Monday, October 22, 2007
NASA Secrets and Air Traffic Controllers.
Just days after my last post on aviation maintenance, a couple of stories come out, albeit buried on back pages, about other points of interest in aviation safety.
The first involves a study done by NASA. It seems they don't want the general public to see what some might think is damning evidence regarding the safety of the flying public, for fear it might have a deleterious effect on the already struggling airlines of this nation, some of which are still in bankruptcy. The study, (Read the article for details.) involving telephone interviews of pilots, started in 2001 and continued until actual interviews ended in 2005. It was shut completely down about a year ago. Recently, the company doing the research was ordered to purge all files pertaining to the study from company computers lest any of it be leaked to the press.
Now, you should understand that simply releasing raw data from studies like this is a bad idea. Unless it's compiled, correlated, and put into proper context, it doesn't mean anything to anybody except statisticians. As one wag put it, "Figures never lie, but liars figure." And people who have agendas to promote could use the raw data to promote false and misleading conclusions.
Yet, I have to believe that 2 years is plenty of time to come up with a set of preliminary findings. Thus, I'm steered toward the belief that people within NASA (And in conjunction with the FAA.) didn't like what they saw in this report, and are afraid of its affects on the airline's bottom lines. I find this somewhat surprising and vary disappointing, in light of the fact that of all government agencies, NASA has the most open to the public regarding most of their operations and policies.
The second item involves a subject I posted on back in January of this year. You can read that post here.
In it, I mentioned several studies, including a GAO study from 2002 that stated some numbers on the hiring of controllers. The post included a link to a hiring freeze memo from the FAA. I also mentioned that although the GAO study was from 2002, the numbers were still pertinent.
Well, I'm here to officially state that I was wrong. The numbers weren't good.
I'm sorry to say, that according to this AP report, things are worse.
Once again, the FAA has been caught with their pants down regarding the staffing level of this nation's control centers. It's been this way since the Gipper put the entire membership of PATCO on the Reagan Early Departure Program back in 1981. Ever since that move, the FAA has critically, and consistently understaffed control centers, in an effort to make do with less, regardless of the effect on public safety. They've done the cost benefit analysis, and made the decision that money is more important than the possible loss of lives.
It seems the FAA "underestimated" the number of traffic controllers who are choosing retirement. I mentioned in the previous post that the controller's union was in the middle of protracted talks trying to iron out a new contract regarding pay and work rules. In September, the FAA, ended those talks and imposed arbitrary work rules and 30% pay cuts, amongst other changes. Now, they've found themselves in the midst of a mass retirement of seasoned controllers (The ones you WANT in those centers, I might add.) as most are opting for early retirement, rather than work six days a week with forced overtime.
The FAA of course, has no clothes on, and is not looking in the mirror. They're insisting that the centers "are staffed, and staffed well." But, amongst their numbers in the controller count are trainees and interns, most of which wouldn't be able to work all positions at most centers. Some of the trainees can't even work without a trainer's supervision. And they're also not saying is that there are always a number of washouts, people who get to a certain point before it's determined that he/she simply can't get the job done.
As long as I'm talking about training, this situation begs the question: Is this situation going to lead the FAA to take shortcuts in training and certification in the name of "efficiency?"
What to do? Well, I had some advice at the end of my previous post, and I still consider it viable.
Edit: Well, that didn't take long. The shit has officially hit the fan. I went back, and reread the story, which has been amended since I first posted this entry. After the AP broke this story, the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, has officially backpedaled, and said that "NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," He said the agency's research and data "should be widely available and subject to review and scrutiny." Ya THINK?!?!?!?
The part of the AP report that got my attention is this: "But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits."
Well, I have news for NASA. Air travelers are plenty pissed off already. Anything on this report isn't going to hurt airline profits anymore than the status quo already has. If a person wants to get to the East coast from the West coast, he can fly, drive take the bus, or train. It's the short hoppers airlines are losing. They've lost this writer.
The first involves a study done by NASA. It seems they don't want the general public to see what some might think is damning evidence regarding the safety of the flying public, for fear it might have a deleterious effect on the already struggling airlines of this nation, some of which are still in bankruptcy. The study, (Read the article for details.) involving telephone interviews of pilots, started in 2001 and continued until actual interviews ended in 2005. It was shut completely down about a year ago. Recently, the company doing the research was ordered to purge all files pertaining to the study from company computers lest any of it be leaked to the press.
Now, you should understand that simply releasing raw data from studies like this is a bad idea. Unless it's compiled, correlated, and put into proper context, it doesn't mean anything to anybody except statisticians. As one wag put it, "Figures never lie, but liars figure." And people who have agendas to promote could use the raw data to promote false and misleading conclusions.
Yet, I have to believe that 2 years is plenty of time to come up with a set of preliminary findings. Thus, I'm steered toward the belief that people within NASA (And in conjunction with the FAA.) didn't like what they saw in this report, and are afraid of its affects on the airline's bottom lines. I find this somewhat surprising and vary disappointing, in light of the fact that of all government agencies, NASA has the most open to the public regarding most of their operations and policies.
The second item involves a subject I posted on back in January of this year. You can read that post here.
In it, I mentioned several studies, including a GAO study from 2002 that stated some numbers on the hiring of controllers. The post included a link to a hiring freeze memo from the FAA. I also mentioned that although the GAO study was from 2002, the numbers were still pertinent.
Well, I'm here to officially state that I was wrong. The numbers weren't good.
I'm sorry to say, that according to this AP report, things are worse.
Once again, the FAA has been caught with their pants down regarding the staffing level of this nation's control centers. It's been this way since the Gipper put the entire membership of PATCO on the Reagan Early Departure Program back in 1981. Ever since that move, the FAA has critically, and consistently understaffed control centers, in an effort to make do with less, regardless of the effect on public safety. They've done the cost benefit analysis, and made the decision that money is more important than the possible loss of lives.
It seems the FAA "underestimated" the number of traffic controllers who are choosing retirement. I mentioned in the previous post that the controller's union was in the middle of protracted talks trying to iron out a new contract regarding pay and work rules. In September, the FAA, ended those talks and imposed arbitrary work rules and 30% pay cuts, amongst other changes. Now, they've found themselves in the midst of a mass retirement of seasoned controllers (The ones you WANT in those centers, I might add.) as most are opting for early retirement, rather than work six days a week with forced overtime.
The FAA of course, has no clothes on, and is not looking in the mirror. They're insisting that the centers "are staffed, and staffed well." But, amongst their numbers in the controller count are trainees and interns, most of which wouldn't be able to work all positions at most centers. Some of the trainees can't even work without a trainer's supervision. And they're also not saying is that there are always a number of washouts, people who get to a certain point before it's determined that he/she simply can't get the job done.
As long as I'm talking about training, this situation begs the question: Is this situation going to lead the FAA to take shortcuts in training and certification in the name of "efficiency?"
What to do? Well, I had some advice at the end of my previous post, and I still consider it viable.
Edit: Well, that didn't take long. The shit has officially hit the fan. I went back, and reread the story, which has been amended since I first posted this entry. After the AP broke this story, the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, has officially backpedaled, and said that "NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," He said the agency's research and data "should be widely available and subject to review and scrutiny." Ya THINK?!?!?!?
The part of the AP report that got my attention is this: "But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits."
Well, I have news for NASA. Air travelers are plenty pissed off already. Anything on this report isn't going to hurt airline profits anymore than the status quo already has. If a person wants to get to the East coast from the West coast, he can fly, drive take the bus, or train. It's the short hoppers airlines are losing. They've lost this writer.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Airline Maintenance?? Why should YOU care??
On Aug 19, 2005, the mechanics at Northwest Orient went on strike. They didn't go out so much for pay increases. They did it more for job security. The Airline wanted big concessions from the union on the amount of work they outsource to foreign maintenance shops. The outsourcing would result in the loss of thousands of jobs. Northwest was well prepared, having hired a number of "replacement" mechanics, many of whom were former Northwest employees who had been previously laid off. This meant the strike was doomed from the beginning, as neither the pilot's nor flight attendants unions honored the picket lines.
Now, much of their heavy maintenance, engine replacement and repair, airframe repair and electronic and hydraulic work is outsourced. A lot of that work is done at overseas shops, where the mechanics do the work for cents on the dollar. Mostly light maintenance is done in house these days.
I don't know about you, but when I fly on an airliner, I want to know it's been worked on by the best mechanics this country had to offer. Yes, this country. Why?
1. Maintenance shops in this country employ mechanics who possess A & P (Airframe and Power plant) licenses, after extensive training and passing a strict test conducted by the FAA.
2. These shops are subject to surprise unannounced inspections of facilities and procedures by the FAA and DOT.
3. Their employees are subject to unannounced DOT drug and alcohol screening, and back ground security checks.
Now there's a dirty little secret the airlines, TSA and the FAA would rather you didn't know. None of the above happens at many overseas maintenance bases routinely used by many American flagship carriers. In some cases, the work is done by unlicensed and minimally trained mechanics (Who've undergone NO back ground security checks.) "under supervision" by licensed mechanics, and their work is only occasionally inspected by US government inspectors. The airlines are allowed to do their own policing for the most part. But because the airlines are all in a mighty struggle to cut costs any way they can to maintain lower airfares, I believe this truly is a case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. In some cases, the overseas shops that ARE "inspected" by US officials then turn around and re-outsource the work to shops that our federal inspectors have never seen. Plus, to add insult to injury, the inspections that DO occur are almost always known about in advance, due to restrictions on any US personnel by nations like China and India.
There's another angle about this, besides worker competence, and that angle is security. Currently, there are close to 700 bases overseas that perform maintenance on U.S. flag carrier aircraft. That's just under 700 bases that the FAA does not have direct and immediate access to like they do in this nation. Now foreign bases that are directly within airport boundaries are probably secure enough, but some of the shops are located in industrial areas that are less secure. On October 16, Edmund "Kip" Hawley of TSA and Cathleen A. Berrick of the GAO both testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on the TSA's efforts to date. After opening statements, they were questioned about the TSA's failure to write any meaningful regulations regarding overseas repair shops. In both Hawley's and Berrick's opening statements, unless I've missed something, their silence on the issue was stunning. Here's a podcast of the questioning by the senators. They were indeed grilled about the fact that in 2001, TSA was directed by congress to write, implement and have in place by 2004 a complete set of regulations, rules and procedures to protect American aircraft at these bases. This included back ground checks for foreign mechanics and workers. They were also directed to commence investigations and inspections of these bases. It was noted by a questioner that to date, in the year 2007, absolutely NOTHING has happened in this regard. (Approx 50 minutes into the podcast.) The answer? Hawley: "I wasn't here then, and we're working on it."
I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable getting on many American airliners any more. I never thought I'd hear myself say that, as I once considered the American aviation system one of the best in the world. I have a good friend who was one of the mechanics at Northwest. He worked there for 27 years, before being joining his co-workers on the picket line. I asked him the other day if he would get on a Northwest plane. He looked me right in the eye and said "No way in hell." Now, aircraft mechanics aren't exactly grease monkeys. They're highly trained technical personnel, and by Federal law, personally sign off on all repairs they've completed, or inspected. They also must report any safety issues or repairs they're not satisfied with. There are aircraft flying around to this day with his A & P number on it, that he's still responsible for. That's why, at least in this country, they get the big bucks. Your safety in the air is their personal and professional responsibility. A responsibility they do not take lightly. So when my friend makes a statement like that, I've got to take notice.
There are alternatives. To their credit, American Airlines bucked industry and trends have radically reduced the used of outsourcing, doing over 80% of their own maintenance in-house. I'd be more willing to get on one of their aircraft then anyone else's. Also, there's Amtrak. It's not as fast and in some cases the routes aren't convenient. But it's more relaxing, and you get to see spectacular scenery. And, there's the good old American auto and the freeway system. Traveling overseas is a problem, and I don't have a good solution for that one.
Happy trails!
Now, much of their heavy maintenance, engine replacement and repair, airframe repair and electronic and hydraulic work is outsourced. A lot of that work is done at overseas shops, where the mechanics do the work for cents on the dollar. Mostly light maintenance is done in house these days.
I don't know about you, but when I fly on an airliner, I want to know it's been worked on by the best mechanics this country had to offer. Yes, this country. Why?
1. Maintenance shops in this country employ mechanics who possess A & P (Airframe and Power plant) licenses, after extensive training and passing a strict test conducted by the FAA.
2. These shops are subject to surprise unannounced inspections of facilities and procedures by the FAA and DOT.
3. Their employees are subject to unannounced DOT drug and alcohol screening, and back ground security checks.
Now there's a dirty little secret the airlines, TSA and the FAA would rather you didn't know. None of the above happens at many overseas maintenance bases routinely used by many American flagship carriers. In some cases, the work is done by unlicensed and minimally trained mechanics (Who've undergone NO back ground security checks.) "under supervision" by licensed mechanics, and their work is only occasionally inspected by US government inspectors. The airlines are allowed to do their own policing for the most part. But because the airlines are all in a mighty struggle to cut costs any way they can to maintain lower airfares, I believe this truly is a case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. In some cases, the overseas shops that ARE "inspected" by US officials then turn around and re-outsource the work to shops that our federal inspectors have never seen. Plus, to add insult to injury, the inspections that DO occur are almost always known about in advance, due to restrictions on any US personnel by nations like China and India.
There's another angle about this, besides worker competence, and that angle is security. Currently, there are close to 700 bases overseas that perform maintenance on U.S. flag carrier aircraft. That's just under 700 bases that the FAA does not have direct and immediate access to like they do in this nation. Now foreign bases that are directly within airport boundaries are probably secure enough, but some of the shops are located in industrial areas that are less secure. On October 16, Edmund "Kip" Hawley of TSA and Cathleen A. Berrick of the GAO both testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on the TSA's efforts to date. After opening statements, they were questioned about the TSA's failure to write any meaningful regulations regarding overseas repair shops. In both Hawley's and Berrick's opening statements, unless I've missed something, their silence on the issue was stunning. Here's a podcast of the questioning by the senators. They were indeed grilled about the fact that in 2001, TSA was directed by congress to write, implement and have in place by 2004 a complete set of regulations, rules and procedures to protect American aircraft at these bases. This included back ground checks for foreign mechanics and workers. They were also directed to commence investigations and inspections of these bases. It was noted by a questioner that to date, in the year 2007, absolutely NOTHING has happened in this regard. (Approx 50 minutes into the podcast.) The answer? Hawley: "I wasn't here then, and we're working on it."
I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable getting on many American airliners any more. I never thought I'd hear myself say that, as I once considered the American aviation system one of the best in the world. I have a good friend who was one of the mechanics at Northwest. He worked there for 27 years, before being joining his co-workers on the picket line. I asked him the other day if he would get on a Northwest plane. He looked me right in the eye and said "No way in hell." Now, aircraft mechanics aren't exactly grease monkeys. They're highly trained technical personnel, and by Federal law, personally sign off on all repairs they've completed, or inspected. They also must report any safety issues or repairs they're not satisfied with. There are aircraft flying around to this day with his A & P number on it, that he's still responsible for. That's why, at least in this country, they get the big bucks. Your safety in the air is their personal and professional responsibility. A responsibility they do not take lightly. So when my friend makes a statement like that, I've got to take notice.
There are alternatives. To their credit, American Airlines bucked industry and trends have radically reduced the used of outsourcing, doing over 80% of their own maintenance in-house. I'd be more willing to get on one of their aircraft then anyone else's. Also, there's Amtrak. It's not as fast and in some cases the routes aren't convenient. But it's more relaxing, and you get to see spectacular scenery. And, there's the good old American auto and the freeway system. Traveling overseas is a problem, and I don't have a good solution for that one.
Happy trails!
Monday, October 08, 2007
Are We Willing To Pay For This Idiocy???
In a previous post, I lamented the fact that to the average American, "Supporting The Troops" mainly consists of buying a $2 magnetic sticker for their car's butt. And that's it. That's the average American's current contribution to this war. That's because vast majority of the bill for this war is being shifted so my future grandkids can pay for this folly, long after many of us are dead and forgotten. (You're welcome, kiddos! Don't say ole Gramps never did nuttin' for ya!!)
That could change. There's an amendment to the war appropriations bill that seeks to deepen the average American's personal involvement in this misguided stupidity. It's being proposed by the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep David Obey. He proposes a sliding scale "war tax" that would range from 2% for the lowest tier wage earners to 15% for the highest tax brackets.
I see this as a put up or shut up move by the people who are sponsoring this bill. (Co-sponsors are Reps Jim McGovern, D-Mass and John Murtha, D-Pa) So while shrub is playing politics and attempting to portray himself as a fiscal conservative by vetoing the $23 billion for the Children's Insurance Bill, he's still quite content to ride herd on a $2.7 trillion budget. (That $23 bil amounts to about .0085% of the total budget, by the way. Yep, quite the fiscal watchdog we have here.) Democowards are running from this bill like a bunch of scared rabbits. Republicans have been strangely silent, as far as I can tell because they know they're being asked to put their money where their mouth is. Something they're not very good at.
I've been contemplating about this for a while, and have misgivings about this idea. BUT! I've decided that, as much as I would dislike the extra money disappearing, perhaps this is the best way to get the average Joe/Jane Blow off their pathetic lethargic butts and get them THINKING about what's going on over there. The neighbor's kids can come back blown apart, missing their limbs or sanity, and most Americans are saying "Gee, that's rough. Hope they're OK. Hey Honey!! Great news! Gas prices are down! Fill up the Tahoe while you're out for your Botox injections, will ya?!?!"
Americans tend to plod through life with no idea of what's going on around them. They couldn't tell you where the money is going in the federal budget, but they can sure as hell tell you who's been voted out on "Survivor." But boy, let me tell you. Hit them in the pocket book, and hit 'em hard, and brother, you've got their attention. And that's exactly why shrub would never approve his bill, and exactly why the Republicans would never vote for it. They're scared shitless you'll start paying attention to that black hole our grandkid's money is disappearing into.
“I’m tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war; and they are asked to sacrifice again, and again, and again, so we are putting together this bill in the hope that people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the President's bluff on fiscal responsibility, The President is threatening to veto our efforts to provide one-tenth the amount of money that he is spending in Iraq for investments in education, health, medical research, science, law enforcement, and other areas that are crucial to creating a stronger country and more prosperous families. If the President is really serious about combating deficit spending then we’d be happy to help him avoid shoving the costs of the war in Iraq on to our kids by providing for a war surtax. If this war is important enough to fight, then it’s important enough to pay for.”
Rep David Obey, D-Wi
That could change. There's an amendment to the war appropriations bill that seeks to deepen the average American's personal involvement in this misguided stupidity. It's being proposed by the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep David Obey. He proposes a sliding scale "war tax" that would range from 2% for the lowest tier wage earners to 15% for the highest tax brackets.
I see this as a put up or shut up move by the people who are sponsoring this bill. (Co-sponsors are Reps Jim McGovern, D-Mass and John Murtha, D-Pa) So while shrub is playing politics and attempting to portray himself as a fiscal conservative by vetoing the $23 billion for the Children's Insurance Bill, he's still quite content to ride herd on a $2.7 trillion budget. (That $23 bil amounts to about .0085% of the total budget, by the way. Yep, quite the fiscal watchdog we have here.) Democowards are running from this bill like a bunch of scared rabbits. Republicans have been strangely silent, as far as I can tell because they know they're being asked to put their money where their mouth is. Something they're not very good at.
I've been contemplating about this for a while, and have misgivings about this idea. BUT! I've decided that, as much as I would dislike the extra money disappearing, perhaps this is the best way to get the average Joe/Jane Blow off their pathetic lethargic butts and get them THINKING about what's going on over there. The neighbor's kids can come back blown apart, missing their limbs or sanity, and most Americans are saying "Gee, that's rough. Hope they're OK. Hey Honey!! Great news! Gas prices are down! Fill up the Tahoe while you're out for your Botox injections, will ya?!?!"
Americans tend to plod through life with no idea of what's going on around them. They couldn't tell you where the money is going in the federal budget, but they can sure as hell tell you who's been voted out on "Survivor." But boy, let me tell you. Hit them in the pocket book, and hit 'em hard, and brother, you've got their attention. And that's exactly why shrub would never approve his bill, and exactly why the Republicans would never vote for it. They're scared shitless you'll start paying attention to that black hole our grandkid's money is disappearing into.
“I’m tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war; and they are asked to sacrifice again, and again, and again, so we are putting together this bill in the hope that people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the President's bluff on fiscal responsibility, The President is threatening to veto our efforts to provide one-tenth the amount of money that he is spending in Iraq for investments in education, health, medical research, science, law enforcement, and other areas that are crucial to creating a stronger country and more prosperous families. If the President is really serious about combating deficit spending then we’d be happy to help him avoid shoving the costs of the war in Iraq on to our kids by providing for a war surtax. If this war is important enough to fight, then it’s important enough to pay for.”
Rep David Obey, D-Wi
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Sputnik, Fifty Years Ago
Fifty years ago today, on October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, a 190lb satellite, opening up the space age.
There was quite a bit of embarrassment within the American science community about the fact that the USSR, at the dawn of the cold war, had beat us into space.
Or did they?? I suggest that perhaps we intentionally held back. The facts support this.
In 1956, Wernher Von Braun, the expatriate German Rocket scientist now working for the US Army had a four stage rocket that he later stated he could easily have beaten Sputnik into space with. He had it ready and on the pad for testing more than a year before the launch of Sputnik, but was told by his Army boss, Maj. Gen. John B. Medaris to leave the fourth stage inert. He was even put under direct orders to personally inspect his rocket to make sure the fourth stage (which would have put it into space.) was not fueled.
There were two main reasons for this:
First, In October of 1950 a Rand Corporation analyst, Paul Kecskemeti, issued a report, spelling out fears that an American over flight of the USSR would bring many objections from Moscow to a sympathetic world audience. He stated “Fear of loss of secrecy is constant and intense. A picture of the outside world as engaged in penetrating Soviet secrets is likely to be highly anxiety provoking.” If Russia were allowed to launch, and over fly America first, it was reasoned, it would establish the concept of open space, in the same manner of the of open seas. And that is exactly what happened. Sputnik over flew America, America made no protests, the concept of free and open space was established. The Soviet Union could no longer protest if an American satellite (Filled with cameras.) over flew USSR territory.
Reason two was Von Braun's link to Nazi Germany and the V-2 program, still fresh in USSR memories. It was thought that his participation would rile the Soviets. The Navy also had a program, (Vanguard) that WAS approved to fly as soon as possible. However, their rocket wasn't nearly as advanced as the Army's. (Von Braun's) It was slated to launch its satellite into an equatorial orbit, avoiding the USSR's land mass. However, it suffered a rather spectacular failure on the launch pad, December 6, 1957.
Sputnik was launched Oct 4, 1957. It weighed about 190lbs and people weren't concerned. Sputnik II, launched Nov 3, 1957 weighed 1000lbs, and carried a dog named Laika. Well, THAT got people's attention, especially the Pentagon brass, and Von Braun got his go ahead. On Jan 31, 1958, 84 days after getting his green light, he placed Explorer 1 into orbit, remaining there for 12 years. His rocket flew exactly as he thought it would have a year earlier.
"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming."
Wernher von Braun
There was quite a bit of embarrassment within the American science community about the fact that the USSR, at the dawn of the cold war, had beat us into space.
Or did they?? I suggest that perhaps we intentionally held back. The facts support this.
In 1956, Wernher Von Braun, the expatriate German Rocket scientist now working for the US Army had a four stage rocket that he later stated he could easily have beaten Sputnik into space with. He had it ready and on the pad for testing more than a year before the launch of Sputnik, but was told by his Army boss, Maj. Gen. John B. Medaris to leave the fourth stage inert. He was even put under direct orders to personally inspect his rocket to make sure the fourth stage (which would have put it into space.) was not fueled.
There were two main reasons for this:
First, In October of 1950 a Rand Corporation analyst, Paul Kecskemeti, issued a report, spelling out fears that an American over flight of the USSR would bring many objections from Moscow to a sympathetic world audience. He stated “Fear of loss of secrecy is constant and intense. A picture of the outside world as engaged in penetrating Soviet secrets is likely to be highly anxiety provoking.” If Russia were allowed to launch, and over fly America first, it was reasoned, it would establish the concept of open space, in the same manner of the of open seas. And that is exactly what happened. Sputnik over flew America, America made no protests, the concept of free and open space was established. The Soviet Union could no longer protest if an American satellite (Filled with cameras.) over flew USSR territory.
Reason two was Von Braun's link to Nazi Germany and the V-2 program, still fresh in USSR memories. It was thought that his participation would rile the Soviets. The Navy also had a program, (Vanguard) that WAS approved to fly as soon as possible. However, their rocket wasn't nearly as advanced as the Army's. (Von Braun's) It was slated to launch its satellite into an equatorial orbit, avoiding the USSR's land mass. However, it suffered a rather spectacular failure on the launch pad, December 6, 1957.
Sputnik was launched Oct 4, 1957. It weighed about 190lbs and people weren't concerned. Sputnik II, launched Nov 3, 1957 weighed 1000lbs, and carried a dog named Laika. Well, THAT got people's attention, especially the Pentagon brass, and Von Braun got his go ahead. On Jan 31, 1958, 84 days after getting his green light, he placed Explorer 1 into orbit, remaining there for 12 years. His rocket flew exactly as he thought it would have a year earlier.
"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming."
Wernher von Braun
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Support the troops????
This post was inspired in part by a post by my good friend "The Unhappy American."
I've seen a lot of these yellow "Support The Troops" mag stickers on vehicles since they first started appearing, and a lot of them are starting to get pretty faded. To me, they're a symbol of just how isolated and removed the average American has become from what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I've done my part for the troops. My 'Support the Troops' sticker is right there, on the ass of my Navigator."
But, what exactly IS the average American doing to "support the troops?" Shopping? Brittany watching? (BREAKING NEWS!! BRITANNY LOSES BRATS!!) Burning lots of gas and oil produced electricity so the Arab countries who hate our ass can rake in the money? Yeah, we're doing lots of that.
How about insisting that the troops who are stationed in the middle east have the correct and proper equipment so their parents don't have to have bake sales to buy body armor for their kids? (Rummy: "You go with what you've got." What utter and callous bullshit!) How about making sure that returning veterans immediately get any and all medical and psychiatric care they need, in well equipped, modern well staffed hospitals, without any of the paperwork and bureaucratic bullshit no congressman would ever stand for??? How about forcing the administration to either tell us the real reason we're there (None of this "stay the course, be patient, and trust us" crap.) or get the hell out? (Hint, shrub has used the word "crusade" to describe this war.) How about passing SERIOUS fuel conservation laws to wean America off their petroleum binge? (We're burning more gas then ever these days.) How about financially taking care of military families who are suffering economic hardships because shrub is using National Guard troops instead of regular army personnel so he can continue trying to fight this war on the cheap?? How about raising taxes instead of going into debt so my son's kids won't end up paying for this disastrous war?? How about next time this happens (Can you say Iran???) we Americans really, I mean REALLY debate the need for any military action instead of buying the line of bullshit this administration will feed us? How about Americans getting off their butts, and voting in congressmen who will have the balls to challenge this administration??
Nope. We're not doing much of any of that. Too inconvenient.
Thing is, this administration wants you to keep that up. They'd rather you were out there, consuming away, watching the train wreck that Britanny is, buying ever larger cars and SUV's, and watching tripe like American Idol on TV. That way. you're not paying attention to what the hell they're doing to this country and its Constitution. They'd rather you just didn't pay any attention to what's really going on. They don't want us to get upset about higher gas prices and record oil industry profits, or military funerals, or renegade mercenaries (Blackwater) shooting first and "letting god sort it out."
One bumper sticker I saw said "If you're not angry, then you're not paying attention." Americans are annoyed at Bush and his war, but for all the wrong reasons. They're annoyed because gas is expensive. They're annoyed because they're tired of hearing bad news every night on the TV. (Their response? Don't watch the news. There. Problem solved.) They're annoyed because they might have to carpool, or take the bus. They're annoyed because this war has become INCONVENIENT. They're not annoyed because this war is illegal and immoral.
That deeply disturbs me.
"Ignorance is bliss" Thomas Gray
I've seen a lot of these yellow "Support The Troops" mag stickers on vehicles since they first started appearing, and a lot of them are starting to get pretty faded. To me, they're a symbol of just how isolated and removed the average American has become from what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I've done my part for the troops. My 'Support the Troops' sticker is right there, on the ass of my Navigator."
But, what exactly IS the average American doing to "support the troops?" Shopping? Brittany watching? (BREAKING NEWS!! BRITANNY LOSES BRATS!!) Burning lots of gas and oil produced electricity so the Arab countries who hate our ass can rake in the money? Yeah, we're doing lots of that.
How about insisting that the troops who are stationed in the middle east have the correct and proper equipment so their parents don't have to have bake sales to buy body armor for their kids? (Rummy: "You go with what you've got." What utter and callous bullshit!) How about making sure that returning veterans immediately get any and all medical and psychiatric care they need, in well equipped, modern well staffed hospitals, without any of the paperwork and bureaucratic bullshit no congressman would ever stand for??? How about forcing the administration to either tell us the real reason we're there (None of this "stay the course, be patient, and trust us" crap.) or get the hell out? (Hint, shrub has used the word "crusade" to describe this war.) How about passing SERIOUS fuel conservation laws to wean America off their petroleum binge? (We're burning more gas then ever these days.) How about financially taking care of military families who are suffering economic hardships because shrub is using National Guard troops instead of regular army personnel so he can continue trying to fight this war on the cheap?? How about raising taxes instead of going into debt so my son's kids won't end up paying for this disastrous war?? How about next time this happens (Can you say Iran???) we Americans really, I mean REALLY debate the need for any military action instead of buying the line of bullshit this administration will feed us? How about Americans getting off their butts, and voting in congressmen who will have the balls to challenge this administration??
Nope. We're not doing much of any of that. Too inconvenient.
Thing is, this administration wants you to keep that up. They'd rather you were out there, consuming away, watching the train wreck that Britanny is, buying ever larger cars and SUV's, and watching tripe like American Idol on TV. That way. you're not paying attention to what the hell they're doing to this country and its Constitution. They'd rather you just didn't pay any attention to what's really going on. They don't want us to get upset about higher gas prices and record oil industry profits, or military funerals, or renegade mercenaries (Blackwater) shooting first and "letting god sort it out."
One bumper sticker I saw said "If you're not angry, then you're not paying attention." Americans are annoyed at Bush and his war, but for all the wrong reasons. They're annoyed because gas is expensive. They're annoyed because they're tired of hearing bad news every night on the TV. (Their response? Don't watch the news. There. Problem solved.) They're annoyed because they might have to carpool, or take the bus. They're annoyed because this war has become INCONVENIENT. They're not annoyed because this war is illegal and immoral.
That deeply disturbs me.
"Ignorance is bliss" Thomas Gray
