Potpourri LIX

Getting close to a two-month countdown on the European vacation. Woo hoo! My buddy R2D2 sent a packing checklist. I'll add it to the pile. Gosh knows I need all the help I can get.

New from Hu:

• Gizmodo update on the Constellation Program.
• A couple editorials from Buzz Aldrin on Constellation, one in Discover, on on CNN.com.

From Blake, a couple episodes of Robot Chicken's version of Star Wars, here and here. NOT for kids.

And from Jeff, a new reader, a new site. He describes it as follows:

My blog deals with current news on NASA Space Missions,International Space News, Shuttle & Station,Moon & Mars,Solar System,Earth,Universe,Aeronautics,Science & Technology International Space Station, NASA, Shuttle & Station, Moon & Mars, Solar System, Universe.

Thanks for reading!

Tip o' the fedora to Rick Moore for finding this: my single concession to the recent news on the passing of Michael Jackson, the complete video of Captain EO, a Francis Ford Coppola/George Lucas 3D film that appeared at Epcot's Journey Into Imagination in the '80s.
Part I
Part II

Here's a hangover we'll regret in the morning: the House passed the carbon cap and trade (e.g. energy tax) bill 219-212 this evening. Say goodbye to cheap everything, if the Senate passes this. If the Senate does not pass it, that will be through the concerted efforts of motivated private citizens willing to get involved and make their voices heard. My letters and emails will be in the mail tomorrow.

Reader Response on Energy and Its Opponents

Jim Aach, a nuclear power engineer who has written a book on nuclear power (fiction, by the looks of it), had some additional thoughts on my previous posting regarding energy alternatives.

You're doing the math on actual energy supply vs. demand, which is the first disqualifier if you want to participate in the current energy debate. You might find this an interesting, inside look at one of those wacky power sources you listed. RadDecision.blogspot.com

When I asked for clarification on which math he meant, Mr. Aach graciously filled in the blanks:

What I meant was - it's one thing to pick this energy source over that energy source, but many don't go the next step and figure out how much of it you actually need to maintain the baseload energy supply and peak load. I believe I figured out once you'd need 200,000 of the largest wind turbines made just to replace nuclear in the US.People miss combining two key numbers in the math. Any electric power source will have it's rated output and its availability factor. Rated output is the best it can put out - like a one Megawatt (MW) windmill. Most folks stop there. But windmills only have a 20% availability factor - that is, on average they are producing only 20% of their maximum power. So you actually need five 1 MW windmills to average one MW of output. (Then there's the problem of unpredictable and intermittent output, and the fact that electricity may be the only commodity critical to western civilization that can't be stored well. You're either making it right now, or you haven't got it.)

Once you take all that into account, a lot of the alternatives start generating huge
numbers (a million windmills, a big chunk of Arizona covered in solar panels) which brings up issues of resources to build and maintain the stuff, etc.

Nice to know someone's reading out there.

Follow-up on the Trip to Moontown Airport

Scott was pleased that I did my tour, as was I, for that matter. Of course he couldn't resist a little "follow up."

*

G’day Bart –

Thank you, I mean really thank you for trusting me enough to take my advice on Moontown. More like plaintive yawping, I’ll admit, but reading between your lines, as well as reading your actual lines, you truly thought it worthwhile.

Some observations on your observations:
Moontown is 3M5, which sounds like the first part of a London postal code to me, but go figure… That’s because they are out of, or are about to run out of, letters-only designations. Remember, these designations are for every airport in the world, not just the US. Little airports didn’t have IATA designations fifteen years ago, but with GPS navigation every destination needs an IATA code. It was decided that little airports, and/or those unlikely to have passenger service, would end up with numbers and letters (never 3 digits) while big airports, or little airports that already had them, have letters only. To the list beginning at Anaa Island in French Polynesia (AAA) and ending at Zanesville, Ohio (ZZV), we can now add Animas Airpark, Colorado (00C) through Weydahl, North Dakota (9Y1). There are also, of course, airports whose identifier begins with a letter and has numbers in it, beginning with Vaiden, Alabama (A08) and ending with Hillman, Michigan (Y95). An example of a big airport unlikely to see passenger service is NASA’s Shuttle runway in Titusville, Florida (X68). If you see a destination that looks like 3 digits, you’re actually looking at the letter O. I have a buddy who keeps a 1929 TravelAir and a Long-EZ at Reedley, California (O32). Four-letter codes are assigned by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). For the continental US, simply precede the ICAO code with a K. Huntsville’s IATA code is HSV; its ICAO code is KHSV. Everywhere else, the ICAO codes “make sense.” That is, each country has its own first two letters (sometimes one country has more than a single two-letter set). The last two letters are more-or-less related to the airport’s name. Amsterdam is EHAM, EH for the Netherlands, AM for Amsterdam. Sydney is YSSY, YS for New South Wales, SY for Sydney. That system’s handy for guys like me when we’re doing logistics planning. While we may not know an exact code, we at least know what country it’s in.
The upper part of the walls are festooned with cloth signs proclaiming pilot's first solo flights… It’s a tradition to have one’s shirttail snipped away upon the occasion.
a Piper PA-25-235. Most manufacturers have a name that goes with the model number. A Cessna 172 is a Skyhawk, A Beech V35 is a Bonanza, etc. The Pawnee is a crop duster, hence the big engine, external bracing for the wings, a high-sitting pilot’s seat with plenty of windows, etc. Down here they like to use an airplane’s name as opposed to model number. A DC-3, military designation C-47, is a Dakota.
a couple of low passes over the field, the first one so low and close that I d@mn near dropped my camera… which is one of the reasons I recommended your visit to 3M5, remember? And I bet you’ll also remember the throbbing of the engines shaking right through to your very soul. I like the dancing-on-one-wheel act. It’s a trademark of that particular owner.
a little put-put plane… Putt-putt, you mean. I hope. But you can’t say those engines putt, can you? I stand corrected. Edits have been made.
Swissair, which remained neutral throughout the war. It was Switzerland that remained neutral, ja? I stand corrected, ja.
her original… probably not, but maybe. Engines can take months to overhaul, so usually you buy an overhauled one when you put yours in for overhaul so you can fly a couple of days later, not weeks and weeks later. Somebody then buys your engine when they put theirs in for overhaul, and on it goes. An airline has extra engines so they can effect a rapid change in order to keep the plane in service… Pratt & Whitney Wasp piston engine, … Twin Wasp, engines plural, carefully maintained. Where do you find spare parts for a 70-year-old engine, anyway?... Easy, believe it or not. There were between 150K and 200K of that model produced, probably close to half still around.
On your AvWeb nose photo, note the little door that’s just inches behind the captain’s chair. Or actually, note its proximity to the #1 prop.
a double door… The cargo door was standard on all C-47s, and many DC-3s were retrofitted. It’s much easier for skydivers, I can tell you. The original door folded downwards and had the stairs built in. Access was much simpler than the double step thingy you used yesterday.
the cockpit… Look through your discard photos for the gear-retract/extend handle. If memory serves, it’s this huge thing, the track of which starts behind the right seat, moves toward the centerline, then forward. Scott is quite correct. I tripped over said handle on my way out of the cockpit.
This beast must be a pain to taxi, as you cannot look directly forward most of the time--the nose is pointed up toward the sky--leaving you only the side window to see the ground and the tail wheel and your propellors to move you in the direction you want to go… Propellers, right. The tailwheel doesn’t steer; it only casters like the wheel on an office chair. It’s locked into its fore-and-aft position for takeoff and remains that way until you’re ready to turn off of the runway after landing. Ground steering on a DC-3 is accomplished by differential thrust. You pull the throttle back on the side you want to turn towards and advance the opposite one. You can also use differential braking ((almost) all aircraft have two brake pedals, one for each side) if you need a really tight turn. Problem is, the brakes will get hot and lose their effectiveness, and this phenomenon is especially so on older aircraft. That can be exciting when you’re third in line for takeoff and would like to not bash into the plane in front of you. Third problem is that the DC-3 will taxi along right smartly with the engines at idle, so judicious use of aforementioned brakes-that-tend-to-fade is essential. Fourth problem is taxiing in a crosswind. The crosswind pushes on the vertical fin, which points the nose in the opposite direction, and the tailwheel below it casters, remember? You can lock the tailwheel when you’re doing a long, straight taxi, but have to unlock it when you want to turn.
Climbing into one that's still flying is something else… It’s also got some good smells, no? Better than what a modern airplane smells like.

Now, do you think you’ll go back and meet up with some of your new friends? Maybe offer fuel money to that David guy and do a half-day trip. >90% chance he’ll say yes. My guess is that you’ll enjoy the trip-planning as much as the flight. And once in the air you’ll enjoy looking at the instruments and having a better idea of what you and the plane are doing. I am tempted to go back and see about getting a ride in a glider...or something. It's one thing to have the window seat in a 757; it's something else again to be in the copilot's seat of something where you can feel more than just occasional turbulence. Hmmmm.

Seriously, mate; thanks again for trusting me on this. You have to admit you enjoyed yourself. Yep.

Scott

Follow-Up from the Scottsboro Fly-In

My buddy Scott now lives Down Yonder in New Zealand. As expected, he provided some useful insights into my questions and comments about the items I photographed on Saturday. And so, without further ado, here's Scott:

G’day Bart –

I sure hope you took the opportunity to visit the Unclaimed Luggage Center on your trip to Scottsboro. If not, you’ll just have to go again.

Along with future visits to fly-ins, you might want to visit a skydiving operation. You’ll know within a couple of minutes if you’ll want to jump, but I still wouldn’t do it on that trip. You could, however, ask if they offer something we used to call “observer lifts.” That’s where you get to sit in the plane with the jumpers, but get to ride back down to earth, not fall down. They won’t charge you double what they charge the jumpers just because you’re getting a round trip, although they might joke about it. In fact, the charge is usually less.

Also, make sure you get a ride in a Stearman or other open-cockpit airplane. They’re fewer and fewer of them as time goes on. You haven’t really been flying until you’ve done this.

Unfortunately your captions don’t line up with the photos, so here are my comments as best I can guess to where you meant to place the captions.

• The loud end of a PT-17 Stearman "Kaydet" trainer aircraft. I’m assuming that’s the pic that includes the kid in the red shirt. Stearman, yes. Kaydet, no. Only because it’s wearing Navy paint. In another photo you see the model name N2S-3, a Navy designation, on the vertical fin. Above the number 68 note a red filler cap, which is for the oil reservoir. Forward of that is a beveled sort of pipe-y appendage, and just below it is a black T-handle. To start the engine, you stuck a crank into the hole shielded by the beveled pipe. You cranked with great vigor and a very heavy inertial wheel began to turn. Once the inertial wheel was spinning fast enough (you knew this from the pitch of the whine), you removed the crank handle and then pulled the T-handle which would then transfer the energy to the crankshaft turning the engine over. Russian aircraft use compressed air to do the same thing. You use a hand pump to fill an air bottle, then pull a handle in the cockpit. Note how many layers of wood are glue-laminated to make the prop. If it were a solid piece of wood it would warp as temperature and humidity changed. Also note that it’s legal to tape over stone chips and similar dings. If a bigger chunk is taken out of the prop, it’ll vibrate. It’s uncomfortable for the pilot and crew, and it’s bad for the engine. At that point the prop is removed from the aircraft and balanced. Balancing consists of taking a similar-weight chunk of wood out of the prop’s heavy side, taping over the new ding, and away you go. The cost is a couple hundred instead of thousands.
• The wings are covered with canvas. Fabric, yes. Canvas, no. It’s too heavy. It used to be linen, but it rarely lasted >5 years. In the 1930s it was replaced with a synthetic fabric called ceconite, which is still in use today. It’s got a life of 25-30 years, even when the plane is parked out in the sun. To apply the cover, fabric is stretched over the fuselage/wing/control surface ribs as tightly as possible, then dope was applied to shrink it. The first dope was nitrile, which when placed over linen made almost the same thing as gun cotton. Not exactly what you want stretched over wooden ribs and spars with a fire-belching engine and an air-breathing fuel tank close by. Nitrile was replaced with something called butyrate, which also is still in use today. Butyrate is not flammable, is available in different colors, and can also be painted. To paint nitrile you had to varnish it first. To me that’s a fire hazard on top of a fire hazard on top of something flammable next to something else very flammable, all in close proximity to a flame producer. And that’s before you put guns on the aircraft. Next time you walk around a DC-3 tap your fingers on the wings (metal), then on the ailerons (fabric). You’ll note the difference right away. Most of the new Light Sport Aircraft (LSAs) are fabric-covered, at least partially, as well.
• Anyone want to take a guess at the structure on the left? Tornado siren? The wind sock showed almost no wind. That’s the rotating beacon; it indicates the airport to night-flyers. It shows green on one side and white on the other. Green-white indicates a civilian airport. Green and a quick double-white flash indicates a military airfield. Green-yellow-white indicates a heliport. You’ll often see this one atop a hospital.
• …what's this horn-shaped protuberance on the port side? On older aircraft, directional gyros, turn-and-bank-indicators, and artificial horizons were powered by air, which was generated by vacuum. That’s the vacuum horn, which you will note is always placed where it can pick up prop blast. On middle-age aircraft there’s an electric vacuum pump, and the horn is the standby source of vacuum pressure. The last thing you need while making a descending turn through a raincloud on a night approach is to lose your artificial horizon.

Response to a Reader Comment

More to the point, this is a response to a response to my posting on Space As a Remedy for Solving Society's Problems. I apologize now for not having heard of this correspondent, but I don't get out much. He's the one whose posting prompted the blog in the first place. I had a much longer, point-by-point response to Allen's comments in mind, but finally my inner editor took over, and I decided that the statement below best summarizes my feelings.

***

Human nature is not a problem to be solved, though Jesus did offer an alternative: "Love your neighbor as yourself." What a wild concept! A shame more people don't practice it. Regardless, I don't see human nature changing much. We will continue to have the brilliance of rocket scientists, but also the pathos of the Octomom. That's not to say that I think "it's not our problem." It's everyone's problem to address in his/her own way.

Being a conservative, I shy away from big-picture, top-down "solutions" to humanity's problems offered by one expert or even a small group of them (see the Simpsons episode "They Saved Lisa's Brain" for a more humorous take on the subject). One solution is not going to fit all needs, for the individual or group, nor is that solution always appropriate, and the willingness to impose some solutions on others "for their own" good has rarely led to good outcomes. As they said in the TV adaptation of Children of Dune, "All leaders are human, and all human beings are imperfect." So I believe in fighting evil or ignorance at the individual level. My question to you is: what are you doing to make the world a better place?

Looking for Answers

Okay, I will take off my sarcasm hat for a moment and ask some serious questions of my liberal readers--all two of them.

• What will (or should) President Obama (or liberals currently in power--assume this addition for all) do to improve the economy and the unemployment problem?
• What will President Obama do to ensure positive outcomes in Iraq in Afghanistan?
• What will President Obama do to address America's concerns about illegal immigration?
• What will President Obama do to protect America from Islamofascist terrorists?
• What will President Obama do to ensure America's energy independence?
• What will President Obama do to improve American students' participation and achievement in science, technology, engineering, and math?
• What will President Obama do about America's space program?

Now here's the catch to answering (you didn't think it was going to be that easy, did you?): Your answers can NOT include any rips on George W. Bush or the United States in general. I am interested here in positive policy suggestions only. Anyone who decides to include a zing will either have their response edited or deleted. I'm offering you folks the floor: think positively. I want to understand the liberal "ideal state." This is called "opening dialogue."

More Email on Gen Y

From a reader:

I think that the crux of your skepticism is reflected in this comment: "Another issue I have ... is that they emphasize collaborative technological tools but do not specify how these tools will enable people to make fundamentally better contributions than they might make through, say, face-to-face meetings, phone calls, or memos."

To me, this is the real question. A co-research[er] and I are exploring this through case studies of innovations that owe a large portion of their development success to Web 2.0 collaborative tools, including social networking and virtual worlds. We've just begun this research and are still looking for cases, but we've already learned there does seem to be some validity to the claim that these tools can be beneficial. I hope to be able to report back in a few months with a few examples.

Steve Gordon (gordon@babson.edu)

Steve:

Thanks for reading and chiming in. Please know that it's not just me who is skeptical. I work and talk with many Boomers and Xers who belong to the "show me the money" faction in this discussion. Also, within NASA, it's not just about the electronic/communication collaboration. For a lot of folks it comes down to the hardware, the actual rockets that put astronauts into space. Marshall might be among the most conservative NASA centers from an engineering and cultural point of view, but they are not alone. Any engineering lead will need to be shown that online collaboration creates/created better rockets/spacecraft/widgets than empirically bending metal and turning wrenches on the shop floor.

I look forward to seeing the results of your research. Hard data is something that will very much "show me the money."