<a href=https://kra26c.cc>кракен онион</a>
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft and the seats inside them must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”
For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.
The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken вход
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash shot out of the sky.
And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.
Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.
Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.
His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”
Blue Origin formally announced the development of New Glenn which aims to outpower SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets and haul spacecraft up to 45 metric tons (99,200 pounds) to orbit in 2016.
<a href=https://kra26att.cc>kraken at</a>
The vehicle is long overdue, as the company previously targeted 2020 for its first launch.
Delays, however, are common in the aerospace industry. And the debut flight of a new vehicle is almost always significantly behind schedule.
Rocket companies also typically take a conservative approach to the first liftoff, launching dummy payloads such as hunks of metal or, as was the case with SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy debut in 2018, an old cherry red sports car.
https://kra26att.cc
kraken ссылка
Blue Origin has also branded itself as a company that aims to take a slow, diligent approach to rocket development that doesn’t “cut any corners,” according to Bezos, who founded Blue Origin and funds the company.
The company’s mascot is a tortoise, paying homage to “The Tortoise and the Hare” fable that made the “slow and steady wins the race” mantra a childhood staple.
“We believe slow is smooth and smooth is fast,” Bezos said in 2016. Those comments could be seen as an attempt to position Blue Origin as the anti-SpaceX, which is known to embrace speed and trial-and-error over slow, meticulous development processes.
But SpaceX has certainly won the race to orbit. The company’s first orbital rocket, the Falcon 1, made a successful launch in September 2008. The company has deployed hundreds of missions to orbit since then.
And while SpaceX routinely destroys rockets during test flights as it begins developing a new rocket, the company has a solid track record for operational missions. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, for example, has experienced two in-flight failures and one launchpad explosion but no catastrophic events during human missions.
<a href=https://kra26s.cc>kraken market</a>
Chile’s President Gabriel Boric travelled to Antarctica’s South Pole on Friday, a place where no other Latin American president has set foot, according to the Chilean government.
Boric led the historic two-day trip, named Operation Pole Star III, to extend the environmental monitoring of pollutants on Antarctica, Chile’s government said in a statement.
He travelled with scientists, armed forces commanders and government ministers from the Chilean capital of Santiago to Punta Arenas, a city in southern Chile, public broadcaster Television Nacional de Chile (TVN) reported. From there, they made several stops before finally reaching the US-run Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, according to TVN.
https://kra26s.cc
kraken
Chile is one of seven countries that has a territorial claim in Antarctica, alongside Argentina, Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom.
It is also a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, which dictates that the continent may only be used for peaceful and scientific purposes.
While Chile has historically carried out scientific activity in Antarctica’s northern sector, the country’s government is now hoping to expand research into the west of the continent, its statement said.
Boric called his trip to the South Pole an “honor” and a source of pride, TVN reported.
“This is a milestone for us. It is the first time a Chilean and Latin American President has visited the South Pole,” he said, according to TVN.
<a href=https://kraken4qzqnoi7ogpzpzwrxk7mw53n5i56loydwiyonu4owxsh4g7yd.com>kraken4qzqnoi7ogpzpzwrxk7mw53n5i56loydwiyonu4owxsh4g67yd onion</a>
clients in North America to step up spending on tech, following a similar upturn in its banking and financial services segment, a top executive of the nation's No. 1 software-services exporter, said.
kraken4qzqnoi7ogpzpzwrxk7mw53n5i56loydwiyonu4owxsh4g67yd onion
https://kraken4qzqnoi7ogpzpzwrxk7mw53n5i56loydwiyonu4owxsh4g67yd-onion.org
<a href=https://kra26c.cc>kraken официальный сайт</a>
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft and the seats inside them must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”
For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.
The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken зайти
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash shot out of the sky.
And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.
Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.
Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.
His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”
