atlas 3). Other failure modes such as loss of engine thrust in the first few moments of liftoff required an immediate abort signal as there would be little or no time to command a manual abort.

An overview of failed Atlas test flights showed that there were only a few times that malfunctions occurred suddenly and without prior warning, for instance on Missile 6B when one turbopump failed 80 seconds into the launch. Otherwise, most failures were preceded by obvious deviations from the booster’s normal operating parameters. Automatic abort was only necessary in a situation like Atlas 6B where the failure happened so fast that there would be no time for a manual abort and most failure modes left enough time for the astronaut or ground controllers to manually activate the LES. A bigger concern was setting up the abort system so as to not go off when normal, minor performance deviations occurred.

Rate Gyros

The rate gyro package was placed much closer to the forward section of the LOX tank due to the Mercury/LES combination being considerably longer than a warhead and thus producing different aerodynamic characteristics (the standard Atlas D gyro package was still retained on the vehicle for the use of the ASIS). Mercury-Atlas 5 also added a new reliability feature—motion sensors to ensure proper operation of the gyroscopes prior to launch. This idea had originally been conceived when the first Atlas B launch in 1958 went out of control and destroyed itself after ground crews forgot to power on the gyroscope motors during prelaunch preparation, but it was phased into Atlas vehicles only gradually. One other Atlas missile test in 1961 also destroyed itself during launch, in that case because the gyroscope motor speed was too low. The motion sensors would thus eliminate this failure mode.

Range Safety

The range safety system was also modified for the Mercury program. There would be a three-second delay between engine cutoff and activation of the destruct charges so as to give the LES time to pull the capsule to safety. The ASIS system could not terminate engine thrust for the first 30 seconds of flight in order to prevent a malfunctioning launch vehicle from coming down on or around the pad area; during this time only the Range Safety Officer could send a manual cutoff command.

Autopilot

The old-fashioned electromechanical autopilot on the Atlas (known as the “round” autopilot due to the shape of the containers its major components were housed in) was replaced by a solid-state model (the “square” autopilot) that was more compact and easier to service, but it would prove a serious headache to debug and man-rate. On Mercury-Atlas 1, the autopilot system functioned well until launch vehicle destruction a minute into the flight. On Mercury-Atlas 2, there was a fair bit of missile bending and propellant slosh. Mercury-Atlas 3 completely failed and had to be destroyed shortly after launch when the booster did not perform the pitch and roll maneuver. After this debacle, the programmer was recovered and examined. Several causes were proposed including contamination of pins in the programmer or perhaps a transient voltage. The autopilot was extensively redesigned, but Mercury-Atlas 4 still had high vibration levels for the first 20 seconds of launch which led to further modifications. Finally on Mercury-Atlas 5, the autopilot worked perfectly.

Antenna

The guidance antenna was modified to reduce signal interference.

LOX Boil-Off Valve

Mercury-Atlas vehicles utilized the boil-off valve from the C-series Atlas rather than the standard D-series valve for reliability and weight-saving reasons.

Combustion Sensors

Combustion instability was an important problem that needed to be fixed. Although it mostly only occurred in static firing tests of the MA-2 engines, three launches (Missiles 3D, 51D, and 48D) had demonstrated that unstable thrust in one engine could result in immediate, catastrophic failure of the entire missile as the engine backfired and ruptured, leading to a thrust section fire. On Missile 3D, this had occurred in flight after a propellant leak starved one booster engine of LOX and led to reduced, unstable thrust and engine failure. The other two launches suffered rough combustion at engine start, ending in explosions that severely damaged the launch stand. Thus, it was decided to install extra sensors in the engines to monitor combustion levels and the booster would also be held down on the pad for a few moments after ignition to ensure smooth thrust. The engines would also use a “wet start”, meaning that the propellants were injected into the combustion chamber prior to igniter activation as opposed to a “dry start” where the igniter was activated first, which would eliminate rough ignition (51D and 48D had both used dry starts). If the booster failed the check, it would be automatically shut down. Once again, these upgrades required testing on Atlas R&D flights. By late 1961, after a third missile (27E) had exploded on the pad from combustion instability, Convair developed a significantly upgraded propulsion system that featured baffled fuel injectors and a hypergolic igniter in place of the pyrotechnic method, but NASA was unwilling to jeopardize John Glenn’s upcoming flight with these untested modifications and so declined to have them installed in Mercury-Atlas 6’s booster. As such, that and Scott Carpenter’s flight on MA-7 used the old-style Atlas propulsion system and the new variant was not employed until Wally Schirra’s flight late in 1962.

Static testing of Rocketdyne engines had produced high-frequency combustion instability, in what was known as the “racetrack” effect where burning propellant would swirl around the injector head, eventually destroying it from shock waves. On the launches of Atlas 51D and 48D, the failures were caused by low-order rough combustion that ruptured the injector head and LOX dome, causing a thrust section fire that led to eventual complete loss of the missile. The exact reason for the back-to-back combustion instability failures on 51D and 48D was not determined with certainty, although several causes were proposed. This problem was resolved by installing baffles in the injector head to break up swirling propellant, at the expense of some performance as the baffles added additional weight reduced the number of injector holes that propellants were sprayed through. The lessons learned with the Atlas program later proved vital to the development of the much larger Saturn F-1 engine.

Electrical System

Added redundancy was made to the propulsion system electrical circuitry to ensure that SECO would occur on time and when commanded. The LOX fuel feed system received added wiring redundancy to ensure that the propellant valves would open in the proper sequence during engine start.

Tank Bulkhead

Mercury vehicles up to MA-6 had foam insulation in the intermediate bulkhead to prevent the super-chilled LOX from causing the RP-1 to freeze. During repairs to MA-6 prior to John Glenn’s flight, it was decided to remove the insulation for being unnecessary and an impediment during servicing of the boosters in the field. NASA sent out a memo to GD/A requesting that subsequent Mercury-Atlas vehicles not include bulkhead insulation.

LOX Turbopump

In early 1962, two static engine tests and one launch (Missile 11F) fell victim to LOX turbopump explosions caused by the impeller blades rubbing against the metal casing of the pump and creating a friction spark. This happened after over three years of Atlas flights without any turbopump issues and it was not clear why the rubbing occurred, but all episodes of this happened when the sustainer inlet valve was moving to the flight-ready “open” position and while running untested hardware modifications. A plastic liner was added to the LOX turbopump to prevent friction rubbing. In addition Atlas 113D, the booster used for Wally Schirra’s flight, was given a PFRT (Pre-Flight Readiness Test) to verify proper functionality of the propulsion system.

Pneumatic System

Mercury vehicles used a standard D-series Atlas pneumatic system, although studies were conducted over the cause of tank pressure fluctuation which was known to occur under certain payload conditions. These studies found that the helium regulator used on early D-series vehicles had a tendency to induce resonant vibration during launch, but several modifications to the pneumatic system had been made since then, including the use of a newer model regulator that did not produce this effect.

Propellant Utilization System

In the event that the guidance system failed to issue the discreet cutoff command to the sustainer engine and it burned to propellant depletion, there was the possibility of a LOX-rich shutdown which could result in damage to engine components from high temperatures. For safety reasons, the PU system was modified to increase the LOX flow to the sustainer engine ten seconds before SECO. This was to ensure that the LOX supply would be completely exhausted at SECO and prevent a LOX-rich shutdown.

Skin

After MA-1 was destroyed in-flight due to a structural failure, NASA began requesting that Convair deliver Atlases with thicker skin. Atlas 10D (as well as its backup vehicle 20D which was later used for the first Atlas-Able flight), the booster used for the Big Joe test in September 1959, had sported thick skin and verified that this was needed for the heavy Mercury capsule. Atlas 100D would be the first thick-skinned booster delivered while in the meantime, MA-2’s booster (67D) which was still a thin-skinned model, had to be equipped with a steel reinforcement band at the interface between the capsule and the booster. Under original plans, Atlas 77D was to have been the booster used for MA-3. It received its factory rollout inspection in September 1960, but shortly afterwards, the postflight findings for MA-1 came out which led to the thin-skinned 77D being recalled and replaced by 100D.

Guidance

The vernier solo phase, which would be used on ICBMs to fine-tune the missile velocity after sustainer cutoff, was eliminated from the guidance program in the interest of simplicity as well as improved performance and lift capacity. Since orbital flights required an extremely different flight path from missiles, the guidance antennas had to be completely redesigned to ensure maximum signal strength. The posigrade rocket motors on the top of the Atlas, designed to push the spent missile away from the warhead, were moved to the Mercury capsule itself. This also necessitated adding a fiberglass insulation shield to the LOX tank dome so it wouldn’t be ruptured by the rocket motors.

Engine Alignment

A common and normally harmless phenomenon on Atlas vehicles was the tendency of the booster to develop a slight roll in the first few seconds following liftoff due to the autopilot not kicking in yet. On a few flights however, the booster developed enough rolling motion to potentially trigger an abort condition if it had been a crewed launch. Although some roll was naturally imparted by the Atlas’s turbine exhaust, this could not account for the entire problem which instead had more to do with engine alignment. Acceptance data from the engine supplier (Rocketdyne) showed that a group of 81 engines had an average roll movement in the same direction of approximately the same magnitude as that experienced in flight. Although the acceptance test-stand and flight-experience data on individual engines did not correlate, it was determined that offsetting the alignment of the booster engines could counteract this roll motion and minimize the roll tendency at liftoff. After Schirra’s Mercury flight did experience momentary roll problems early in the launch, the change was incorporated into Gordon Cooper’s booster on MA-9.

Launches

Nine LV-3Bs were launched, two on uncrewed suborbital test flights, three on uncrewed orbital test flights, and four with crewed Mercury spacecraft. Atlas LV-3B launches were conducted from Launch Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

It first flew on July 29, 1960, conducting the suborbital Mercury-Atlas 1 test flight. The rocket suffered a structural failure shortly after launch, and as a result failed to place the spacecraft onto its intended trajectory. In addition to the maiden flight, the first orbital launch, Mercury-Atlas 3 also failed. This failure was due to a problem with the guidance system failing to execute pitch and roll commands, necessitating that the Range Safety Officer destroy the vehicle. The spacecraft separated by means of its launch escape system and was recovered 1.8 kilometers (1.1 mi) from the launch pad.

A further series of Mercury launches was planned, which would have used additional LV-3Bs; however these flights were canceled after the success of the initial Mercury missions. The last LV-3B launch was conducted on 15 May 1963, for the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9. NASA originally planned to use leftover LV-3B vehicles to launch Gemini-Agena Target Vehicles, however an increase in funding during 1964 meant that the agency could afford to buy brand-new Atlas SLV-3 vehicles instead, so the idea was scrapped.

Mercury-Atlas Vehicles Built and Eventual Disposition

•10D—Launched Big Joe 9/14/59

•20D—Backup vehicle for Big Joe. Reassigned to Atlas-Able program and launched 11/26/59.

•50D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 1 7/29/60

•67D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 2 2/21/61

•77D—Original launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 3, replaced by Atlas 100D after postflight findings from Mercury-Atlas 1

•88D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 4 9/13/61

•93D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 5 11/29/61

•100D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 3 4/25/61

•103D—Cancelled

•107D—Launched Aurora 7 (Mercury-Atlas 7) 5/24/62

•109D—Launched Friendship 7 (Mercury-Atlas 6) 2/21/62

•113D—Launched Sigma 7 (Mercury-Atlas 8) 10/3/62

•130D—Launched Faith 7 (Mercury-Atlas 9) 5/15/63

•144D—Cancelled, was planned launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 10

•152D—Cancelled

•167D—Cancelled

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

The Supermarine Spitfire was a British single-seat fighter aircraft used by the Royal Air Force and other Allied countries before, during and after World War II. Many variants of the Spitfire were built, using several wing configurations, and it was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft. It was also the only British fighter produced continuously throughout the war.

Since the Taurus-powered Spitfire turned out to be quite ineffective (it was no good either in the fighter or in an alternative ground attack role and 20 mph slower than the comparable Mk. V), production was already stopped in late 1942 after 353 aircraft. At the same time, the Spitfire Mk. IX with a much more powerful Merlin engine entered service, and all resources were immediately allocated to this more potent fighter variant and the idea of the Spitfire with a radial engine was ultimately dropped. Since the Taurus-powered type was quickly phased out of frontline service, the designation was later re-used for a pressurized high-altitude photo reconnaissance variant of the Spitfire, the PR.X, of which only 16 machines were built.

General characteristics:

Crew: one pilot

Length: 29 ft 6 in (9.00 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)

Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root)

NACA 2209.4 (tip)

Empty weight: 5,065 lb (2,297 kg)

Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 6,700 lb (3,039 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Taurus VI 14-Cylinder sleeve valve radial engine, 1.130 hp (830 kW)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 350 mph (312 kn, 565 km/h)

Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi/756 km)

Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,135 mi/1,827 km)

Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)

Rate of climb: 2,535 ft/min (12.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)

Armament:

2× 20 mm Hispano Mk II with 60 RPG

4× .303 in Browning Mk II machine guns with 350 RPG

The kit and its assembly:

My third contribution to the “RAF Centenary” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and the next one in chronological order. This one was spawned by the simple thought of “What would a Spitfire with a radial engine look like…?”. I have seen this stunt done in the form of a Fw190/Spitfire kitbash – nice result, but it did IMHO just not look like a “real” Spitfire with a radial engine, rather like an Fw 190 with elliptical wings. And the fact that I had already successfully transplanted a Centaurus engine onto a P-51 airframe made me feel positive that the stunt could be done!

Consequently, the conversion was pretty straightforward. The basis is a Revell 1:72 Spitfire VB (1996 mold), which was – except for the nose section – taken OOB. A simple, nice kit, even though it comes with some flaws, like a depression at the rear of the wing/fuselage intersection and the general need for PSR – not much, but I expected a better fit for such a relatively young mold?

For the engine, I used a personal replacement favorite, the cowling and the engine block from a Mitsubishi A6M2 “Zero” (Hasegawa). The Nakajima Sakae radial engine has a relatively small diameter, so that it serves well as a dummy for the compact Bristol Taurus engine – a replacement I have already used for a radial-powered Westland Whirlwind. The other benefit of the small diameter is that it is relatively easy to blend the round front end into the oval and very slender fuselage of the early Spitfire airframe. This was realized through massive body sculpting from scratch with 2C putty, widening the area in front of the cockpit and expanding its width to match the cowling – I guess that real life engineers would have followed a similar, simple path.

Since the radial engine would not need a radiator, I simple omitted this piece (cut out from the single piece lower wing half) and faired the respective underwing area over with a piece of styrene sheet and PSR. The asymmetrical oil cooler was retained, though. The propeller is a replacement from the scrap box, with a smaller diameter spinner and more slender blades which better suit the open cowling.

Since the Taurus had its best performance at low altitudes, I used the Revell kit’s OOB option of clipped wing tips – a move that makes the aircraft look much faster, esp. with the new, deeper nose section.

Painting and markings:

I did not want classic RAF markings, but still keep the model well within the Centenary GB confines. The original plan had been a classic Dark Green/Ocean Grey livery, which all Spitfire’s in USAAF service and based in the UK received. But I rather wanted to create a frontline aircraft, operated during Operation Torch in late 1942/early 1943 with American roundels – and the grey/green look would not look plausible on a machine taking part in the North African campaign. In fact, any Spitfire with American roundels I found that was used in North Africa carried the RAF Tropical Scheme in Dark Earth/Middle Stone. And, AFAIK, during Operation 'Torch' all British aircraft received American markings in the hope that the Vichy French, who were anti-British due to them bombing their ships in 1940, would switch to the allied cause. They were supposed to think that the Americans would be invading, not British troops as well. So I eventually switched to the classic Tropical Scheme (using Humbrol 29 and Modelmaster 2052 as basic tones), and it does not look bad at all - even though the yellow trim around the roundels does not stand out as much as on a Grey/Green aircraft.

Typically, the RAF codes were retained, as well as – at least during the early phases of Operation Torch – the RAF fin flash. A little personal twist is the pale blue (Humbrol 23, Duck Egg Blue) underside of the aircraft, instead of the typical Azure Blue. The rationale behind is that the Tropical Scheme was originally designed with Sky undersides, and the blue shades were later modifications after initial field experience.

The red spinner is a typical Northern Africa marking, and found on many 5th FS aircraft.

The interior (cockpit, landing gear wells) was painted with RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster), while wheels and struts became light grey.

As a standard procedure, the kit received a light black ink wash and a post shading treatment.

The decals were puzzled together from various sheets and sources, the design benchmark was a real USAAF Spitfire Vb from Operation Torch, though. The code letters were taken from an Xtradecal sheet, the roundels come from a Carpena Spitfire sheet, even though I placed American markings in all six positions – the roundels without yellow trim under the wings were taken from a Hobby Boss F6F sheet.

The serial number comes from the Revell kit’s OOB sheet, because it fits perfectly into the kit’s intended time frame. The nose art comes from a P-38 sheet (PrintScale) – not a typical feature for an RAF Spitfire, but a frequent personal decoration among USAAF machines during Operation Torch (e.g. on P-40s).

The Allied yellow ID markings on the wings’ leading edges, which were typically carried by Operation Torch Spitfires, too, were created with generic yellow decal sheet (TL Modellbau), while the maroon machine gun nozzle covers are part of Revell’s OOB sheet.

Finally, the kit received some soot stains around gun and exhaust nozzles, and was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

A bold experiment, and it turned out well. The Zero’s cowling has the perfect diameter for this transplant, and the scratch-sculpted new front fuselage section blends well with the new engine – the whole thing really looks intentional! I am just not certain if the resulting aircraft still deserves the “Spitfire” designation? Even though only the engine was changed, the aircraft looks really different and has a Ki-43ish aura? I guess that a dark green livery and some hinomaru would also look great and pretty plausible?

A very rare shot from about 1953, maybe 1954.

That's an M1A1 Carbine in the back, probably in original configuration and seemingly without the later-added bayonet lug on the upper band. All the original M1A1 Carbines were by Inland, albeit there's no proof this one is still the original carbine in that wood.

French Army archives.

Contractor crews are moving into a new phase of construction on the I-5 M Street to Portland Avenue HOV project in Tacoma. As early as the morning of Thursday, Feb. 15, drivers may notice that the southbound I-5 collector distributor lanes are in a new configuration.

The SB I-5 c/d lanes will be shifted to the right, and a workzone will be created in-between the southbound c/d lanes and the three mainline southbound lanes.

The new workzone allows crews to continue removing the original concrete of southbound I-5 and replacing it.

More information on this project is found here:

www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/MStToPortland/default.htm

All Velos Designwerks forged wheel styles are available in 1, 2, and 3-piece configurations. The Velos XX wheel is the latest addition to their lineup of custom-made forged wheels. As the anchor for their luxury line, the XX implements 3D-like geometry and unique features that are consistent w...

www.vividracing.com/blog/vividracing-client-cars/bmw-f85-...

AFTER: The 2x6' Xpen configuration for our Holland Lop rabbit sits in my sewing room and was taking up precious real estate. I built a cutting table to eliminate the wasted space over the Xpen. Table top is removable so we can easily move the table out of the room if necessary.

iss071e522256 (Aug. 21, 2024) --- NASA astronaut and Expedition 71 Flight Engineer Matthew Dominick checks CubeSat configurations packed inside launch cases installed in the Kibo laboratory module's Small Satellite Orbital Deployer.

Texas Raiders is one of the most recognized and famous Flying Fortresses currently on the airshow circuit. It has been recognized by AIR CLASSICS magazine as the best restored B-17G bomber currently flying in the world. The aircraft has been restored to wartime configuration by an entire volunteer group of dedicated supporters. The aircraft has one of the most unusual histories of any existing Flying Fortresses flying today and is one of the most active and visible.

This aircraft begin it's military career as B-17G-95-DL 44-83872. It was manufactured by Douglas Aircraft Corporation at Long Beach, California. (under license from Boeing Aircraft Corporation, Seattle, Washington) where it was delivered to the U.S. Army Air Corps on July 12, 1945. On July 21, 1945, this aircraft was transferred to the U.S. Navy.

Following Navy acceptance, '872 became PB-1 BuNo 77235. The aircraft was converted from PB-1 to PB-1-W which consisted of sealing the bombay doors, additional long-range fuel tanks and the installation of APS-20 search Radar with the rotating scanner located in a bulbous housing below the former bomb bay. '872 was one of the first "AWAC" aircraft.

On July 11, 1952 the '872 was transferred to and flew with the the newly formed Seasearch-Early Warning, VW-2 on the Atlantic seaboard until June 3, 1953 when it under went it's second major overhaul.

The second major overhaul was completed on January 15, 1954. After this overhaul the '872 was transferred to Atsugi, Japan where it flew with VW-1 (which was the last operational assignment for this aircraft).

On January 15, 1955, PB-1W arrived at the Storage Facility at Litchfield Park, Arizona where it was maintained in Flyable Storage Status until stricken from record on July 14, 1955 and was officially retired from Naval service on August 25, 1955 following 77 months of service where this aircraft acquired 3,257 hours of flying time.

On October 1, 1957, this aircraft was acquired by Aero Services Corp. (a branch of Litton Industries) and used as a cargo plane and aerial photographic aircraft. Upon entry into the civilian aviation fleet the aircraft was given the identification registration number and call sign N-7227-C.

While in the service of the Aero Services Corp., 27-C was used as a high altitude mapping aircraft and completed assignments in the North West United States, Venezuela, and the length of Chile. Another life cycle for 27-C began when it was converted into an aerial platform for all kinds of satellite tracking equipment.

The University of Alaska contracted 7227-C to participate in the recording of the eclipse of the sun from a flight position over Northern Canada. Next, the aircraft participated in the oil and natural gas survey for the North Sea Project off western Norway and Scotland.

During the aerial photographic era, the aircraft acquired the first complete photographic coverage of the South American continent along with extensive coverage of Central America and the northern regions of North America. The aircraft was used as a electronic geophysical and magnetometer platform for field surveys in the North Sea area north and east of Scotland along with extensive coverage of the North slope regions of Alaska. It was instrumental in acquiring data which lead to the discoveries of some of the major petroleum reserves in the world.

On September 22, 1967, N7227-C was acquired by the Commemorative Air Force, Mercedes, Texas from Litton Industries for the price of $50,000. It was the first B-17 to be purchased and operated solely for the purpose of preservation. The aircraft was painted in military colors and nose markings were applied as "Texas Raiders" with a Texas State flag by the CAF in 1970. During WW II no B-17 carried the name of Texas Raiders.

After a period of time the Texas Raiders was assigned to the Gulf Coast Wing of the Commemorative Air Force in Houston, Texas. The Gulf Coast Wing has continued to upgrade and restored the aircraft to it's original combat configuration by adding the ball turret and top turret. All of the work was carried out by the volunteers of the CAF group in Houston. At the present time, the top turret is undergoing assembly prior to installation on the aircraft. This will complete the last major restoration item within the aircraft. When completed, TEXAS RAIDERS will be one of only a few B-17s which have operational top and ball turrets.

The Texas Raiders does not have an oxygen system for its crew and is restricted to altitudes below 12,000 feet. The only hydraulic systems on board the aircraft are the brakes and the cowl flaps for the four engines. All other systems aboard the aircraft are either electrical or mechanical.

The "TR" has undergone two major restorations. The first lasted three years (1983-86) and converted the "cargo" B-17 airframe to a fully restored "combat" B-17G . This restoration was done with volunteer labor and cost in excess of $300,000. In 1993, the second restoration was carried out. The nine month effort was primarily to repaint the aircraft and complete the interior restoration of the bomber. Costs of the restoration was $180,000. This restoration was documented by Public Television and the documentary "Honor Squadron" was produced. At the conclusion to the restoration, the aircraft returned to the airshow circuit where it was awarded "Best Bomber" by the Experimental Aircraft Association's Sun and Fun Air Show and "Aircraft of the Year" by the Tico airshow in Florida.

In 2001, the Gulf Coast Wing received a federally required inspection of the aircraft's wing spars and associated structures. This inspection was called an "AD" (Airworthiness Directive). Starting in early 2002 and progressing through to October of 2009, volunteer wing members and contract workers mostly disassembled the bomber, correcting corrosion and structural cracks at a cost of nearly $700,000. This Flying Fortress became airworthy on October 14, 2009 and has appeared at major airshows, and touring-locations throughout Texas and the Midwestern U.S, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the first flight of the B-17 in the summer of 2010.

www.gulfcoastwing.org/GCW/index.htm

An Atlas-D rocket in Mercury-Atlas Configuration is on display at Kennedy Space Center.

Atlas LV-3B

The Atlas LV-3B, Atlas D Mercury Launch Vehicle or Mercury-Atlas Launch Vehicle, was a human-rated expendable launch system used as part of the United States Project Mercury to send astronauts into low Earth orbit. Manufactured by American aircraft manufacturing company Convair, it was derived from the SM-65D Atlas missile, and was a member of the Atlas family of rockets.

The Atlas D missile was the natural choice for Project Mercury since it was the only launch vehicle in the US arsenal that could put the spacecraft into orbit and also had a large number of flights to gather data from. But its reliability was far from perfect and Atlas launches ending in explosions were an all-too common sight at Cape Canaveral. Thus, significant steps had to be taken to human-rate the missile and make it safe and reliable unless NASA wished to spend several years developing a dedicated launch vehicle for crewed programs or else wait for the next-generation Titan II ICBM to become operational. Atlas’s stage-and-a-half configuration was seen as somewhat preferable to the two stage Titan in that all engines were ignited at liftoff, making it easier to test for hardware problems during prelaunch checks.

Shortly after being chosen for the program in early 1959, the Mercury astronauts were taken to watch the second D-series Atlas test, which exploded a minute into launch. This was the fifth straight complete or partial Atlas failure and the booster was at this point nowhere near reliable enough to carry a nuclear warhead or an uncrewed satellite, let alone a human passenger. Plans to human-rate Atlas were effectively still on the drawing board and Convair estimated that 75% reliability would be achieved by early 1961 and 85% reliability by the end of the year.

•General Specifications:

oFunction: Crewed Expendable Launch System

oManufacturer: Convair

oCountry of Origin: United States

•Size:

oHeight: 28.7 meters (94.3 ft)

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft); Width Over Boost Fairing: 4.9 meters (16 ft)

oMass: 120,000 kilograms (260,000 lb)

oStages: 1½

•Capacity:

oPayload to LEO: 1,360 kilograms (3,000 lb)

•Launch History:

oStatus: Retired

oLaunch Sites: CCAFS LC-14

oTotal Launches: 9

oSuccesses: 7

oFailures: 2

oFirst Flight: July 29, 1960

oLast Flight: May 15, 1963

•Boosters:

oNumber of Boosters: 1

oEngines: 2

oThrust: 1,517.4 kilonewtons (341,130 lbf)

oBurn Time: 134 seconds

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

•First Stage:

oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft)

oEngines: 1

oThrust: 363.22 kilonewtons (81,655 lbf)

oBurn Time: 5 minutes

oFuel: RP-1/LOX

Quality Assurance

Aside from the modifications described below, Convair set aside a separate assembly line dedicated to Mercury-Atlas vehicles which was staffed by personnel who received special orientation and training on the importance of the crewed space program and the need for as high quality workmanship as possible. Components used in the Mercury-Atlas vehicles were given thorough testing to ensure proper manufacturing quality and operating condition, in addition components and subsystems with excessive operating hours, out-of-specification performance, and questionable inspection records would be rejected. All components approved for the Mercury program were earmarked and stored separately from hardware intended for other Atlas programs and special handling procedures were done to protect them from damage.

Propulsion systems used for the Mercury vehicles would be limited to standard D-series Atlas models of the Rocketdyne MA-2 engines which had been tested and found to have performance parameters closely matching NASA’s specifications.

All launch vehicles would have to be complete and fully flight-ready at delivery to Cape Canaveral with no missing components or unscheduled modifications/upgrades. After delivery, a comprehensive inspection of the booster would be undertaken and prior to launch, a flight review board would convene to approve each booster as flight-ready. The review board would conduct an overview of all prelaunch checks, and hardware repairs/modifications. In addition, Atlas flights over the past few months in both NASA and Air Force programs would be reviewed to make sure no failures occurred involving any components or procedures relevant to Project Mercury.

The NASA Quality Assurance Program meant that each Mercury-Atlas vehicle took twice as long to manufacture and assemble as an Atlas designed for uncrewed missions and three times as long to test and verify for flight.

Systems Modified

Abort Sensor

Central to these efforts was the development of the Abort Sensing and Implementation System (ASIS), which would detect malfunctions in the Atlas’s various components and trigger a launch abort if necessary. Added redundancy was built in; if ASIS itself failed, the loss of power would also trigger an abort. The system was tested on a few Atlas ICBM flights prior to Mercury-Atlas 1 in July 1960, where it was operated open-loop (MA-3 in April 1961 would be the first closed-loop flight).

The Mercury launch escape system (LES) used on Redstone and Atlas launches was identical, but the ASIS system varied considerably between the two boosters as Atlas was a much larger, more complex vehicle with five engines, two of which were jettisoned during flight, a more sophisticated guidance system, and inflated balloon tanks that required constant pressure to not collapse.

Atlas flight test data was used to draw up a list of the most likely failure modes for the D-series vehicles, however simplicity reasons dictated that only a limited number of booster parameters could be monitored. An abort could be triggered by the following conditions, all of which could be indicative of a catastrophic failure:

•The booster flight path deviated too far from the planned trajectory

•Engine thrust or hydraulic pressure dropped below a certain level

•Propellant tank pressure dropped below a certain level

•The intermediate tank bulkhead showed signs of losing structural integrity

•The booster electrical system ceased operating

•The ASIS system ceased operating

Some failure modes such as an erroneous flight path did not necessarily pose an immediate danger to the astronaut’s safety and the flight could be terminated via a manual command from the ground (e.g. Mercury-Atlas 3). Other failure modes such as loss of engine thrust in the first few moments of liftoff required an immediate abort signal as there would be little or no time to command a manual abort.

An overview of failed Atlas test flights showed that there were only a few times that malfunctions occurred suddenly and without prior warning, for instance on Missile 6B when one turbopump failed 80 seconds into the launch. Otherwise, most failures were preceded by obvious deviations from the booster’s normal operating parameters. Automatic abort was only necessary in a situation like Atlas 6B where the failure happened so fast that there would be no time for a manual abort and most failure modes left enough time for the astronaut or ground controllers to manually activate the LES. A bigger concern was setting up the abort system so as to not go off when normal, minor performance deviations occurred.

Rate Gyros

The rate gyro package was placed much closer to the forward section of the LOX tank due to the Mercury/LES combination being considerably longer than a warhead and thus producing different aerodynamic characteristics (the standard Atlas D gyro package was still retained on the vehicle for the use of the ASIS). Mercury-Atlas 5 also added a new reliability feature—motion sensors to ensure proper operation of the gyroscopes prior to launch. This idea had originally been conceived when the first Atlas B launch in 1958 went out of control and destroyed itself after ground crews forgot to power on the gyroscope motors during prelaunch preparation, but it was phased into Atlas vehicles only gradually. One other Atlas missile test in 1961 also destroyed itself during launch, in that case because the gyroscope motor speed was too low. The motion sensors would thus eliminate this failure mode.

Range Safety

The range safety system was also modified for the Mercury program. There would be a three-second delay between engine cutoff and activation of the destruct charges so as to give the LES time to pull the capsule to safety. The ASIS system could not terminate engine thrust for the first 30 seconds of flight in order to prevent a malfunctioning launch vehicle from coming down on or around the pad area; during this time only the Range Safety Officer could send a manual cutoff command.

Autopilot

The old-fashioned electromechanical autopilot on the Atlas (known as the “round” autopilot due to the shape of the containers its major components were housed in) was replaced by a solid-state model (the “square” autopilot) that was more compact and easier to service, but it would prove a serious headache to debug and man-rate. On Mercury-Atlas 1, the autopilot system functioned well until launch vehicle destruction a minute into the flight. On Mercury-Atlas 2, there was a fair bit of missile bending and propellant slosh. Mercury-Atlas 3 completely failed and had to be destroyed shortly after launch when the booster did not perform the pitch and roll maneuver. After this debacle, the programmer was recovered and examined. Several causes were proposed including contamination of pins in the programmer or perhaps a transient voltage. The autopilot was extensively redesigned, but Mercury-Atlas 4 still had high vibration levels for the first 20 seconds of launch which led to further modifications. Finally on Mercury-Atlas 5, the autopilot worked perfectly.

Antenna

The guidance antenna was modified to reduce signal interference.

LOX Boil-Off Valve

Mercury-Atlas vehicles utilized the boil-off valve from the C-series Atlas rather than the standard D-series valve for reliability and weight-saving reasons.

Combustion Sensors

Combustion instability was an important problem that needed to be fixed. Although it mostly only occurred in static firing tests of the MA-2 engines, three launches (Missiles 3D, 51D, and 48D) had demonstrated that unstable thrust in one engine could result in immediate, catastrophic failure of the entire missile as the engine backfired and ruptured, leading to a thrust section fire. On Missile 3D, this had occurred in flight after a propellant leak starved one booster engine of LOX and led to reduced, unstable thrust and engine failure. The other two launches suffered rough combustion at engine start, ending in explosions that severely damaged the launch stand. Thus, it was decided to install extra sensors in the engines to monitor combustion levels and the booster would also be held down on the pad for a few moments after ignition to ensure smooth thrust. The engines would also use a “wet start”, meaning that the propellants were injected into the combustion chamber prior to igniter activation as opposed to a “dry start” where the igniter was activated first, which would eliminate rough ignition (51D and 48D had both used dry starts). If the booster failed the check, it would be automatically shut down. Once again, these upgrades required testing on Atlas R&D flights. By late 1961, after a third missile (27E) had exploded on the pad from combustion instability, Convair developed a significantly upgraded propulsion system that featured baffled fuel injectors and a hypergolic igniter in place of the pyrotechnic method, but NASA was unwilling to jeopardize John Glenn’s upcoming flight with these untested modifications and so declined to have them installed in Mercury-Atlas 6’s booster. As such, that and Scott Carpenter’s flight on MA-7 used the old-style Atlas propulsion system and the new variant was not employed until Wally Schirra’s flight late in 1962.

Static testing of Rocketdyne engines had produced high-frequency combustion instability, in what was known as the “racetrack” effect where burning propellant would swirl around the injector head, eventually destroying it from shock waves. On the launches of Atlas 51D and 48D, the failures were caused by low-order rough combustion that ruptured the injector head and LOX dome, causing a thrust section fire that led to eventual complete loss of the missile. The exact reason for the back-to-back combustion instability failures on 51D and 48D was not determined with certainty, although several causes were proposed. This problem was resolved by installing baffles in the injector head to break up swirling propellant, at the expense of some performance as the baffles added additional weight reduced the number of injector holes that propellants were sprayed through. The lessons learned with the Atlas program later proved vital to the development of the much larger Saturn F-1 engine.

Electrical System

Added redundancy was made to the propulsion system electrical circuitry to ensure that SECO would occur on time and when commanded. The LOX fuel feed system received added wiring redundancy to ensure that the propellant valves would open in the proper sequence during engine start.

Tank Bulkhead

Mercury vehicles up to MA-6 had foam insulation in the intermediate bulkhead to prevent the super-chilled LOX from causing the RP-1 to freeze. During repairs to MA-6 prior to John Glenn’s flight, it was decided to remove the insulation for being unnecessary and an impediment during servicing of the boosters in the field. NASA sent out a memo to GD/A requesting that subsequent Mercury-Atlas vehicles not include bulkhead insulation.

LOX Turbopump

In early 1962, two static engine tests and one launch (Missile 11F) fell victim to LOX turbopump explosions caused by the impeller blades rubbing against the metal casing of the pump and creating a friction spark. This happened after over three years of Atlas flights without any turbopump issues and it was not clear why the rubbing occurred, but all episodes of this happened when the sustainer inlet valve was moving to the flight-ready “open” position and while running untested hardware modifications. A plastic liner was added to the LOX turbopump to prevent friction rubbing. In addition Atlas 113D, the booster used for Wally Schirra’s flight, was given a PFRT (Pre-Flight Readiness Test) to verify proper functionality of the propulsion system.

Pneumatic System

Mercury vehicles used a standard D-series Atlas pneumatic system, although studies were conducted over the cause of tank pressure fluctuation which was known to occur under certain payload conditions. These studies found that the helium regulator used on early D-series vehicles had a tendency to induce resonant vibration during launch, but several modifications to the pneumatic system had been made since then, including the use of a newer model regulator that did not produce this effect.

Propellant Utilization System

In the event that the guidance system failed to issue the discreet cutoff command to the sustainer engine and it burned to propellant depletion, there was the possibility of a LOX-rich shutdown which could result in damage to engine components from high temperatures. For safety reasons, the PU system was modified to increase the LOX flow to the sustainer engine ten seconds before SECO. This was to ensure that the LOX supply would be completely exhausted at SECO and prevent a LOX-rich shutdown.

Skin

After MA-1 was destroyed in-flight due to a structural failure, NASA began requesting that Convair deliver Atlases with thicker skin. Atlas 10D (as well as its backup vehicle 20D which was later used for the first Atlas-Able flight), the booster used for the Big Joe test in September 1959, had sported thick skin and verified that this was needed for the heavy Mercury capsule. Atlas 100D would be the first thick-skinned booster delivered while in the meantime, MA-2’s booster (67D) which was still a thin-skinned model, had to be equipped with a steel reinforcement band at the interface between the capsule and the booster. Under original plans, Atlas 77D was to have been the booster used for MA-3. It received its factory rollout inspection in September 1960, but shortly afterwards, the postflight findings for MA-1 came out which led to the thin-skinned 77D being recalled and replaced by 100D.

Guidance

The vernier solo phase, which would be used on ICBMs to fine-tune the missile velocity after sustainer cutoff, was eliminated from the guidance program in the interest of simplicity as well as improved performance and lift capacity. Since orbital flights required an extremely different flight path from missiles, the guidance antennas had to be completely redesigned to ensure maximum signal strength. The posigrade rocket motors on the top of the Atlas, designed to push the spent missile away from the warhead, were moved to the Mercury capsule itself. This also necessitated adding a fiberglass insulation shield to the LOX tank dome so it wouldn’t be ruptured by the rocket motors.

Engine Alignment

A common and normally harmless phenomenon on Atlas vehicles was the tendency of the booster to develop a slight roll in the first few seconds following liftoff due to the autopilot not kicking in yet. On a few flights however, the booster developed enough rolling motion to potentially trigger an abort condition if it had been a crewed launch. Although some roll was naturally imparted by the Atlas’s turbine exhaust, this could not account for the entire problem which instead had more to do with engine alignment. Acceptance data from the engine supplier (Rocketdyne) showed that a group of 81 engines had an average roll movement in the same direction of approximately the same magnitude as that experienced in flight. Although the acceptance test-stand and flight-experience data on individual engines did not correlate, it was determined that offsetting the alignment of the booster engines could counteract this roll motion and minimize the roll tendency at liftoff. After Schirra’s Mercury flight did experience momentary roll problems early in the launch, the change was incorporated into Gordon Cooper’s booster on MA-9.

Launches

Nine LV-3Bs were launched, two on uncrewed suborbital test flights, three on uncrewed orbital test flights, and four with crewed Mercury spacecraft. Atlas LV-3B launches were conducted from Launch Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

It first flew on July 29, 1960, conducting the suborbital Mercury-Atlas 1 test flight. The rocket suffered a structural failure shortly after launch, and as a result failed to place the spacecraft onto its intended trajectory. In addition to the maiden flight, the first orbital launch, Mercury-Atlas 3 also failed. This failure was due to a problem with the guidance system failing to execute pitch and roll commands, necessitating that the Range Safety Officer destroy the vehicle. The spacecraft separated by means of its launch escape system and was recovered 1.8 kilometers (1.1 mi) from the launch pad.

A further series of Mercury launches was planned, which would have used additional LV-3Bs; however these flights were canceled after the success of the initial Mercury missions. The last LV-3B launch was conducted on 15 May 1963, for the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9. NASA originally planned to use leftover LV-3B vehicles to launch Gemini-Agena Target Vehicles, however an increase in funding during 1964 meant that the agency could afford to buy brand-new Atlas SLV-3 vehicles instead, so the idea was scrapped.

Mercury-Atlas Vehicles Built and Eventual Disposition

•10D—Launched Big Joe 9/14/59

•20D—Backup vehicle for Big Joe. Reassigned to Atlas-Able program and launched 11/26/59.

•50D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 1 7/29/60

•67D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 2 2/21/61

•77D—Original launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 3, replaced by Atlas 100D after postflight findings from Mercury-Atlas 1

•88D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 4 9/13/61

•93D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 5 11/29/61

•100D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 3 4/25/61

•103D—Cancelled

•107D—Launched Aurora 7 (Mercury-Atlas 7) 5/24/62

•109D—Launched Friendship 7 (Mercury-Atlas 6) 2/21/62

•113D—Launched Sigma 7 (Mercury-Atlas 8) 10/3/62

•130D—Launched Faith 7 (Mercury-Atlas 9) 5/15/63

•144D—Cancelled, was planned launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 10

•152D—Cancelled

•167D—Cancelled

The main pool at Olney Indoor Swim Center, in the process of being converted from the normal configuration to the swim meet configuration. This involves moving the pool bulkhead to the shallow end of the pool, and running lane ropes in a different configuration.

Ben Schumin is a professional photographer who captures the intricacies of daily life. This image may be used under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0. Please provide artist attribution, as well as a link to the original photo and to the license terms.

Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.

Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.

For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)

This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.

Website: www.battlecastle.tv/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle

YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle

Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle

Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.

Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.

As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.

Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.

But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.

Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.

Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.

For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)

This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.

Website: www.battlecastle.tv/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle

YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle

Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle

Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.

Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.

As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.

Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.

But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.

Configuration: Apple M1 Max chip with 10-core CPU and 32-core GPU; 32GB unified memory; 1TB SSD. This replaces my late-2019 model, which I part with a year earlier than planned.

Some quick first-impressions, with less than eight hours screen time:

Liquid Retina XDR display is visually stunning. Spectacular is better. Text is super sharp and colors are rich and vibrant—like nothing I have experienced on any laptop. Scrolling is super smooth. Hello, ProMotion! Technical resolution is 3024 by 1964 pixels. Actually available maximum scaling: 2056 by 1329. Bright, bright, bright—love it.

M1 Max chip looks promising but I will need to embark on several planned heavy-duty projects to truly assess. I will say this: Performance is fluid, and I can’t say the same about my late-2019 MBP.

Keyboard is unexpectedly better. The keys feel fabulous, require light touch, and caress the fingers. I am surprised by the subtle but absolutely significantly improved experience compared to the 16-inch MBP.

MagSafe 3 and return of other ports (HDMI and SDXC) are nice-to-haves but not need-to-haves. Over time, surely I will appreciate them.

3.5-mm headphone jack supports high-impedance headphones, which I own. My daughter is fanatical about vinyl records; to make for a more authentic listening experience, I gave her my Grado GS1000e. I now use the Audio-Technica ATH-R70x, which impedance is fairly high at 470 ohms. But, I haven’t opportunity to truly test.

Construction is solid, like a tank. The hinge is incredibly rigid (in a good way). My initial trepidation gives way to satisfaction with the apparent ruggedness.

Design is stately and strong. I don’t notice the camera notch, in case you wondered. The thin bezel makes interaction with the 16.2-inch panel both expansive and immersive. The laptop looks and feels Pro—no, premium—oddly emphasized by the brand name machine-embossed/etched onto the underside.

I will need more time using the late-2021 MBP before conveying much (much) more about it.

Regarding the photo, I feel black and white appropriately suits the Space Gray color and tank-like conveyance.

Handsome artwork/painting (gouache I believe) depicting an early configuration LEM liftoff & ascent from the moon. Circa 1962/63, by artist/illustrator Don Crowley, most likely produced during his freelancing period.

Fascinating information on Mr. Crowley, who unfortunately, passed on earlier this year:

www.doncrowley.com/index.html

Credit: Don Crowley website

wenaha.com/artist/don-crowley/

Credit: Wenaha Gallery website

cowboyartistsofamerica.com/active-members/deceased/don-cr...

Credit: Cowboy Artists of America website

www.greenwichworkshop.com/thumbnails/default.asp?a=18&amp...

Credit: Greenwich Workshop website

Note the exceedingly long...EVA antenna? Possibly jettisoned, folded, or somehow retracted prior to docking? I guess it wasn't an issue if the forward hatch/docking port was used.

A big smile flashed on the face that was staring at me on the portrait that I was looking at. With widened eyes, the owner of the face looked very happy to see me. And without realizing it, I returned the smile. After thinking about it, it might actually just a configuration of facial muscles that looked like a smile. I could not be too sure to judge, because even though I am used to seeing that expression on the people I meet every day, I wasn’t looking at a photo of a human. I was looking at a picture of Tokay and I realized that I didn’t know if Tokay could smile.

In addition to the above photo, there are about three dozens of pictures of other animals that have been created and collected by young photographer, Dwi Putra, in a solo exhibition titled “Familiar Faces”. With various colorful animals, these photos are so fun and easy to enjoy. But as I finally think again when I saw the smile of the Tokay and watch the other faces in this series, it makes me wonder if Dwi Putra just wanted to show us the faces of these animals? I got interested to see further and open up the opportunity of other meanings behind the beautiful visual of these photos.

In Indonesia, one of the countries with the highest biodiversity in the world (estimated at more than 250,000 species of fauna exist here), there are not much variety of photographic works that display and raise issues relating to animals, ironically. One approach commonly used in Indonesia in photographing animals is wildlife photography, which generally shows the lives of various species of fauna in their natural habitat that are not disturbed by humans. Photographer Riza Marlon is probably the most popular example for using this approach, with his book The Living Treasures of Indonesia (2010) that shows his work for 20 years where he went out into the woods and mountains to document the various types of fauna in Indonesia.

Another approach that is also commonly used in photographing animals is through the corridors of photojournalistic, which usually highlights the issues concerning animals of their complex interactions with humans. Journalistic photographs that focus on the fauna are often voicing advocate for animals affected by human activity. For example, the project Orangutan Rhymes and Blues (2012), where photo journalist Regina Safri discusses the conservation of orangutans in Borneo which survival is threatened by massive deforestation for palm oil industry. But we don’t have to go far to see the conflict of interest between human and animals; on a photograph which was awarded 2nd prize singles for Nature category at the prestigious World Press Photo 2013, photo journalist Ali Lutfi showed a monkey trained to put on a show at a busy intersection in the city of Solo, a situation which is not difficult to encounter in other cities in Indonesia.

In the wildlife and photojournalistic approaches above, animals are represented as they are in photographs that convey a narrative that relates directly to the animals shown. Also, I find there are several different approaches that quite interesting in Indonesian photography that do not put the animal as the main character in a story, but position them as symbols of human’s life, with specific functions and purposes. Rama Surya in his photo series Yogyakarta: Street Mythology (1998 - 2000) made the animals he found and took pictures of in the city of Yogyakarta as a symbol of freedom of expression, associated with the changes in Indonesian politics as it entered a period of reform. Artist Edwin Roseno put animal masks on people who posed wearing clothes or costumes that have characteristics commensurate with the masks they wore in the series Animal Mask Collection (2008), referring to the tales and fables that have anthropomorphic animal characters that narrated nature and characteristics like human beings ..

Fantastic visuals presented by Agan Harahap in his series Safari (2009) and Garden Fresh (2012), with digital imaging techniques bringing wild animals into human-made environments such as supermarket and office, commenting on the boundaries between humans and animals that were shifted to the present environment and the complex relationship between art and nature. In these examples, images of animals were not used to tell something about the animals themselves, but rather to represent something else to convey the creator's work.

With that similar tradition of symbolic representation, I think Dwi Putra puts his animal portraits in this series of Familiar Faces. Here, Putra photographing animals that are actually quite easy to find in everyday life, whether they are wild that live among us in an urban environment or that have been domesticated as pets or as live stocks. But Putra is not talking about the lives of chickens, cats, frogs, mice, and other animals that he shows in this series. He merely uses these photos to present ideas on how we view the animals.

Some clues about Putra’s idea can be seen from the way he captured and presented these photos with a method that is very organized and rigid; practically every animal shown only the head, vertically, in front of a white background. Each picture is presented in a square format, with each animal occupies roughly the same area in the frame. There are some things that I can read from here:

First, the presentation of this series showed an obvious uniformity attempt of the subject photographed by Putra, no matter how diverse and varied they are in reality. The placement of each subject in a relatively equal portion of each frame resulted in the emergence of the illusion that all the animals in this series have comparable size. A lizard, for example, seems to be about the size of a goat. Unification that is reinforced by the use of lighting techniques is also identified in each frame and the omission of information about the environment in which the photo was taken, has been replaced with a white background. This equation implies that there is no subject more important than the other in this series.

Furthermore, the absence of other elements in the picture forces us to concentrate solely on the face of each animal, and as a result I also found some interesting things. Although I see these animals quite often, and know their general shapes, perhaps this is the first time I observed their faces in proximity and intensity this high, hence there is a novelty in the experience of observing them like this. Because of the frozen photographic image, every detail can be observed carefully in unlimited time. The facial details form expressions that we can recognize, as we have seen and experienced before in our interactions with our fellow human beings. It then becomes problematic, because we project experience and our knowledge of the human expressions to the creatures that are not human.

Recent studies on animal behavior confirmed that some animals are able to feel primary emotions such as fear and anger. Some animals are even expected to experience secondary emotions such as jealousy and sympathy. However, personification of animals is still considered a taboo in scientific studies. Prompted researchers are always cautioned to only objectively observe animal behavior, and not to attempt to reduce such behavior by giving human attributes to them, because of concerns about inaccurate conclusions. In other words, although it has been proven that animals can feel some emotions similar to humans, it does not mean that these emotions are indicated with an expression similar to that shown in humans.

With that said, Familiar Faces series is not a statement full of certainty from Putra about the animals that he shows (“Look at this frowning frog, shy civet!”), but rather a reflective question about human behavior in seeing things outside themselves, in this case, animals. Is it true that the things that we assume we are familiar with are already known to us, as we think? The mirrors that are projecting our thoughts back to them become ironic: notice how the photo was made like studio portraits that humans often use. Even the uniformity of different subjects was reminiscent of photographic practice that is used to complete identification / identity of the photographed subject.

This is not the first time Putra makes a photography work that flicks perspective issues in the context of animal and human interrelationships. The graduate of the Department of Communication at Pembangunan Nasional Yogyakarta University enjoys photographing animals, especially he really liked them since childhood. Putra admitted he was also interested in photographing animals with wildlife photography approach and actually tried it once, but some constraints makes him cannot fully commit in it. Instead, he tried to observe and photograph the animals around him using some alternative approaches.

One achievement that I think is interesting is Putra’s work made for final exhibition project as one of the first batch of students in Kelas Pagi Yogyakarta. In the series titled “Buaya Darat” (Land Crocodile) (Kelas Pagi Yogyakarta, 2011), inspired by a similar expression in the Indonesian language that means a man who likes changing partners, or a playboy, where he displayed pictures of a small pet alligator with a naked Barbie doll in various poses. There is a tone of humor that is quite critical in the work that tries to show the said literal expression. The man-made phrase refers to members of a species that behave in a certain way using this animal, which in reality has quite the opposite of the behavior. Crocodiles are known to have only one mating partner throughout their lives. From here we can see how people sometimes (or often? always?) look at the animals in their own ways without really knowing and understanding how the animal they see is really like.

In another work, due to the lack of awareness of the problematic way we look at animals from previous work, Putra seemed to do reconciliation by trying to understand the perspective of animals, though he did it literally: he draped a mini video camera on his pet civet and let it record anything according to its motions. The result of three videos entitled “Looking from the Perspective of an Animal” was displayed as part of the workshop exhibition “Meminjam Mata, Melihat Ruang” (Borrowing Eyes, Looking at Space) by Kusuma Yudha Putra in Kedai Kebun Forum, January 2013.

The linkages and continuity of the works created by Putra made me very interested, of which I ended up asking him to show off this series as a logical continuation of what he had previously exhibited. Due to few numbers of photography practitioners in Indonesia who are consistent in using intermediate representations of animals in conveying ideas, it will be interesting to see what he would do with the unique sources of inspiration that he has.

To conclude, it is also interesting to understand how Putra admitted that he did not plan to have a common thread in these works. Again, this may be a proof that any observer, in this case me as a writer, will always have the innate knowledge and previous experience in observing everything that would affect his perspective. Only by constantly being aware that I think we can only begin to try to get a real understanding of who we are and how our relationships are with all the things around us. At least, that's what I can get from observing the works of Dwi Putra.

1956 Aston Martin DB3S Coupe. Only 3 of these cars were ever made in this configuration and of those only 2 still exist

Team Vandenberg launched a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Medium+ (5,2) from Space Launch Complex-6 here at 4:12 p.m. PDT Tuesday, April 3, 2012. The launch was the Department of Defense's first-ever Delta IV Medium launch vehicle configured with a 5-meter payload fairing and two solid rocket motors.

30th Space Wing

Photo by Staff Sgt. Andrew Satran

Date Taken:04.03.2012

Location:VANDENBERG AFB, CA, US

Read more: www.dvidshub.net/image/555130/first-delta-iv-medium-5-2-c...

In 2012 we received from NASA an order for 6 new models of International Space Station. NASA requested to modify our current model in order to represent the latest changes and additions to ISS so the model will depict the most current and updated configuration.

The foam lining in the transit cases for modified models was adjusted accordingly to accommodate the models and new separate elements.

Along with the order of 6 modified models for NASA we also produced one model in luxury edition for CERN, which was shipped to Geneva, Switzerland and receive excellent feedbacks for its accuracy and versatility.

Visit www.lifeinscale.net/ISS_model-2012_configuration.asp for more information.

Finally got this one done!!! This is for my sister's birthday. She collects bears (has all kinds except live ones and I wouldn't be surprised if she got one of those too - LOL!) so the collection theme was pretty obvious for me. The problem with the boxes is the individual boxes are pretty small so I really had to search for small enough items.