You talking about Ground Control? Went there recently when I was visiting friends in Oregon.

Is the Portland place you're talking about called Ground Control?

There's also this...

http://www.pinballmuseum.org/

I went a few years back. It's really cool. It has a bunch of info about the history and unique tables. AND you can play all the games.

Ground Control to Major Frog

My gut is telling me this is going to be awful. We saw the best bit. The rest is going to be cloying flashbacks and weepy radio conversations with the family at ground control.

Clooney's character is going to sacrifice himself at the end so Bullock's character can get back to her kid (who probably has some disability or chronic illness).

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?


huh?

>> ^marbles:

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?


Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...

While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

>> ^ForgedReality:
Oh, yeah, sure, big words, PAL! I'd like to see YOU do that!
If I was crazy enough to go up in the shuttle, I would be easily crazy enough to do this. I'm not.


This is increadibly dangerous, but no where near as dangerous as the caption suggests. This is also the last time they did this, because somebody at ground control ran a risk/benefit analysis.

Anyone else see the space shuttle and feel depressed about our pathetic reliance on chemical propulsion?

I feel that way every time I get in my car.

@Doc_M

Makes sense for stuff like this and other near-Earth expeditions, but I wager NASA has a hell of a time with transmissions between ground control and deep space probes and whatnot. It's easy to take for granted the massive infrastructure we have here on terra firma and the thousands of satellites above us at any given second. The little Mars rovers don't have such luxuries, and they are over 36,000,000 miles away.

♫ This is ground control to Major Tom
Take your protein pills and put your helmet on
*nom nom* ♪

Ground control to Major Tom: Word up.

In reply to this comment by Majortomyorke:
>> ^poolcleaner:
I really hope they avoid all the trappings of CGI. Henson had it right all along, but people nowadays fail to understand we want the puppets -- at least I want the puppets. It worked in Labyrinth and The Never Ending Story and The Dark Crystal.


I've had this conversation with friends. I totally agree.

For some reason the "modify video details" link isn't present on discarded videos, I got in touch with Lucky to have him correct the embed.

Also, I'd like you to know I don't like calling out dupes, but I thought for sure I had submitted the Ghost in your genes vid a while back, and after digging through my discards found it.

I sincerely appreciate your response, and your offer for a promote.

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
ping from ground control

In reply to this comment by Majortomyorke:
Not sure if it matters, but this is a dupe of a discard (back when videos got discarded if they didn't get enough votes) http://www.videosift.com/video/Nova-The-Ghost-in-Your-Genes

ping from ground control

In reply to this comment by Majortomyorke:
Not sure if it matters, but this is a dupe of a discard (back when videos got discarded if they didn't get enough votes) http://www.videosift.com/video/Nova-The-Ghost-in-Your-Genes

This is ground control to Major Schmawy.... it's time to leave the capsule if you dare.

Mycroft,

"I am open to your ideas. In my heart I am a scientist, and with rigorous proof I will believe anything."

No, you're not, and you won't: you'll lay claim to anything that you think your superiors will approve of.

The "rigorous proof" that you pride yourself in, was given to you by the Bush administration. Why did they block so much of the investigation into 9/11?

I really don't give a shit what you think of me, but I think very little of you. I've gone around the rosy with this too many times.

I'm glad you pointed out Jeff King's discrepancies, and 9/11 people must be more careful of the people they associate with.

Two buildings were hit in NYC on 9/11 - three fell.

The Pentagon was hit by something that flew half-way across the country without any navigational assistance from ground-control, did a 280 degree turn as it decended thousands of feet, and slammed into the one wing of the building that was under construction.

And all they gave us as proof, after seizing every surveillance tape in the area, were a frew frames of a fuzzy "plane" and a fireball. Proof. Ha!

Que bono?

I've honestly come to despise my country, America, largely because of people like you.

Like the Texas A&M engineer who told me he thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks - the educated idiots and the idiotic conservatives have turned everything I once loved to shit.