Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Hardware

An 8,000 Ton Giant Made the Jet Age Possible 307

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the moar-power dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Tim Heffernan writes that when 'The Fifty,' as it's known in company circles, broke down three years ago, there was talk of retiring it for good. Instead, Alcoa decided to overhaul their 50,000-ton, 6-story high forging press, now scheduled to resume service early this year. 'What sets the Fifty apart is its extraordinary scale,' writes Heffernan. 'Its 14 major structural components, cast in ductile iron, weigh as much as 250 tons each; those yard-thick steel bolts are also 78 feet long; all told, the machine weighs 16 million pounds, and when activated its eight main hydraulic cylinders deliver up to 50,000 tons of compressive force.' The Fifty could bench-press the battleship Iowa, with 860 tons to spare, but it's the Fifty's amazing precision — its tolerances are measured in thousandths of an inch—that gives it such far-reaching utility. Every manned US military aircraft now flying uses parts forged by the Fifty, as does every commercial aircraft made by Airbus and Boeing making the Jet Age possible. 'On a plane, a pound of weight saved is a pound of thrust gained—or a pound of lift, or a pound of cargo,' writes Heffernan. 'Without the ultra-strong, ultra-light components that only forging can produce, they'd all be pushing much smaller envelopes.' The now-forgotten Heavy Press Program (PDF), inaugurated in 1950 and completed in 1957, resulted in four presses (including the Fifty) and six extruders — giant toothpaste tubes squeezing out long, complex metal structures such as wing ribs and missile bodies. 'Today, America lacks the ability to make anything like the Heavy Press Program machines,' concludes Heffernan, adding that 'The Fifty' will be supplying bulkheads through 2034 for the Joint Strike Fighter. 'Big machines are the product of big visions, and they make big visions real. How about a Heavy Fusion Program?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An 8,000 Ton Giant Made the Jet Age Possible

Comments Filter:
  • now technology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:25AM (#40003231)

    We see various technologies come and go, one hit wonders, ephemeral vapourware and promises of the next big thing.

    When I read this, it made the engineer in me happy to think some things last longer.

    • Re:now technology (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @12:13PM (#40006313)

      I've always loved the older technologies for their ability to just keep going. In fact, just a few days ago, I finished cleaning up an old 1950's Remington typewriter. It hasn't been touched in decades in my parents' damp, cold basement, was covered with more dust and grime than I thought was physically possible, but a lot of hours of cleaning later, and every key still works absolutely perfectly. Found a place online that still sells ribbons, so I've got it typing again. And odds are, unless it's dropped from something high up (and it even has a good chance of surviving that, since it's over 30 pounds of stainless steel), it'll probably last well until after I'm gone.

      The new technology may be awesome for what it can do, but the old technology is awesome for what it can survive and keep going through.

      Captcha: "keyboard". I don't think I've ever seen a more fitting captcha.

      • Re:now technology (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @12:45PM (#40006773)

        I've always loved the older technologies for their ability to just keep going. In fact, just a few days ago, I finished cleaning up an old 1950's Remington typewriter. It hasn't been touched in decades in my parents' damp, cold basement, was covered with more dust and grime than I thought was physically possible, but a lot of hours of cleaning later, and every key still works absolutely perfectly. Found a place online that still sells ribbons, so I've got it typing again. And odds are, unless it's dropped from something high up (and it even has a good chance of surviving that, since it's over 30 pounds of stainless steel), it'll probably last well until after I'm gone.

        The new technology may be awesome for what it can do, but the old technology is awesome for what it can survive and keep going through.

        Well, the old technology is like that because it's overdesigned to be like that. It survives because all the parts are stronger than they need to be (material science being what it was then, and quality variance between batches was probably a lot higher) because they had to - unlike modern manufacturing processes where we can get remarkably consistent raw materials due to smeltters carefully controlling the alloys. When your inputs are of varying quality, you compensate by overdesigning. And yes, it happens today in the semiconductor industry - it's remarkably hard to produce a consistent product so transistors and such are overdesigned to compensate (we can spec chips to run slower, we avoid use of passive components (it's difficult to get resistors/capacitors to come out with less than a 20% tolerance in silicon - there are many "equivalent" circuits done using transistors which are easier to match), etc.

        Plus, we also have survivor bias - the "old stuff" survives because we threw out the crap that failed long ago. Heck, your typewriter may be a victim of that - it's just you got one of the few good ones. When things were cranked out by the thousands, it happens.

  • Sometimes (Score:2, Redundant)

    Bigger is better

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kell Bengal (711123) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:26AM (#40003241)
    That's something completely fascinating that I never knew before! It's days like this that remind me what it was like to be young - when everything was new and exciting. Thanks, internet!
  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardpriceNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:30AM (#40003249)

    There are Airbus and Boeing planes built using parts made by the lower capacity presses used while this one was unserviceable or down for maintenance...

    • Ahh the FA extends the comment made out to all presses in the Heavy Press Program - the summary is wrong.

    • by HighOrbit (631451) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @12:19PM (#40006379)

      Maybe... remember that Boeing only delievers between 300-500 craft per year with order lead times of several years. I suspect that Airbus is similiar. With that much lead time and low numbers, its possible they forged those specific parts ahead and Boeing/Airbus held them in inventory. In fact, that would make sense given the tooling and setup on a machine like this, because it would be cheaper to do a large production run of a certain quantity than to forge each item 'just in time' and have to re-tool for each peice or seperate run. So, its very possible, and I would think likely, that every one really does use parts produced on this machine.

  • by EasyTarget (43516) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:33AM (#40003257) Journal

    Modern planes, and other transport/engineering structures, are moving to composites. Which are layered, printed, sometimes pressure baked and squeezed into form. But no longer forged on this scale.

    While these machines are awesome, I've wandered along a car body stamping line and watched plates go from a flat sheet to a car door in 100meters, they are becoming less necessary to us. They will still be needed, of course, for some jobs where only such a monster can help, but I think the US should look on these as potential future museum pieces, with nostalgia for a bygone age of megaengineering, rather than a source of future industrial dominance.

    • by guises (2423402) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @06:46AM (#40003445)
      I know very little about metal working, but it seems to me that when you have the capability to do something unique it would be foolish to give up that ability. Even if a new process comes along that is faster and cheaper for most purposes.
      • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @10:15AM (#40004987) Homepage Journal
        The "ability is lost" when the last plant capable of doing it shuts down. The knowledge isn't lost (we hope), but for various reasons (typically it was being done cheaper overseas) the actual facilities will close. If we had to, we could rebuild/reopen the plants here, but it would take a few years and the investors would want some sort of guarantee that the same economic forces that caused the previous plants to close won't apply to the new plant.

        We are seeing this today with the rare earth mining industry, where all of the US mines shut down because China was exporting government subsidized minerals for peanuts. Then, when they got a monopoly on the rare earth market, they suddenly shot the prices up and started raking in the cash. Now the US company is reopening their plant because the economic conditions are favorable and because worldwide demand is growing enough that it will be difficult for China to flood the market again. People were biting their nails over the US "losing the ability to make a strategic resource", but the ability wasn't lost, just on hold while they waited for the economics to turn around.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @11:48AM (#40006015)

          The knowledge isn't lost (we hope)

          There is TONS of knowledge in industrial processes that only people who work on it every day really know. I've done some work in software for Steel manufacturing, and I tell you first hand, that many of the "Recipes" are over 50 years old and scribbled in the notebooks of the people who run the mills. These "Recipes" vary for each press/line and if the specifications are not followed exactly, it's the difference between good steel and shit. The "theory" is well documented in texts on metallurgy etc, but, the actual practice, where the rubber meets the road, not so much. When these types of plants shutdown and the people who have been doing it for years retire without passing on that knowledge and experience, it is LOST. In order to get it going again will take many years for people who have learned the theory to actually work out all the kinks in practice.

      • by mhajicek (1582795) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @10:50AM (#40005309)
        As a machinist and CNC programmer I do know a fair bit about metalworking, and I think you have a good point. Even if composites are better for aircraft, perhaps forgings will be needed for other purposes such as spacecraft. Available and affordable composites may not function desirably in the thermal extremes of space.
    • While in many applications it may be possible to replace metal with composites, there are always going to be corner cases. It wouldn't be too big a deal to lose one of these 50-kt machines, but losing the capability worldwide is another matter.

      I'm reminded of a story a while back [slashdot.org] about there being only one company worldwide that can cast nuclear reactor vessels.

      • Actually, I remember reading something in NewScientist [newscientist.com] (??) about global consolidation, where all the (specialized) nuts and bolts in the world are made by just one or two factories, and there are no redundancies in a lot of sectors anymore because it is cheaper to consolidate specialized manufacturing into one location.

        I just hope those locations are disaster proof.
        • by TheLink (130905) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @02:16PM (#40007853) Journal
          Even if the locations are disaster proof, if you stop being able to ship stuff easily for whatever reason, you stop being able to make stuff. And the ability to ship stuff easily from country to country depends on a lot of things "working OK".

          Our civilization is actually very fragile and becoming more so. Lots of specialization and interdependence.

          I hope more people (including our leaders) realize this and don't do anything stupid.

          It's like the human body, you blow away both kidneys or a liver it ain't gonna work that well anymore.

          Whereas you could hack a branch off a tree and it usually doesn't matter that much to the tree's survival, you could even stick the branch in the ground and there's a chance it might become another tree (the chance increases if you do it right).

          And when you go to fungi or bacteria, it matters even less.
    • by icebrain (944107) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @06:58AM (#40003493)

      Composites aren't going to replace everything. Landing gear and landing gear mounts, engine mounts, critical bulkheads, etc. will still be made of forged metal for a long, long time. Even with additive manufacturing techniques, forging will still be necessary because the forging process itself is what puts the strength in the parts.

      • by dpilot (134227) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @08:54AM (#40004179) Homepage Journal

        This is what I've been wondering about with 3D printing... From what I've seen, current additive 3D printing has been with plastic, though I'll admit that my knowledge is sketchy.

        Seems to me that it would be a simple matter to use 3D printing to build a model for traditional metal casting methods. But as mentioned, none of that gives you the strength of forged metal. So is there a way to combine 3D printing with casting and some sort of "generic" forging process?

        • by weiserfireman (917228) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @10:29AM (#40005119) Homepage

          There are laser-sintering machines that can "print" parts out of powdered metals. Titanium, Aluminum, Bronze can all be used in these machines. While most 3d printers use low temp plastics, like ABS, there is one sintering machine in the Midwest that uses PEEK plastic.

          Laser-Sintering machines start at about $500k now. Significantly cheaper than they were 10 years ago

          • Researchers are investigating the use of metal printing presses to produce stronger and lighter parts that are currently being forged. Metal printing techniques allow hollow parts to be made much easier than other techniques. Therefore, the nerds want to make strong metal parts that are lighter and stronger due to tight control of the metal particles and hollow. I hope they succeed.

        • by mhajicek (1582795)
          In general 3D printing techniques result in lower strength parts, however it seems that laser sintered Titanium alloy parts are comparable in strength to parts made by other means. http://www.onlineamd.com/amd-0310-laser-sintered-titanium-eos-shellabear.aspx [onlineamd.com] Work hardening the surface of the part can be accomplished by shot peening or laser peening instead of by forging.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Fnord666 (889225)

          Seems to me that it would be a simple matter to use 3D printing to build a model for traditional metal casting methods. But as mentioned, none of that gives you the strength of forged metal. So is there a way to combine 3D printing with casting and some sort of "generic" forging process?

          3D printing is compatible with both casting and forging. 3D printing is a good way to make the initial master model for a casting mold. It can also be used to create the model from which the forging dies will be created.

          As far as 3D printing replacing forging, that's a different story. The forging process itself affects the material being forged, essentially aligning the "grains" of the metal along the contours of the piece. This is what gives forged parts increased strength. At this point I don't bel

      • Don't forget engine components first and foremost.

    • by Grayhand (2610049) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @07:12AM (#40003585)
      Apples and oranges. This type of forge isn't used for basic structure but high strength parts. While some parts can be redesigned for composites the materials aren't interchangeable. The only other process like it is using explosives to create exotic alloys but that process only is practical on a small scale. It reminds me of old battleships. People don't realize that some processes can't be duplicated today. Working with large scale multi-ton parts is old technology and tough to replicate. Another example is high performance submarine propellers. The US has the only mill in the world that can produce the propellers used in high speed silent running. Composites aren't a magic product that replaces everything that came before it. If they were then why isn't anyone making engine blocks out of them? They have their uses but they have their limits as well.
    • by damburger (981828)

      I'm sorry, but I can't see any evidence that what these machines can do can be replicated by additive processes.

      Yes, additive manufacture is great, but it isn't a universal construction technique. Don't forget please, that the last country that thought you could just dump heavy industry and replace it with small scale operations didn't do very well. [wikipedia.org]

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      They will still be needed, of course, for some jobs where only such a monster can help,

      Yeah, like TFS (seems to) suggest:

      'Big machines are the product of big visions, and they make big visions real. How about a Heavy Fusion Program?'"

      I just wonder if 50,000 tons would be enough, though.

      (ducks)

      • by ultranova (717540)

        'Big machines are the product of big visions, and they make big visions real. How about a Heavy Fusion Program?'"

        I just wonder if 50,000 tons would be enough, though.

        No, it's short about 1.4*10^26 tons.

    • by tgd (2822) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @08:33AM (#40004017)

      Modern planes, and other transport/engineering structures, are moving to composites. Which are layered, printed, sometimes pressure baked and squeezed into form. But no longer forged on this scale.

      While these machines are awesome, I've wandered along a car body stamping line and watched plates go from a flat sheet to a car door in 100meters, they are becoming less necessary to us. They will still be needed, of course, for some jobs where only such a monster can help, but I think the US should look on these as potential future museum pieces, with nostalgia for a bygone age of megaengineering, rather than a source of future industrial dominance.

      Even a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry would help you understand how you're wrong. There are fundamental differences at the atomic level between things that are cast, forged, and "printed" in the manner that modern metal-based 3D printing works. The Venn diagram of things forged metal is good for and composites are good for has some overlap, but not a lot.

      Thankfully, the engineers who are actually building things know the difference.

      • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @08:58AM (#40004215)
        I think you mean "at the molecular or crystallographic level". Certainly where steels are concerned, the difference between forging and casting has a lot to do with grain structure as well as the pearlite/ferrite mix, and it is these that determine ductility, modulus, ultimate yield and so on. Chemistry has very little to do with it, a rudimentary knowledge nothing at all; irons of the same chemical composition can have very different properties indeed based entirely on the production processes applied to them. This is why welding by the uninstructed can be so dangerous: random heat treatment of steels (and aluminum alloys too) can have drastic effects on their behaviour.
        • However, the grain structure is heavily influenced by the chemical composition of the steel. Think of microalloyed steels, where as little as 0,05% of grain refinement or precipitation hardening agents like e.g. Nb or Va have a huge effect on the steel's properties.
          • I was commenting on the GPs misleading use of terms. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry (see his post) would not be able to understand why tiny amounts of additives can have such large effects. Surface effects and the use of different atomic species as dislocation stoppers are neither basic chemistry nor much of a help to understanding why all of forging, casting and powder/composite metallurgy behave as they do.
      • Even a rudimentary knowledge of material science would help you understand how you're wrong.
        .

        According to Chemistry, a forged and a non-forged part are identical.

        -- a chem. eng.

    • by Svartalf (2997)

      Depends on the material. We won't be printing parts that could be made with this press forge anytime soon. Right now, you can fabricate some plastic and some light metal parts. The plastic might be reasonably sturdy, but the sintered metal parts aren't the same class as stuff that's made from this press. Until you actually have molecular assemblers...you're not having "printing" removing this stuff. To say it will right now is folly.

  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:34AM (#40003261)

    This thing is neat and maybe that's the best way to do things. But I thought Boeing was talking about additive manufacturing. I know they have ways of making titanium parts using additive manufacturing. I don't know if they're as strong as forged parts. But once that's cracked this forging process should become obsolete in aerospace. After all, why use solid pieces when you can have pieces articulated down to the level of bone. Fine latices of metal interwoven to build parts that have strength to weight ratios similar to what we see in nature. Sure, metal is stronger then bone. But bone is made out of relatively weak materials. If you build something with the same structure out of metal you could get something very strong and very light.

    Still, very neat machine. I wonder if the Chinese have such a thing and it sounded like the Germans might?

    It would be interesting to know if these machines are critical to a heavy industry economy.

    • by Dupple (1016592) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:38AM (#40003273)

      The Chinese have started building an 80,000 ton forge press

      http://aciers.free.fr/index.php/2012/02/02/china-has-started-the-building-of-an-80000-ton-press-forge-us/ [aciers.free.fr]

    • A comment from the article mentioned this link [aciers.free.fr] about a new Chinese forge that is even bigger.

    • by azalin (67640)
      So does Japan. For an overview http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf122_heavy_manufacturing_of_power_plants.html [world-nuclear.org] (scroll down a page to see the table)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Sintered powder metal parts are not only not as strong as forged parts but their failure mode is to snap suddenly instead of bending. In car-land we saw this happen to the 7.3 liter powerstroke in 2001, where Ford went from the forged rods used in the pre-powerstroke International-Navistar 7.3 IDI turbo motor to a new powder metal rod chosen for lower cost. Not only is it not forged (cheaper) but instead of machining caps they are simply cracked off and then they get a cleanup pass, maybe. Unfortunately, th

      • by jkflying (2190798) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @07:02AM (#40003513)

        The laser Ti benificiation is the strongest additive manufacturing process available at the moment, and even it is very brittle because of the thermal stresses formed when it is produced. These are because as the laser melts the particles they are much hotter than the parts it is bonded with, and as they cool they shrink causing lots of stresses all throughout the material. That said, being able to make a ball inside of a socket during the manufacturing process is quite useful sometimes... not to speak of woven Ti mesh for grafts and such.

      • Boeing was talking about using it to make airframe parts.

        They described a similar problem in that the metal is at different temperatures during the creation. They said they managed that by somehow controlling that temperature throughout to certain tolerances.

        Maybe they exaggerated. But they seemed to imply they had it.

      • My understanding was that sintered powder forged metal rods with cracked end-caps were stronger than their standard counterparts. Ford's been using them in gasoline applications since... 1993? Whenever they introduced the 4.6 modular engine in the Mark VIII. They used them because they could make an equal-strength, lighter, less-expensive part, which sounds like a win to me. Of course, I'm not an engineer, so maybe I've been sold a bill of goods.

        The only good article I could find was this [findarticles.com], but I'm guess

        • It all depends (Score:5, Informative)

          by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @09:11AM (#40004321)
          drinkypoos comment above is nonsense. There are many, many different sintered powder metal composites and their characteristics depend on the ingredients and their treatment, ranging from things like the common cobalt infused tungsten carbide used in cutting tools to low temperature sintered bearings which were available during WW2.

          The author of this paper is obviously biased MPIF 2005 paper [mpif.org] but it shows how active research is in this field, with the forging companies and powder metal companies constantly overtaking one another. The paper referenced actually demonstrates the superior fatigue strength of the powder technology used.

          Forging involves the distortion of the metal grains, and as such there are always treatment issues with locked-in strain and the effects of any inclusions in the metal. Powder metallurgy has different problems. Neither is a perfect process. But the people who up-moderated drinkypoos comment certainly weren't metallurgists.

  • I find it's (Score:2, Funny)

    by JustOK (667959)

    I find it's really depressing

  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @06:51AM (#40003473) Journal

    This is another score for the government and a blow to the idea that provate industry always does everything best.

    Some things are simply too expensivre and farsighted for private industry to invest. That's why a decent sized government is needed, to invest massive sums of money in things like this giant press. It has paid back massively.

    • by damburger (981828) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @07:14AM (#40003593)

      Well, yes, this is something that government clearly does best. Big, chunky investments whose returns are nebulous and decades after the initial outlay.

      I don't mind that much that private enterprise then builds on government work afterwards, but what pisses me right off is when private companies then decide they owe nothing to the society that hosts them, avoid taxes, and campaign for reductions in the ones they do pay.

      This, of course, has the advantage for established private enterprise of kicking away the ladder of government R&D and infrastructure investment so no pesky competitors can get the same leg up.

    • by sunderland56 (621843) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @07:40AM (#40003695)

      This is another score for the government and a blow to the idea that provate industry always does everything best.

      There is an entire political party that disagrees with you.

    • by ModelX (182441)

      Well in this particular case it was the Nazi government that was farsighted. The allies found giant presses when they occupied Germany at the end of WW2. So Germans had such presses running during WW2, and USA started heavy press program in 1950.

      • In fairness, the US government was also farsighted. It saw them and decided that they had so much potential that they funded construction of their own ones.

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @07:09AM (#40003569)

    "The Fifty will soon be supplying bulkheads for the Joint Strike Fighter"

    I'm not a big fan of dumping more money into the military when our science budgets are so thin.

  • by damburger (981828) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @07:22AM (#40003639)

    The UK company is mentioned as being build up with cheap government loans, which is a half truth.

    Yes, they are getting cheap loans, but only begrudgingly and only after the government had canceled a much larger loan, aimed at letting them produce "ultra large" forgings that few other places in the world can manage, mostly for the nuclear industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Forgemasters#2010_expansion [wikipedia.org]

    But of course, we have to spend billions turning London into a bland commercial fortress for the Olympics. This is not that surprising; money that is meant to be spend on a national level has a nasty habit of being spent within a few miles of London.

    But hey, I'm sure the Coalition know what they are doing. I'm sure putting missile launchers of peoples roofs and forbidding British beer brewers from selling stuff in many of the capitals pubs is a far more sensible economic investment than developing world class forging capabilities.

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      and forbidding British beer brewers from selling stuff in many of the capitals pubs...

      Huh?!! Really?
      (please provide a link; if credible, one less ticket to London's Olympiad, thanks)

  • by Troyusrex (2446430) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @08:24AM (#40003959)
    The 400 yard long wrench needed to tighten the 10 foot wide bolts was lost when someone (I think we all know who...) used it and never put it back.
  • Once again we have government spending being instrumental to helping the capitalist free market. Add this to the internet and the highway system as government funded projects that are crucial to technological advancement.
    • by LDAPMAN (930041)

      Rands philosophy does not prohibit government service, spending or initiatives. Where she differed from conventional thinking is in how the government should be financed. She believed that contributions to the government should be voluntary.

      • by Fwipp (1473271)

        Right, because the rich are all about giving back to the society that enabled their success.
        "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes." -the presumptive Republican nominee.

  • by jones_supa (887896) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @08:43AM (#40004081)
    Have you noticed how this Hugh Pickens guy never ceases to post these long, well-written articles. :) Maybe some newspaper hires him, too.
  • TFA says:

    'Today, America lacks the ability to make anything like the Heavy Press Program machines,' concludes Heffernan adding that 'The Fifty' will be supplying bulkheads through 2034 for the Joint Strike Fighter.

    What sort of defenses surround this Atlantean artifact?

  • by sunking2 (521698) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @11:24AM (#40005705)
    struggle to keep our 50+ year old machines running China has at least two 65k+ ton forging presses.

"Life is a garment we continuously alter, but which never seems to fit." -- David McCord

Working...