Missiles and Bombs...
First, let me say that the whiners and name-callers (You know who you are) can go home now. If you have nothing but insults to share, we don't want them.
As for Flight 800...the aircraft was at something like 11,000' when the damage occurred. The most readily available shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles would have had a hard time reaching this altitude and intercepting a 747 with high-bypass engines. Simple heat seeking missiles would have had to approach the aircraft from the rear in order to lock on an engine. As it closed on the plane, it might have flown right up the tailpipe of one of the engines. Though the warhead on this type of missile is only a few kilograms, it would destroy the engine, which would then come apart. The rapidly rotating turbine blades would fly apart doing severe secondary damage to the plane. This sort of engine failure can happen without a missile as well. I think it was a DC-10 tail engine that took out all the hydraulics controlling the tail surfaces of a plane in Oklahoma/Kansas a few years ago. The pilot did a remarkable job of almost landing it despite the damage.
A suitcase bomb in the hold would have done considerable damage as well. It might be as large as 10-15 kg, but its effect would depend greatly on where it was located and what was packed around it.
Despite what the pundits on TV and in the newspapers have said, the only certain interpretation of the cockpit voice recorder data is that all four recorders lost power at the same time. As I understand it, a single point wiring failure could have shut down all four at the same time. Any further interpretation is strictly speculative at this time.
As with the Lockerbee bombing, it will take a lot of time to analyse all the pieces and determine what happened to the plane. Short of finding missile pieces embedded in 747 parts, this case won't be solved overnight. Especially since the pieces are under a lot of water.
The public may clamor for more "security" and demand installation of quadrupole magnetic resonance scanners or neutron activation tomography, but ultimately it will have little effect on public safety. It may have a great effect on public confidence, however.
The cost of that security will be more than the $2.50 per flight that has been mentioned. That may cover the capital costs of the machines and the technician to run it. But what about the extra half-hour (or so) that it takes to run all the bags through? Instead of getting there 30 minutes before flight time, we'll need an hour. So twice as many people will be sitting around waiting to fly. Twice as many bags will be in process. We'll need a larger terminal. The bond issue is likely to cost much more than $2.50/ticket. And personally, I consider 30 minutes of my time to be worth more than $2.50. Probably most of you feel the same you.
Ahhh...rational risk assessment...perhaps one day public policy could be based on it? .... Naahh.
Still I think INVN makes cool toys. I want one. It'd be way better than the X-ray glasses they still sell in the back of comic books.
-bob mackey
ps - recommended reading: "The Biological Origin of Human Values"
by George Edwin Pugh, (c)1977, Basic Books, ISBN 0-456-06687-6
It contains a good discussion of why people perceive large tragedies as so much worse than many small ones. Or in the same vein, why people invest in bonds when they know that stocks have a better return on the average. |
