Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Science Technology

Steve Fossett's Unfinished Project 97

MazzThePianoman writes "Steve Fossett left behind a secret vessel project called the Deep Flight Challenger. Fossett was funding the development of a winged submersible being designed by Hawkes Ocean Technologies in California. The intent was for the vehicle to be capable of travel to the very bottom of the ocean — the Mariana Trench, more than 11,000 meters beneath the surface. 'It would have dramatically, dramatically opened the oceans for exploration. It would have been a game changer,' said Graham Hawkes, the designer. Testing had been completed at Department of Defense facilities. Field testing was only four weeks away when Fossett's untimely death, a year ago, put the project on hold." Hawkes Ocean Technologies owns the design, but the vehicle itself is owned by Fossett's estate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Fossett's Unfinished Project

Comments Filter:
  • by TheModelEskimo ( 968202 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @12:50AM (#25261741)
    "Take Fossett off the grid immediately," he ordered. "We need to wrap this up with a minimum of red tape." The response was quick. Within a week, Fossett's "corpse" was found in the Nevada Desert, the naked visitors from Titan had their submarine, and the President had yet another embarrassing affair off his plate.
    It was still Fossett's move, however. Much as he enjoyed false identities, Brazilian women, and homes built from Cold War nuclear bunkers, the time was right to begin his next project.
    It would begin with a small dog, two pairs of socks, and a rolled-up copy of People magazine.
    • by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @02:24AM (#25261967)
      It's hard to know what to think about Fossett.

      I mean, the dude flew around the world in a balloon. Flew around the world again, nonstop, solo, in an aircraft. Set all kinds of records in sailboats and sailplanes. He was building a submarine to "fly" to the deepest point on earth, but meanwhile he killed himself while scouting for a location to run his 800 mph rocket car and break the land speed record.

      My first thought was, "man, this guy has a freakin' deathwish, or else he's a goddamn idiot. It's amazing that someone with so little sense of self-preservation lived this long." Doesn't the guy know that there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots?

      But after thinking about it for a while... he probably did know that. He was flying long enough that he must have come to understand that if he kept it up the way he did, he wasn't going to die in his bed. Any one of his record-setting endeavors could have resulted in his death. But he must have decided that he'd rather live a brief life on his own terms, than a long, safe, boring life. After reading his Wikipedia entry, it's no surprise that he didn't die in an assisted living facility, but I think he'd probably be OK with the way he went out. Vicious downdrafts smashed his plane into bite-sized pieces against a granite escarpment of the Sierra Nevada mountains, while he was scouting a location to break the land speed record in a jet car, and he wasn't found for a year... the man had a hell of an interesting life, and one hell of a death, and packed more living into 63 years than most people could pack into 100. He did things on his terms, took chances, pushed things, and went out doing so. Personally, I'll play things a bit safer, but I do respect the guy's choices.

      • "Doesn't the guy know that there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots?"

        Arghhhh! I hate this saying. Have a look at the space program.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by justinlee37 ( 993373 )

          Are astronauts really bold? Or are they meticulous, training for years for a single flight?

          The point is that it's not good to rush, you might overlook details.

          • by NateTech ( 50881 )

            So where exactly did Fossett rush?

            • You're putting words in my mouth. I know nothing about it. And that's coming from a devout agnostic.

              However, I have heard some speculation that Fossett allowed someone else to fly his plane, and may have left without checking weather conditions.

              But that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to address the objection that was taken to the saying. It has merit.

              So basically somebody should come in and mod us all offtopic.

              • by NateTech ( 50881 )

                Well, generically I agree with you that the phrase is stupid. I just thought it was odd you would use an example of Fossett as a way to prove the point.

                Many bold pilots live to ripe old years, but they're the best trained and know their limitations (even if their limitations are higher than most people's) very well.

                (Heck, U.S. Naval Aviators do things daily that most pilots would lock up out of sheer terror and end up dead trying to do them in their first attempt.)

                Personally, when Avgas hit over $5/gal, I

                • I never said the phrase was stupid, though, and I never used Fossett as an example. Again, I was just taking objection to the notion that Astronauts were "bold" when, in the context of the saying, "bold" is used to mean "reckless."

                  By extension the phrase could be said to mean this: "There are old pilots, and there are reckless pilots, but there are no old reckless pilots."

                  I figured that since that was the intended meaning of the saying, the saying itself had merit. It implores people to be cautious, which i

                  • by NateTech ( 50881 )

                    Well, actually the problem was the thread was talking about Fossett and you changed to Astronauts, a completely different topic -- which made it look like you were attacking Fossett's abilities.

                    That's the only reason I jumped in with "What did Fossett do?" as my basis of my question.

                    It really doesn't matter now. The point is... the phrase is dumb, because it's a platitude and a cliche'. Real-world piloting (by Fossett or Astronauts) is complex stuff and can't be described by a glib one-sentence statement.

        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          You hate that saying because it is miss quoted.
          There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are very few old bold pilots.
          Every pilot knows that the wost thing that a pilot can say is "I can make it"
          But Fossett did keep the unspoken rule. Only kill yourself. If you are going push the limits you do it by yourself. My guess when flying with passengers Fossett crossed every T and doted every I.

        • "Doesn't the guy know that there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots?" Arghhhh! I hate this saying. Have a look at the space program.

          Yes, but remember that any landing you can walk away from is a good one. And, if you get to re-use the aircraft ... it's a great one.

        • by Eskarel ( 565631 )
          The saying doesn't imply that all old pilots were never bold, or that no bold pilots ever get to be old, it merely suggests that it is very unlikely that any pilot should both continue to be bold and live to be old.

          The folks on the space program are most likey bold, and a large number of them survive to be old, but generally folks go into space maybe a half dozen times on the outside they don't do it over and over and over again.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jalefkowit ( 101585 )

        Doesn't the guy know that there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots?

        I dunno, Chuck Yeager [wikipedia.org] is pretty bold and he's pushing 90. Scott Crossfield [wikipedia.org] was 85 when he died (flying).

        • Yeager is also famous for carefully following procedure so as not to get splattered.
          "Bold" in the saying obviously means "foolhardy".

          Having huge balls (or huge whatever in the case of Hanna Reitsch) does not exclude checklist compliance, knowing systems theory, and having a good technical background.

      • as the rich dude who lives the life every dork dreams of.

        Many people dream of having riches but very few have dreams as amazing as what he was doing with them. Frankly it is people like this who make me realize that the majority of us are just boring.

        • You look at most rich people and you wonder what the hell they get for all that money. A few spend it on splashy things like big yachts, but that's just a bigger version of what most of us do with our more limited means. Once you have enough money to not have to worry about the rent and health insurance, what exactly does having more get you? Fossett actually had the answer for that. He did stuff that was completely different, stuff you couldn't do on any scale if you weren't that wealthy. It's too bad
      • by khallow ( 566160 )

        But he must have decided that he'd rather live a brief life on his own terms, than a long, safe, boring life.

        A brief 63 years. Looks to me like a long active life rather than a modestly longer safe, boring life.

  • by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @01:01AM (#25261767)
    "The pressure is about 20,000 pounds per square inch, approximately 15,000 times the atmospheric pressure," Hawkes said.

    I hope Mr. Hawkes was a bit more careful with the math in his design than the math in that statement.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tygt ( 792974 )
      Seat-of-the-pants.... 32' of water is about 1atm = 14.7psi, so 36k ft = about 1,125atm, on the order of 16.5kpsi, plus or minus. 20,000psi is in the ballpark, and that's "approximately" 1,500 atm; perhaps the reporter added a zero?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05, 2008 @02:20AM (#25261951)
        you americans and your funny buggers math... every 10M of water adds 1 atmosphere of pressure. 10m = 2 atm, 20m = 3atm, 11000m = ~1101atm. why would you opt to use such "lovely round numbers" as 32 and 14.7, when you can use metric. IT'S SUPERIOR, BITCHES!
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by EaglemanBSA ( 950534 )
          Next time you're watching a rugby match, let me know how many pounds are in a stone again.
        • by Fred_A ( 10934 )

          why would you opt to use such "lovely round numbers" as 32 and 14.7, when you can use metric.

          Interesting tidbit, a long time ago, people would count on their phalanges using their thumbs. Up to 12 per hand. Which is why this odd base keeps popping up in antique numbering systems (like the one still used in the US, Liberia and Burma).
          Of course with a little imagination you can count much higher than 12 on your fingers.

          Still not much excuse to stick with medieval units IMO, but if they're happy with it...

          • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @09:14AM (#25263513)

            Yar. I can count to 21 if I pull down my pants.

            Seriously, base 12 is very practical because it has more factors than 10. 2,3,4, and 6 vs 2 and 5. We really should be using a base 12 decimal system rather base 10.

            The Sumerians used a base 60 system which can be represented using two hands while counting. On your left hand there are three parts on each of four fingers (excluding the thumb). The parts are divided from each other by the joints in the fingers. Now one can count up to 60 by pointing at one of the twelve parts of the fingers of the left hand with one of the five fingers of the right hand.

            This is the root of our 60 seconds per minute / 60 seconds per hour.

            • Seriously, base 12 is very practical because it has more factors than 10. 2,3,4, and 6 vs 2 and 5. We really should be using a base 12 decimal system rather base 10.

              So why not go with something like base 144 where you have even more factors than 12? This line of reasoning can be continued ad infinitum. Frankly I think 10 is fine, it's just a cut off where you get lots of factors and you don't have to memorize some obscene number of factors

              Remember a multiplication table has as many cells as the number of the base squared. 10^2 = 100. 12^2=144. 14^2 = 196. And that base 60 system you'd like us to use again? 3600 entries! The only people who would have been able

              • Seriously, base 12 is very practical because it has more factors than 10. 2,3,4, and 6 vs 2 and 5. We really should be using a base 12 decimal system rather base 10.

                So why not go with something like base 144 where you have even more factors than 12? This line of reasoning can be continued ad infinitum. Frankly I think 10 is fine, it's just a cut off where you get lots of factors and you don't have to memorize some obscene number of factors

                you can't remember four factors? how obscene!?. Sure there's a diminishing return, but 12 is a hell of a lot better to work with than 10, being only marginally more difficult, but having twice as many factors to work with. anyone who thinks that '10 is fine' either doesn't understand (which it seems you do) or is deluded. from a practical standpoint changing bases in common usage at this point is near on impossible, but from a theory standpoint, 12 is much better.

            • I never understood the argument of factors.
              #1 You only have two prime factors in 12, same as in 10.
              #2 If you're looking for raw factors, I find working with 2.5 just as easy as working with 6. It's just a question of habit.
              #3 Geometrically speaking, it also doesn't make a difference.

              The point is that what matters really isn't whether something is base 10, 12, 60 or 245. What matters is whether the base is consistently used. The entire world uses a base 10 system for counting. That means it's easy if your ot

        • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @09:01AM (#25263421)

          I call bullshit. The metric unit for pressure isn't the atmosphere. It's the Pascal, aka N/m^2. Atmospheric pressure is 101325 Pa, or alternatively 1 Pa = 9.8692×106 atm. Very convenient? NOT PARTICULARLY.

          SI is useful in calculations because it is self-consistent. You don't have weird factors like 32.2 lb-f/lb-m in calculations. But natural values like the atmospheric pressure at sea level are NOT metric values and are at exactly as difficult to work with in both systems.

          • by Teun ( 17872 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @09:33AM (#25263653) Homepage
            I'm afraid you're mixing up two Decimal systems, the older Metric and the newer SI system.

            Bar, Kg/cm2 and Atmosphere are certainly valid expressions for pressure in the Metric systems.
            Another Decimal system is the SI and it prefers the use of Pascal for pressure.

            A more complete explanation can be found here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI [wikipedia.org]

            • I see no reference to the unit "Atmosphere" in the article cited. A bar is 10^6 Pa, which is allowed as a convenience in the SI system and is in use in the metric system.

              • by Teun ( 17872 )
                There isn't a single Metric/Decimal standard, one of the oldest and now base for many national and international standards is the German DIN:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIN [wikipedia.org]

                The Atmosphere and Kg/cm2 as units of pressure are discouraged in the Decimal/Metric world, we should use the Bar instead.

                Especially in Germany the Atmosphere is still being used and in Italy the Kg/cm2 remains popular.

                Norway and Canada are among the very few countries that use the Pascal in daily life.

                Here in The Netherlands ther

            • Actually Kg/cm^2 is not a valid unit of pressure - as pressure is force per unit area, not mass per unit area.

              A Kg is, strictly speaking, a unit of mass.

              Whereas the unit of force in SI is the Newton, which is the force required to accelerate 1 Kg at 1 m /s^2 (in metre per second squared).

              Funnily enough, I learnt SI units from an American Physics text book in New Zealand more than 40 years ago, isn't it about time the rest of the USA caught up???

        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          Yes it is for science but the UK still uses miles per gallon in car ads.
          When I watch Top Gear they talk about MPH for top speed....
          And a atmosphere of pressure isn't METRIC.
          The metric unit of pressure is the pascal. You really should know what you are talking if you are going to be such a snot.

          In other words... Lean the metric system before you lecture others people about it.

        • by AlHunt ( 982887 )

          > why would you opt to use such "lovely round numbers" as 32 and 14.7, when you can use metric.
          > IT'S SUPERIOR, BITCHES!

          Well. hey, if you need it simplified so it's understandable to you, go right ahead. Use whatever system you like.

          Simpler, however, is not necessarily "superior".

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by rrohbeck ( 944847 )

        How much in ounces per football field? Jeez. Weird units you're using.

        • Fine, then. In nice, round numbers, it's about 4,000 volkswagens per square smoot. Happy, now?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by rrohbeck ( 944847 )

        1 atm per 10 meters. 11km => 1,100 atm.
        1,082 atm to be a little more exact [google.com].

      • From google:

        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=20000+psi+in+atmospheres&meta= [google.com]

        20000 pounds per square inch = 1360.91928 atmospheres

        Easy :). Just hoping people would do that more and complain less about imperial vs metric.

    • by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @01:21AM (#25261825)

      Or the reporter misquoted him...

      1 Atmosphere = 14.7 psi.
      Pressure increases 1A every 33 feet
      36,000 / 33 = 1091 Atmospheres.
      1091 * 14.7 = 16038 psi

      16,000 ~= 15000

      http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/water/pressure1.htm [navy.mil]

  • by jflo ( 1151079 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @01:01AM (#25261769)
    If Star Trek Voyager has taught us anything, when you need to go deep into the ocean, just send the bad boy Tom Paris with trusty sidkick Ensin Kim in the Delta Flier. Thats more than enough to get hte job done. The only downside is that Lt Paris may make everyone listen to some drawn out letter hes writing to his father.... and quite frankly, its too dramatic for my tastes.
    • by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @04:01AM (#25262215)

      If Star Trek Voyager has taught us anything, when you need to go deep into the ocean, just send the bad boy Tom Paris with trusty sidkick Ensin Kim in the Delta Flier. Thats more than enough to get hte job done. The only downside is that Lt Paris may make everyone listen to some drawn out letter hes writing to his father.... and quite frankly, its too dramatic for my tastes.
      --
      WWPD - What Would Picard Do?

      Man... you really buried the needle on my virgin meter with that one.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by NeuroManson ( 214835 )

        Crow T Robot, "People have such cute names for sex."

        There, that should have made it overload and melt down. I hope you didn't have it on your lap.

        • Fry: "How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?"

          Farnsworth: "Well, it's a spaceship so I'd say anywhere between one and zero."

          Thank you, goodnight!

      • by jo7hs2 ( 884069 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @08:41AM (#25263291) Homepage

        If Star Trek Voyager has taught us anything, when you need to go deep into the ocean, just send the bad boy Tom Paris with trusty sidkick Ensin Kim in the Delta Flier. Thats more than enough to get hte job done. The only downside is that Lt Paris may make everyone listen to some drawn out letter hes writing to his father.... and quite frankly, its too dramatic for my tastes.

        -- WWPD - What Would Picard Do?

        Man... you really buried the needle on my virgin meter with that one.

        Well, at least the needle isn't a virgin anymore.

    • by jandrese ( 485 )
      Reminds me of a Futurama line:
      [The Planet Express Ship is being dragged underwater by a colossal mouth bass.]
      Leela: Depth at forty five hundred feet. Forty eight hundred. Fifty hundred. Five thousand feet.
      Professor Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure.
      Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?
      Professor Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.
  • think the managers of the estate and his family would want his name to be remembered for something like this and release the vehicle, after all what will they do with it? And if Hawkes Ocean Technologies owns the design, can't they build a new one?
    • I'm sure it cost a pretty penny. I bet that you will see the submarine resurrected and continue on with testing. I think it will end up being a case of "Steve would have wanted it to go on" or something. It'll happen.
  • ...away from us.

    With Bridger gone and now this, we won't make it in 10 years ;/

  • by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @01:21AM (#25261821)

    Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of land, And danced the seas on laughter-silvered fins;

    Deepward I've fallen, and joined the tumbling mirth

    Of sun-absent fathoms...and done a hundred things

    You have not dreamed of...propelled and plummet and swung

    Deep in the sunless silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting currents along, and flung

    My eager craft through footless halls of water.

    Down, Down, the long, delirious burning blue I've bottomed the current swept depths with easy grace

    Where never jellyfish, nor even tubeworm grew.

    And while with silent, buoyant mind I've trod

    The low untrespassed sanctity of the abyss...

    ...put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

  • How about Jupiter (Score:3, Interesting)

    by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Sunday October 05, 2008 @01:21AM (#25261823) Homepage Journal
    Come on fellow Mechanical Engineers, what do we need to see the core of Jupiter? Lets design it and open source it, because it will likely not be seen in our lifetimes.
    • If the Japanese are going to build their space elevator, we're going to need that diamond core to maximize the elevator's potential. Draw up and open source the plans for the earth-ring and the continental towers, so we can move back to the braincap project.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by zippthorne ( 748122 )

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(novel) [wikipedia.org]

      Mediocre idea: 100% liquid "atmosphere." Good from a structural point of view, but terrible from a biological point of view, since you're pretty much guaranteed to breath everyone's pee.

      On the whole, not nearly as good as Mars.

      • Mediocre idea: 100% liquid "atmosphere." Good from a structural point of view, but terrible from a biological point of view, since you're pretty much guaranteed to breath everyone's pee.

        Oh...you mean the way fish do, here on earth?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Landing a plane safely.

    • by jamesh ( 87723 )

      That's a tricky one. He died over a year ago which is plenty of time lapsed to be able to go around making up jokes, but on the other hand they only found his body a few days ago... in some peoples minds he only just 'died'.

      That being said... people were inventing new acronyms for NASA before the debris had reached the ground, so go right ahead :)

  • Fossett was funding the development of a winged submersible being

    A-hole! He deserved to die. Or maybe someone's comma key is busted.

  • The water based ETs (The Abyss), took him, to prevent him from proving to the world they exist.

  • I have heard from a firefighter friend that the plane has been found.
  • It's interesting how people generally see space as an unforgiving, hostile, and hard place to perform travel, far more so than the oceans. I guess it's further away, most of us will never experience it, so it holds more mystery.

    But it's really mind-numbing how much harder it is to handle the pressure of the ocean depths. The difference between our normal atmospheric pressure (1 atmosphere) and space (0 atmospheres) is tiny as compared to the Marianas Trench at 1000 atmospheres. A depth of only 10M in wat

    • by Teun ( 17872 )
      You are talking about absolute pressures, important factors when designing a craft.

      But just as important for the human body is the relative pressure, relative to our customary atmosphere.

      Mars has a typical pressure of only 6 mBar against our earth's 1000 mBar, that's just over half a percent!

      For a Martian our atmosphere is equivalent to 166 times their home pressure, a bit comparable with what high tech military submarines can withstand.

      The absolute emptiness of outer space can't even realistically be e

  • by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@gmail . c om> on Sunday October 05, 2008 @09:43AM (#25263743) Homepage

    Color me skeptical... Quoting from the summary;
     

    The intent was for the vehicle to be capable of travel to the very bottom of the ocean -- the Mariana Trench, more than 11,000 meters beneath the surface.

    The vehicle, as shown, wouldn't seem to be capable of more than a fraction of that - the pressure hull seems far, far too thin.
     
     

    It would have dramatically, dramatically opened the oceans for exploration. It would have been a game changer

    Um - how exactly? Globally we have plenty of capability to reach all but the deepest portion of the oceans, and beyond archeology, a little geology, and exploring a few famous wrecks... There hasn't been all that much demand.
     
    Quoting from the article:
     
     

    "In 1960, the U.S. Navy sent a bathyscaphe, the 'Trieste,' down to the bottom," said Karen Hawkes, Graham's wife. "That was essentially a big underwater balloon. No one has been back since. No one has a submersible capable of diving to 36,000 feet - except this one."

    Mostly because there isn't any real value in visiting the truly deep ocean - the view is not really all that impressive. Imagine being in a dry side canyon of the Grand Canyon on a cloudy night... with only a glo-stick for illumination. That's what it is like being down in the truly deep.
     
     

    "This is an ocean planet," Hawkes said. "The U.S. declared a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, which actually doubled the sovereign territory of the nation. It's like there's suddenly a whole continent full of unexplored territory, and it's ready for a Lewis and Clark expedition."

    I don't know where he's been... But the ocean bottoms have been in the process of intense exploration and mapping for several decades now.

    • In deep water submersibles the occupied portion is a sphere to best resist pressure. The rest of the craft is filled with water at ambient pressure. The drawing in the article shows this one to follow that pattern. Your first comment is refuted.

      The Trieste was a tethered bathyscape. It went down on a cable and back up again. No ability to survey an area. I'd like to survey deep trenches as possible nuclear waste sites. Put the stuff in wedge shapped containers and drop it into deep muck at the bottom

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JerryP ( 309597 )

        If you spend a couple of seconds to check the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], you'll find that the Triest was not tethered unlike earlier vessels. The principle used was the same that makes a balloon fly - fill a container with something that is lighter than the surrounding medium to produce lift. The balloon uses hot air or helium, the Trieste used gasoline.

        While I find the idea of exploring the abyssal regions of the oceans intriguing, I tend to agree with the GP poster in his opinion that the vessel pictured in TFA wou

        • Oh, btw - did anyone notice that Trieste's inventor was name Piccard? And that his grandson was part of the team that traveled around the world non-stop in a balloon? To boldly go where no man has gone before, indeed :-)

          And the son, being an adventurer himself, spent four weeks submerged drifting with the Gulf Stream [wikipedia.org]. The whole family [wikipedia.org] are decidedly overachievers.

      • In deep water submersibles the occupied portion is a sphere to best resist pressure. The rest of the craft is filled with water at ambient pressure. The drawing in the article shows this one to follow that pattern. Your first comment is refuted.

        My first comment was referring to the sphere at the front, jackass. Not to mention that just having a sphere isn't enough - it has to be exceedingly strong. There doesn't seem to be enough room up front for a sphere of sufficient thickness.

        The Tries

Disobedience: The silver lining to the cloud of servitude. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...