Boeing Delta II launch from Vandenberg

 

Boeing's Delta II is probably one of my favorite rockets. I've been wanting to build a big one of my own for a while, but today marks what could very well be the last Delta II launch ever. As I understand it, the ULA is in negotiations with NASA to be able to offer Delta IIs for satellite launching, but for that, NASA needs science in need of satellites, and the congressional mandate for the SLS system, and having to fight for money to be able to do science to support the need for a launch system at all.. it's a bit of a mess, and I think few people understand the need for science that requires these launch systems, we just see that we now no longer have the Space Shuttle, and that's a travesty. But we need science so that we have something that needs to be launched.

Anyway, I heard of this last Delta II launch, and entered a lottery to be granted special access to Vandenberg - didn't get in - and still wanted to make it a point to actually go, and see the launch. I've seen launches from VAFB before, but usually just from wherever I was, and that usually just means that I catch a glimpse of a tiny little dot in the sky, and it can barely be traced from horizon to horizon. The date slipped a couple of times, and I was trying to get to a place where I could get a fantastic view of the launch, even though I couldn't attend the tweetup.

So I asked the wife if she wouldn't mind going to see it, and kind of to my surprise, she gave an ecstatic yes. Tired and shagged out Thursday evening, from nearly a week's worth of work and school, I literally came home, and collapsed, and slept until about 11pm. Tellmo woke me up, and we got headed out around midnight. A stop for a snack, and some gas, and we were off. In my research, I found that there are a couple of really spectacular viewing locations that are accessible, but difficult to get to, and having not been there to familiarize myself with the area in the day, there is no way that I would put myself in that situation at night, so I opted for a 'safer' location. It's just a residential coul'de sac in some little town off the 118 in Ventura County. We were checking our smartphones constantly for the time, and to make sure that everything was on track. There was a moment of question before the last four-minute hold where upper-level winds were RED, but the situation cleared before we came out of the hold, and the launch proceeded to count right on schedule. Having never been there before, I didn't know exactly where to look, but as soon as the count reached zero, there was no question - on the other side of a hill, there was a large, bright glow, and within a number of seconds (probably more than I figured, because it seemed like an eternity [or an anomaly?]) before the rocket came into view. We watched it gracefully arc through the sky, like a giant, flaming meteor falling "up'. You could very clearly see where the ground start boosters burnt out, and the air-starts kicked in, and the ground starts were ejected. It was glorious to see the bright yellow-orange flames billowing out of the rocket, and really quite moving to finally see a Delta II launch without some sort of digital interpretation. For a moment, a sadness struck me in that I never will be able to experience this in relation to a Shuttle launch, but I digress. After MECO, I felt (and Chauntel Scott pointed it out too) kind of like a sigh of relief - maybe the collective of the whole NNP team, and the developers of the cube sats that were on board, with their love-labors finally safely in orbit (even if elliptical) followed by kind of a ::tear:: moment.

But I was glad that at that moment, I was in that place, with my love beside me, absorbing it all. It was worth the sleep deprivation, the drive, the cold, and even not getting to join the tweetup.

Some people...

So, I jump on the freeway to head to work, and immediately, a semi-truck bears down on me. I don't care. You've got two lanes, use them.

Flashing his lights, and even a quick honk, and finally, he gets frustrated enough with me driving 55mph in front of him, that he decides to pass. He passes on the left, and I think that's then end of me having to deal with him. Wonderful.

When his trailer tires get to my window, I realize that there is a lot of noise coming from one of them, and I glance over, and see that he has one tire that is completely flat, split radially, wide open at the edge of the sidewall, and shredded bits are being flung all over, and what is being held on, keeps slapping the pavement with each torturous revolution. I brake just a bit to give him some space, much to the chagrin of the truck behind me, from whom I get more headlight flashes. Whatever. Same rule applies.

I keep my eye on this one truck though, thinking one of two things is going to happen. He's going to realize that he has a flat, and is going to pull over. Or.. and more probably, being only 20 miles or so from the docks, he'll probably try to make it to his destination with the flat tire, hoping that no further problems will arise.

At this point, I should mention that once, a long time ago, while driving a different car, I was behind a semi-truck whose tire let loose. The tread of the carcass split, and was run over by the car in front of me, which compressed it, giving it enough spring to leap into the air, and come down on my hood and windshield with enough force to crack the windshield, and lay a dent across my hood, and fenders, as if someone gift-wrapped my car, and tied the bow too tight. NOT something I want to have to pay to get fixed any time soon. So now, I leave much more space in front of me when there is any kind of speed involved. Call me gun-shy, but I have seen what can happen, and choose - actively - not to participate.

You'd never guess what the dude in the semi-truck did today. Yeah. He kept on going. Awesome.

Now knowing what will, at some point, lie ahead of me, I left extra room in front of me all the way to work. Little did the insistent people behind me know that there was going to be, at some point in my commute, a need to swerve to avoid hitting some large portion of a tire. So, with that information neatly in hand, I exercised caution in keeping the gap ahead of me large enough to identify and react to any such threat. This, apparently, was not a popular position on the matter, as expressed by no less than fifty drivers of cars, trucks, and semi-trucks, who impatiently honked, flashed lights, sped around me at inappropriate places, like an exit-only lane to the right, and gore points for on and off ramps alike. Now, mind you, I never really had more than 100' in front of me - a little more than the length of a semi-truck, and plus maybe one car. I was going the speed of the vehicle in front of me. Yes, every time someone jumped in that gap, I slowed to let it grow again, but come on - aren't we supposed to be operating in this manner anyway?

In my life, I have received two tickets for "tailgating", or following too closely. When I got the first one, there was on the books, some measure of what "too close" was - some formula with car lengths for every ten miles per hour. I argued, that if I obeyed that, I would continually get cut off every three seconds, but I got the ticket anyway. The second one, I didn't bother arguing, but rather, I looked up the law, and figured I'd contest it. By that time, the law had changed to simply a "safe" distance. I was able to identify hazards through the window of the car in front of me, so I was able to fight that ticket and win. Thast stated, here, we have one of these potential threats on the road in front of us. I know this to be a fact: There was a semi-truck, on the reeway, ahead of me, with one tire, and potentially more, that was going to come apart, and spread debris all over the freeway, much of shich could do damage to sheetmetal, glass, and maybe even rubber - all creating a hazard for occupants of vehicles. I was being cautious about this fact, and I was getting flack for it.

I. Don't. Care.

And then it happened. I smelled the faint odor of burnt rubber. I saw a sea of brake lights wash across the freeway, and cars dart in several directions. Traffic moved through the mine field slowly, and I, because I knew it was going to happen, and had armed myself with room in front of me to react, lifted slightly off the gas, and wove through the shards of hot rubber and metal unscathed. The tailgaters behind me, honking and flashing lights had to contend with the surprise--or ignorance-- of the hazards on the freeway. I thought it was over. I keep watching for where the semi-truck missing a tire would pull off of the freeway, surely, he knew what had happened, and figured it would be best to stop and make repairs, right?

I waited, and watched, and saw nothing. I came to the next freeway interchange, and again smelled rubber burning, the air still whispy with smoke. He's still going.

My Step-Dad was a truck driver for many years. I learned a lot from him that the average person probably doesn't know. During our vacations as well, he would drive the pickup truck - the kind with dual rear wheels - with the camper on it, and a trailer for whatever recreation we planned on; boat, dune buggy, whatever. I knew that with the weight involved, if you lost air in one tire, the adjacent tire then had to carry the weight that is no longer being carried by the tire that has been lost. Naturally. Logically.

Here too, I wagered, that it would not be long - unless his trailer was empty, which it didn't appear to be, because it didn't 'bounce' like an empty trailer - before the other tire on that side of that axle was gonig t succumb to the forces acting upon it, and give up the gost. So, I maintained my distance. I knew-by smell- that the truck was still ahead of me. I could see the tell-tale bits of rubber still rolling after having been bounced up by someone's undercarriage, or compressed under someone's tire. I knew.

Once again, though, the people behind me did not. Again with the honking, and the flashing o their headlights, and passing at inappropriate places. Rushing only to find out that there is danger ahead of them after damage has been done. There was a trail of smoke steadily streaming off of the trailer every time I caught a glimpse of it on the next rise ahead of me.

I come to the next interchange, still smelling rubber, thinking that our paths have now diverged, only to find still bouncing pieces of rubber in the road ahead of me. I come around a bend, and see him. Still going, but his trailer is sitting so funny, it looks as though it could seriously fall over with just the right combination of turning and braking. On he goes. Vehicles ahead realize, with the source of the danger so close, that it is best now, to just go around him. And they do. With fury. As I get near enough to be concerned with flying bits of tire, I see him finally pull off the freeway, likely continuing on, blindly to his destination - surely not far now. I watch as he brakes down the off-ramp, as sparks fly from his now bare rims scraping at pseed along the pavement, having stopped rotating because there was no tire to offer resistance to the clamping force of his brakes. Just as I pass his cab again - finally.. FINALLY, I can see him look in his mirror, and I can see the shock, and mild panick appear on his face as he wonders what the heck is going on.

This person should not drive a truck.

And you should think about the person in front of you - they might have a reason for doing what they are doing. It might be a good one. And just because you are impatient, gives you no reason to try to rush someone else. If you have an issue, just pass--safely--and go about your business. There is no need to be rude. Maybe they saved you from having to pay for a new windshield, or body work. The sad thing is, you will never know.

So, I'm thinkin' of making' me some furniture...

Don't ever ask an Engineer what he's doing unless it's polishing a prototype. We don't like to tell you. Get over it. That's just the way of it.

Mark this day on your calendar.

Partly, because I will have some accountability to more than broken promises to my wife for deadlines missed, and another project started; not finished. But also, because I am going to try to tell you what I want to accomplish before I know that I can accomplish it.

I'll wait for you to pick your jaw up off the floor...

And recover from fainting...

Again...

I'm a little weird about furniture. Most of it is crap. Particle board has its place, but I think that furniture should last, if well cared for, forever. Everything that you have in your house, you should be proud to grant to one of your grand children; the envy of the others, and they will fight over it for decades.

My parents don't have anything like that.

Should I have kids, I would like them to.

But I want it to be functional right now.

And I want to make it myself.

What I want.
Computers are a large part of our daily activities in our house, but so is crafting. Plastic models, side projects, my wife knits, weaves, sews, crochets, croquets, and whatever else she wants to do. Our apartment is a mess, and I hate it. I want to be able to have a place to put everything away, and it not look like we just brought our Christmas decorations out of storage, or we're collecting books for a Goodwill drive. Certain things should be displayed, like books, but others should be concealed - you don't need to know the contents of my DVD/Bluray collection from the door of my apartment. And yet, everything should have its place.

So, this project should entail several pieces, and I would like them to be relatively modular, so as not to only fit in one specific spot, we end up moving, and nothing fit in the new place. That, I think would be a travesty. Though, despite their diverse functions, I think they should make a relatively cohesive sum. Being in an apartment (unlike those in New York), the room count is.. well, one. So, everything, less the bed and perhaps a dresser or something to be addressed later, will be in one room. So, they need to go together, but not be matchy-matchy, and over-do a theme. They need to fit with each other, and not completely saturate the feeling of the space. There I go sounding like an interior decorator. Martin Short from Parenthood, anyone?

Here's kind of what I was thinking - and all of this is subject to change on a whim (or my Wife's request) at any time, so bite me if it doesn't fit what you were rooting for - cause I'll take whiners right off the inherit list. I will - just you watch!

I need a computer desk. It needs to accommodate my current setup, and be flexible enough for upgrades in the future. I occasionally need access to my machine for cleaning, and such, so removal should be easy. I like clean cables, so cable management is necessary. I like a workspace, so it will have room to do homework, draw, read, construct on small projects, etc. I need some storage, so I would like to have a file drawer, and some smaller drawers for tools, and pencils, etc. Also, some larger storage would be cool, and I was thinking of making a wall unit for above the desk. Lighting is always an issue, and I'm particular about that as well, so I was thinking of integrating the lighting into the bottom of the wall unit, and devise a method of focusing it so that it would light my desk, and reading material, but not shine on my screens, or in my eyes. I am along a short wall with an outside corner, so I was thinking of connecting to another desk around the corner with a corner unit that would provide the drawer space. Whatever I get for a desk, the Wife will get one as well. Make things easy. And in the future, should she not like it, we find a bigger place, we want to expand, I could take both of these units, and she can get something that better suits her needs. I'd help her of course - don't make me sound selfish or insensitive.

We need a better solution for book and media storage. Books are unique because of the size variation. Some large shelves, some small. Some deep, some shallow. But still cohesive. I have a space in mind for a low, wide book shelf that I think could be segregated interestingly, and provide a lovely display of our current and expanding eclectic collection of libros. Media is an expanding issue. Not only for the quantity, but for the media types. CDs, DVDs, Bluray, combo packs, boxed sets, etc. If it were all one media type, then one size and shape of shelf would suit, but I might need to be a little smarter than that. I initially disagreed, but now I see the light. My Wife suggested that no one need know the contents of our collection until granted access to peruse it, so I think enclosed is the way to go. Different from our storage solutions of the past though, I think that software should have a separate storage location.

And now for crafts. Bluntly, we have a bunch of crap. Much of it is craft or hobby related. All of it needs a place where it can be organized and put away. It varies in size from teeny tiny to fairly large, and so imbues a difficult storage problem. I was thinking of making three, fairly general purpose, but slightly customizable storage units that would also function as a place to work on said crafts. Not all furniture is constructed well, but some of it is rather smartly designed. My Wife found this piece at IKEA that was a small desk, enclosed on all sides, with a door in the front that when opened, became the work surface. It had under it for support, a drawer of sorts that slid out with the opening action of the door that became the support for the door itself. Brilliant! So, I think something along these lines is the way to go. A two-door cabinet on the bottom, possibly with some sort of kick, or foot support outside, or inside or something (we both like to put our feet up on something while working), and then the fold-out work space, and then some storage on top. I envision these beasts being rather tall, and quite large, but I think that I can minimize the appearance of their size with intelligent design, and smart decoration. Adjustable shelves in the compartments would help to keep things organized, and I think that it will take some planning to make proper, smart usage out of the workspace inside. I want it to be able to close, but still have some empty space for crafts or hobbies "in work", so as not to damage them, or require that half-completed trinkets need be stored elsewhere when the space is cleaned up.

I would also adore the ability to display some of our finer works. I have some models that I would love for people to be able to see, and I intend on creating more, some of which would not fit well in a display case of any reasonable size.

I'll get to the bedroom eventually, but not in this round, I don't think. Plus, I don't have regular access to a shop or any decent tools, so this project might take a while. But stay tuned, I might post some design ideas.

I <3'd Google - past-tense.

Google is awesome.

Well, was.

I am... was, a loyal user. For as long as I can remember, when I had a thought, wanted to know something, needed assistance finding a part for work, or needed to locate anything from the song in my head to dinner in an unfamiliar place, the text that rolled off my fingers was google.com. Old habits are hard to break. But there's a reason I want to break them.

Their products are usually well tested, and nearly flawless. I've been using gmail since 2006. It has the best spam filtration system that I have ever seen. I have converted many a friend from other products to google. Maps are amazing. Earth is a wonderful tool for all sorts of things. I've tried other products here and there, and have loved them whether or not they had any place in my life. This, I think is one of the few companies around today who has gotten most everything right.

But recently, things seem to be falling apart.

I noticed some gradual changes to my inbox in gmail. Okay fine. I'm down with progress. Kinda sucked I can't quickly navigate to my oldest page of messages, but I get it. Trying to integrate the flop "Buzz", I get it, but not for me. "Instant" is pretty cool, unless you have a low bandwidth, or pay by the bit for interwebs. It usually has some pretty asinine (albeit entertaining) suggestions, but I usually type in what I want too fast for that to be a bother. It finds me what I am looking for most of the time. Occasionally, I am searching for something industry related that matches something in another industry, avenue or lifestyle, so I get a surprise now and then. Sometime image searches are funny, because if you search for nearly anything without safe search on, you'll find porn one way or another. Especially in images. But until recently, all of these little quirks is what has given google its character.

The other day, I was looking for some parts for work. I had turned off instant, because it was a slow internet day at work - don't ask. Just know that the internet was being slow. I entered my query, and hit enter, and nothing happened. NOTHING. Maybe a glitch. I hit enter again. Nothing. I clicked on the Google Search button which had recently changed, I believe in conjunction with the release of Google+. There we go. My search came up. Plenty of results, and most of them seemed to be what I was looking for. So I clicked on a couple of links with my middle mouse button as I have done thousands of times before. If you don't know, this action in most web browsers opens the link in a new tab, and leaves your search results right there waiting for you in case that link isn't what you were looking for, you are not forced to re-load your results, and lose your place. I waited a second for the links to come up, and one by one, they failed to load. Weird. I check the tab for the link, and it begins with googleads.sgdoubleclick.net... and trails off with some insane link that I don't understand. All of the special characters are replaced with their html-safe counterparts. I look at the next one. Same thing. WTH? This is weird. Somehow, I muddled through, and found that opening the cached page and clicking on the live link was the easiest shortcut, but that wasn't always available. I figured that there was some glitch in transition, and they'd have it fixed momentarily.

Nope.

Same thing happened the next day.

And the next.

And the next.

It's been what, a month since Google+ went live? I've had the same problem since then. (Wikipedia says June 28th)

I'm sorry, but this is a pain. I have written to google's help several times, expecting some dude on the other end to go, "Doh! I forgot to uncomment some code", and the problem would be fixed. I've written my fair share of HTML, albeit not in many of the more recent, and advanced languages, but damn. How hard is it to make a graphic region part of a submit button, and have it activated with the enter key? Is it so difficult and bandwith consuming a task to pass a link to an application, and open my link for me without the connection timing out stopping the whole sequence? I know you are free, and your business model is such that you're not hurting for money, and  while you need all of this information for your data mining, which I put up with, as that's what pays the bills, but shouldn't this be seamless to the user? I am sorry google, but I just can not tolerate this kind of oversight in your inspection processes that let code that creates this behavior go live, and unchecked for so long.

Or maybe I'm the one with the problem. Is my system and usage of your services so distinct or unique as to cause unwanted results that were unforseen? What is going on?

End of an era.

Photo taken by @astro_aggie during STS-135

Space Shuttle Atlantis landed from its final mission on Thursday morning, bringing the United States Space Shuttle missions to a close. If you listen to the media, and the President, and any lackie trying to keep good with the boss, it is merely the dawn of a new era, a period of transition, a time of change and redefined purpose.

Bull.

Tell that to the bill collectors that are going to be asking for money from the thousands of people that no longer have a job, thanks to the ray of sunshine on the glimmer of hope that one day, politicians will remove their cranium from their rectum, and give adequate funding to an agency that gives more back to the public than any other for the dollars spent in it. The layoffs began long ago, you see, because every Shuttle mission doesn't just last for the 16 days that they are in space. It starts WAY before that.

If you listen to the press packet, and the cute little film that they have playing at the Observation Gantry at KSC, the mission begins as soon as the Shuttle lands from its previous mission, but this is hardly true either. Sure, all of the prep-work for the next mission for that orbiter begins as soon as it lands. It needs to be checked out, and refitted for the equipment that it will carry on its next mission, etc. Sometimes, special software or hardware must be installed for experiments or procedures expected during the flight. But before anyone knows anything about what is going to be needed in the orbiter, the mission must be trained for.

Training occurs in various facilities from stationary simulators to full-motion simulators in which fully-suited astronauts-to-be go through various duration simulations proposing differing situations, operational difficulties, and failure modes. They train on mockups of the real thing for emergency egress and crash situations. Flight training includes piloting a Grumman Gulfstream Jet that has been modified with a full Shuttle cockpit, which actually behaves and feels like a Shuttle.

Most of the time, the mission includes the handling of some sort of hardware, transferring it from the Shuttle to the ISS, or vice-versa. Training for space walks during these missions is done in the Neutral Buoyancy lab near Houston Tx. This is the largest indoor swimming pool in the world, and their tubby-toy is a full-sized replica of the ISS, and whatever module they will be adding to the station.

All of this is done, often and repeatedly, at times, two years in advance. It takes people to do all of this. Divers to help the astronauts in and out of the pool. People help them suit up, and get out of their suits. Someone needs to know what they are going to be doing, and how they are supposed to be doing it, and practice with them until they get it right. They work through checklists, and develop them to improve workflow, and time management. They work with contractors, and the engineers that build the satellites, hardware and modules that will be flying on their mission. They work with flight directors to make sure that mission goals are set and can be accomplished. And then there's the people that they don't work with.

Astronauts are the rock stars of the space agency. They are the public figures that get all of the attention. It is well deserved, don't get me wrong, but there are thousands of people that work administration and support, and support for the support. Every industry that you can think of has a place in the space program. Contractors make hardware, equipment, tools, expendables, food, waste management, construction, manufacturing, communications, transportation, land management, maintenance - everything. These positions are all filled with high-quality, hard-working people that have in many--most cases given their lives to this program. Keep in mind the current mentality of seeking employees, compared to what it was when many of these people were hired in. You think that in order to "work for NASA", you have to have a degree, and be the best in your class, etc., but it wasn't always that way. Hundreds of people working in the program quite literally are the best in the business, and their education may not formally reach beyond primary school, or a little bit of college. These people are going to be looking for work, competing against the freshest, greenest college graduates this nation (or this world) for the few jobs there will be in whatever new program is coming over the bright and sunny horizon that everyone seems to be talking about.

Beyond all of this, there are the people across the country that make parts, small assemblies or full-on structures that go into the system. The Solid Rocket Boosters are made in segments, and after they are recovered from the ocean, they are disassembled, cleaned, and shipped back to Utah for refurbishment and reloading. The hardware is cleaned, inspected, painted, filled with propellant, matched to an identical mate, and then sent back to KSC for use on the next mission. Shuttle contractors exist in 48 states. The decommission of the Shuttle program is going to affect each of these contractors in a significant way.

To each and every one of these people, I thank you, for being involved, for being some small part of the greater whole. For creating the atmosphere in which the brave souls that travel into space can concentrate on the mission given them, and perform it to the best of their substantial ability. Thank you for creating from imagination and inspiration, the icon of the American space industry; the dreams come reality of several generations. Thank you for inspiring us, with your hard work, dedication, growing pains, strength in tragedy and struggle. Thank you for planting the seed of what can be if we can collectively get our crap together, and work toward a common goal. Thank you for showing us just what kinds of obstacles we can not only conquer, but show who is boss by thinking about a better way to do things.

Selfishly, I am sad to see the program go. While I have been a fan of the program for as long as I can possibly remember, I have never actually seen a Space Shuttle. Even after my cross-country road trip to watch Discovery launch for STS-133, which didn't happen until two months after I got back home, I didn't get to actually see the Shuttle. I wanted to see a launch before the program ended, and I never did get to see one. Actually, I'm kind of pissed about it. Circumstances being what they were, it just didn't happen. But all of that pales in comparison to your situation. Many of you didn't get to see a Shuttle launch either, which sucks. But at the end of all of this, I still have a job to wake up to - you get to start all over somewhere else after who knows how long, working for the same company, with the same people; the family that you have grown to love since you started there. I wish you speedy discovery of the start of your next journey. To those that I know or interact with personally through Facebook, twitter, or Google+, I thank you for your contribution to the material and subject of my dreams since I was a wee little lad, and the most distinguishable space icon ever.

Why I am me, Part 5

Planes:
Airplanes are super cool. They are better than most cars in most every way. There are a few (and increasing number of) cars that combine technologies from both worlds to use wings to change down force, drag, directional stability and all sorts of things.

But Airplanes, I really like. Metal that flies? Are you kidding me? Sure, if you give enough velocity to anything, it will take on a trajectory, but if you design into it devices that produce lift with airflow going over it, you can control this trajectory, and you can actually get something to fly. The physics of it all are relatively simple, but it took man forever and a day to figure out how to do it. Again, we've only been doing this for 100 years. We have made any number of different configurations fly: bi-planes, monoplanes, props, jets, turboprops, auto-gyros, helicopters, liquid rockets, solid rockets, sub-sonic, super-sonic, hypersonic, light.. not yet.

Hundreds of thousands of people have contributed to the knowledge base of what it takes to fly. Trillions of dollars in any currency you can think of have been spent on making flight easier, cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, extend capabilities, increase payloads, reduce emissions, etc. Militaries and private businesses alike have their own development departments to figure out how to make things better. Engineers, designers and just plain brilliant people have contributed to aircraft of every sort. Think of some of the historic flying vehicles throughout history, and there is an utterly endless list of people, and vehicles, and developments, and patents that have combined to make the best of it.

Orville & Wilbur Wright, Howard Hughes, Kelly Johnson, Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh, Glen Curtiss, Eugene Ely, James Doolittle, Chuck Yeager, Scott Crossfield. Each name brings up volumes of facts about their accomplishments, and the planes they flew to the record books.

A few of my favorites - nothing like my bucket list, I don't think there's any danger of me flying much of anything myself, much less some of the ones on this list that have been retired, of which there are few, or none left, or that have all been placed in museums around the country.

• Lockheed SR-71 - Developed in the early 60's, this plane has given its pilots, ground support crew, developers, designers, and anyone that has come in contact with one some interesting stories to tell. Perhaps the most interesting thing about it, is all of the misinformation that the general public has been fed, and some still hold to be true today. Much of its life has been declassified, yet still some details, and some stories retain the mystique of not really knowing whether to believe them or not. I am trying to get to see all of the remaining planes - that is on my bucket list. I have seen most of the ones in the southern half of the U.S., but there are still several more to see.

• Grumman A-6 - I read "Flight of the Intruder", and became fascinated with this plane. All weather durability, and the men that flew it loved it, even if only because it got them home. It's not a supersonic plane, there's not a lot of gizmos or technology to it, but it has done its job, and done it well. With a long service history, and even some modern uses for aerial refueling from carriers today, its capabilities make it fairly unique.

• Lockheed C-130 - Such an amazing track record, and such a versatile plane. It saddens me to see rows and rows of them in boneyards, their airframe-hours all used up. It is amazing that this plane is still being produced, and is still in use today. I especially like the C-130J-30.

• Northrop Grumman E-2 - The eyes and ears of any carrier group. The E-2 extends radar range beyond the horizon to keep aircraft carriers safe from approaching threats, as well as maintain situational awareness in the battlefield. Next to the C-2, it's sister plane, the only remaining prop-dirven aircraft remaining on the deck of a carrier. Its shape is unique, and its capabilities are essential.

• Northrop Grumman F-14 - Retired in 2006, the F-14 is probably most noticable as the plane that Tom Cruise and Anthony Edwards flew in the movie Top Gun, but its importance to America, and American forces goes far beyond that. First flown in 1970, this aircraft was used for air superiority in both medium and long range scenarios. I just like it cause it's cool-looking. And because of its history. And the swept wings.

• McDonnell Douglas F-18 - Only in recent years has this plane grown on me enough for me to say that I 'like' it. The introduction of the Super Hornet, I think is what did it. The round inlets of the older F-18s dont make it look quite as aggressive as the slanted rectangular inltes of the Super Hornet. Not to mention the advanced capabilities and maneuverability of the Super Hornet. A light, fast, relatively small fighter, this, and it has done wonders for our armed forces. It has an interesting story behind its development, because it almost never was. Thanks to the NAVY having different requirements from the Air Force, the losing design was saved, refined, and reintroduced as what we know today as the F-18. Good stuff. Come on, you know by now that I love history.

• Fairchild Republic A-10 - Slow, ugly, and a gun the size of a Volkswagen. No seriously. I had a die-cast model of this when I was a child, and I would use it to do strafing runs on my G.I. Joe's and LEGO men. It was very impressive to me then, of course, I didn't have to worry about how much ammunition I could carry. Later in life, with the discovery of PC based flight simultators, I was slightly less than impressed with how 'little' power it had, but it seems to work well. On a recent visit to the Pima Aerospace museum in Arizona, I saww several groups coming back from training runs, and it was quite impressive indeed to see them fly in formation, and break away one at a time to find the landing pattern for the nearby air base. Of course, it is a plane, I could sit and watch it all day.

• Rockwell OV-10 - This is one of those that I stumbled upon later in life. Perhaps less well-known, and less liked, but what I have read about it, and what I've seen of it, pilots really seem to love them, and they are a lot of fun to fly. I just think they look kinda cool. In fact, how I stumbled upon them was a web search for something else entirely, and some guy was building an R/C scal version, and I had previously collected some random dxf file of a different version, and he said he was going to do his a little differently, and a lot of people were excited about it, so I stuck around, and started doing research on it.

• North American B-25 - My wife's Grandmother built these during the war. Her husband went overseas, and she did her part back home. My wife had mentioned to me that her Grandmother built planes, but no one in the family ever knew which ones, or really, what she did. So I asked her one day. As she started explaining it, I started thinking about all of the planes that it could have been, and through a process of elimination, I figured out that it was the B-25. I showed her a picture of it, and her face lit up. So I did some more searching, and found one on display locally, and we took her to go see it. She loved talking about it, telling stories that had been locked away in the back of her head for fifty years. It was awesome to be able to hear them, and to share that moment with her. She was so happy to talk about it, like she was young all over again. Ahhhh Grandmas.

• Boeing B-52 -This is one of those planes that has always just... been there. It can fly around the world non-stop, and drop a truck container or two full of bombs in one trip. With upgrades through to present day, the airmen operating them are younger than the airframes they are servicing. I got to see one up close at March Air Field Museum, and the bomb bay is large. I can stand up in it, and not reach the top. It is a very impressive plane up close as well.

• Boeing B-1 - There is something about this plane that makes it even more intriguing than what's on the surface. It's a bomber. Okay. Not too unusual. It has sweepable wings. It was developed as a long range bomber, but is now used for low altitude fast-in, fast-out bombing. There's a mystique in that for sure. From some angles, it looks like a puppy, and from others, it looks like a mole. The little 'catfish whiskers' on the front give it an odd 'face'. Its early years were rocky, and I think I had toys of it before it went into service when I was young. But it has always been one of those planes that captured my imagination. Still today, it is one that I have never seen, and would love to spot in the air.

• McDonnell Douglas C-17 - This plane has some impressive capabilities.I've seen them sneak up and land on a short runway, and you didn't even know they were there until they were on the ground. It has an interesting shape, and the amount of cargo that it can carry for its size is most impressive. Another photo that I have roaming my desktop looks like the flying monkeys approaching from Wizard of Oz.

• Fairchild C-119 - As a child of the video game age, and with a Father and a Brother that were both very much into computer performance, and building your own machine, I had early exposure to PC video games, most of which were either flight simulators or driving simulators. The first flight simulator I can recall that I played was Chuck Yeager's Air Combat. Then came X-plane. Wow. Well, one of my favorite planes to fly in X-plane was the C-119 Box Car. Not really sure why. It did what it was supposed to do, and was a bit of fun to fly. I'm sure there are stories to go along with the servicemen that flew on it, but I've only begun to dig that trench. Still, it is one of my favorite planes.

• Grumman C-2 - The stable-mate to the E-2, this carrier-based cargo plane is nearly identical to the Hawkeye. It shares wings, engines, gear, tail feathers and cockpit. It is pretty interesting that two completely different planes with two completely different functions can use so many of the same parts, but if you look at them, you can see the resemblance. These sound wicked flying overhead, or during a cat launch. They are not jets, and those scimtar propeller blades make them look otherworldly. The upgrades have done them well, and I hope they continue to fly for a very long time.

• Lockheed C-5 - A picture is worth a thousand words. This C-5 is eating a whole C-130. That should say something about its cargo capacity, no? I went to an air show when I was a child, perhaps at El Toro or something, but they had a C-5 that you could walk through, and it was utterly amazing how expansive the interior of this plane was. I was a kid, so of course, everything has shrunk since then, but still. One of the largest planes ever made, and it can carry so much. The pass-through design of its cargo hold is unique, and allows for some... interesting opportunities to say the least.

• Northrop Grumman X-15 - A record-breaker. Experimental. Monumental achievements in research. These planes paved the way for the American Manned Space Program. Without these planes, the Space Shuttle never would have survived its first test flight if it would have been built at all. As small a world as this is, my Step-Father worked on the wings for these aircraft when they were being built. What they accomplished, and the records that they hold really are astonishing, and if you can find a decent source, it is worth a read to learn about them.

• Bell X-1 - Supersonic flight. This is the plane that proved that it was possible. Several modifications were made to the airframe and control surfaces that allowed it to actually accomplish this goal, but in the end, the first plane to ever break the sound barrier was this one, and the first man to fly it while doing so was Chuck Yeager. I love this photo of the B-29 being lifted on top of hydraulic rams, and the X-1 being positioned beneath it for mating. It is interesting to me how the engineers and ground crew came up with solutions to the problems that were presented to them in their quests and tasks.

• Chance Vaught F-4U - The amount of engine in this thing is simply frightening. The size of the propeller, the drop-gull wings, the fact that as a carrier-borne craft, it somehow folds into a smaller footprint. Again, with the simulators, this was a really fun plane to fly.The history of these planes, and their success in war gives them a lot of history, and garners a lot of respect to those that flew in them, and those that died with them. Probably our biggest advantage during the sea battles in the Pacific Theater during WWII, these planes.

• Curtiss P-40 - The capability, or operational history of these planes nonwithstanding, they just look cool. Big V-12 engine, and the painted on teeth that just seem like they belong there. These are sleek looking planes, and though I have never actually seen one, it remains possibly my favorite WWII era plane ever. My favorite part of the movie Pearl Harbor is when they take off in these to combat the Japanese Zero's, and I think it is really quite cool that a P-40 was restored to flyable condition just for use in the movie.

• Lockheed F-104 - The rocket with a man in it. I've seen a couple of these in various states of restoration and repair, and I think what strikes me most about them is the thickness of their main wings. They really are like razors, and it boggles my mind how those tiny little things can lift so much, and not fold under the strain. I have heard stories of ground crews actually cutting themselves while handling the wings because they are so sharp. The complex landing gear fascinates me, and again, the accomplishments of these planes are extraordinary.

• Lockheed F-117 - If you want to talk about impressive design, this plane is going to be near the top of nearly any list. Lockheed's Skunkworks division was headed by Kelly Johnson for many years, and his successor Ben Rich finished developing this plane under the Have Blue project. I recently read a book by Ben that described some of the things they went through in developing this plane, and they were by far, leaps and bounds ahead of their time. Stealth technology, artificial stability, materials, geometry and all sorts of other developments were concepts first introduced on this aircraft. One story in particular comes to mind, where Ben was called to Washington D.C. to justify all of this research money being spent on this program, and I can't remember if it was Ben or Kelly that took a ball bearing into the meeting, rolled it across the desk, and told the top brass that this represented the radar signature of the plane they were working on. That's quite a feat! Not to mention, they got the thing to fly - even though without its computers, the thing wants to fly backwards.

• Lockheed F-22 - Cutting edge technology, the latest and greatest of America's Fighters. This one took a while to grow on me. In fact, I was actually opposed to it initially. I don't recall if I thought that maybe if the F-22 didn't try to take over the role of the F-18s, then the F-14 wouldn't be pushed out of service, or what, but now, knowing what I know, and being given some time to warm to the idea, I kind of like it. It looks menacing. Perhaps more so than anything in our arsenal currently. The worst part about it's outer appearance, is that you never know if it is carrying any ordnance, or what that ordnance is, exactly. Every fighter up until now, you can tell exactly what is is carrying, sometimes even by its radar signature, but this, no.. This one will keep you guessing until after it has fired them, and by then, it is probably too late to worry about it. Supersonic cruise speeds, incredible maneuverability, and the latest in stealth technology makes this plane what it is today, and earns my respect as well.

• Lockheed P-38 - This is a very interesting plane. It is unique in its shape and design, and with that, comes certain new issues that arise as a result of a new design. What is interesting, is that beside the issues, the designers managed to tackle all of the growing pains, and create quite the effective little plane. Counter-rotating props, changing from top in to top out, adding fillets to fuselage/wing joints to eliminate buffeting caused by airflow going near supersonic in compressed areas around the plane, and the center of lift moving aft during high-speed dives creating difficulties when trying to pull out of a dive. The commonality of all engine components except firing order to change the rotation of the engine, and the subdued sound of the engine exhaust after having gone through a turbo-supercharger. If you look through the history books, you will find many examples of heroism, or outstanding performance from a pilot, a fighter wing, or combat group of some sort, but beneath the surface, there are several interesting stories that come from this little plane. The example pictured, for example found itself downed near the polar ice cap. It was found nearly25 stories deep in ice. They dug to it, disassembled it, pulled it out piece by piece, and then reassembled it - into the flyable example you see above. Pretty amazing no matter how you stack it.

• Boeing 747 -This airframe is quite versatile, and has done quite a bit for the airline industry. It has been gracing our skies since 1970, and is still being produced. It is the most popular long range airliner in the world, and the most popular freighter as well.It is still being turned into long term projects like the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft pictured here, and even SOFIA based on a short airframe version of the dash-100 that was built in 1977, and is certified for 20 more years of service with SOFIA. Its lines are unique, and distinctive, and it continues to receive improvements that make it faster and more efficient. After thirty years, it just keeps getting better.


• Lockheed Constellation -The advances that this aircraft made in commercial aviation grew the industry by leaps and bounds. The design credit goes to Lockheed, but it is said that Howard Hughes drove many of the design aspects of the plane. It was difficult and expensive to produce, and was plagued with problems, but it was the first pressurized transport fuselage available to the airline industry, and it expanded schedules, ranges, and capabilities of the industry, and forced other companies to stretch their design to meet its capabilities as well. Beyond that, it's just a sexy plane. It is pretty incredible that there are only two of them that are in flyable condition. I saw an interesting program on the Military Channel or something that captured a portion of the restoration of one in Arizona - it was awesome to see the thrill on their faces when they were able to get all four engines started up and run in a bit. They managed to get the plane certified, and flew it from the States to Australia via Hawwaii. It was so cool to see it roll down the runway and climb into the air.

• Hughes H-4 -The largest aircraft to ever leave the ground... or water, as it was. Even more amazing, this airplane wasn't made with a metal fuselage. Due to the metal shortage during the war, Hughes Aircraft company was forced to find alternate materials. Contrary to the press-given mockery of a name, it is made almost entirely out of Birch. Some of the control surfaces are even covered with fabric! It spent most of its life, kept in a flyable state in Long Beach prior to Howard's death in 1967, and was on display in Long Beach until 1980, and I still never saw it. Now I have to go to Oregon to see it. The pictures that I have seen of it are amazing.

• Northrop Global Hawk - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are particularly interesting for several reasons. Craft such as this are quite remarkable. Humans have been flying remote control aircraft for quite some time. Drones during WWII, experiments with animals like pigeons piloting the craft to a target, or the use of a remote point of view camera to control the craft. This particular example is, in most respects autonomous. It is given a command, or directive, and then it performs it. It is not flown by a pilot located somewhere on the ground, it is told to taxi, take off, climb to an altitude, fly to a location, etc. Even landing is controlled by the craft itself. And its landings are picture-perfect. The Global Hawk did, however have a rough start to life. Difficulties with structures and materials used for manufacturing proved troublesome partly because the prototypes were pressed into service prior to having all of the bugs worked out. Eventually, the kinks were ironed out, and the craft is being used actively all over the world for situational awareness and reconnaissance. Other countries are interested in obtaining copies from Germany and Australia to Japan. NASA uses it as a scientific test platform for sensing technologies and research. There is even a tanker version in the works. Quite the compatible platform for so many different tasks. Don't be fooled by the photo, it stands 15' tall, 44' long, and has a wing span of 130'! Keep in mind the Wright Brother's first powered flight was only 120'.

• Lockheed U-2 -Such a storied design, this. So many variants, and so much history pivotal to the success of the U.S. might, and folly. With more than 50 years of service, this, another sprout from the genius mind of Kelly Johnson is quite an amazing aircraft. It has been crashed on takeoff, crashed on landing, shot down, refueled in air, shot from carriers and used for illegal overflights, stand-off reconnaissance, weather research, satellite calibration, astrological research - what do it don't do? Follow Top Gear's James May as he gets a ride in one to see just why this is one of the coolest planes ever.

It might be worth mentioning that each of these photos is part of a much larger rotation that graces my desktop on my computer. I'm sorry if the resolution kills you (4096 x 1152), but that's just the way it is.

I could write a blog post on each of these about how they became important to our military, why I like them, and how they came to be, but suffice it to say that all of these and more, are planes that I can't get enough of. And so, it is Airplanes that makes me who I am.

Bitter Pill

Try as I might, it doesn't look like my wife and I are going to be able to travel to Florida to view the very last Shuttle launch.

If you know anything about me, you might have some inkling of just how much this sucks, but I assure you, the full magnitude, you can not comprehend. It _SUCKS_. Neither of us are happy.

However, if you know of anyone that would be willing to loan us the money, give us the money, or beg, borrow or steal the money for us, let me know. Thanks.

Why I am me, Part 4

Cars:
I like cars. I always have. The reason for this was crystallized for me the other day, kind of out of the blue, but I'll get to that in a moment.

Why Cars?
Most people see clips or footage of the early days of cars, and think about how quaint they were, or how uncomfortable it would have been to try to drive across the city, much less the country in one of these horseless carriages. But think about what is really going on here. Humanity is not that old. There was the development of the wheel, wagons, carts, animals for power - these things have been used for centuries. But the car is just over 100 years old. With all of the things that man has accomplished since the dawn of time, he relied on his own power, or the power of animals for transportation until just over 100 years ago! The steam engine was a big step, as was rail transportation, which helped for transportation in bulk, but think about this. In order to travel into town to get groceries for the month, I don't have to keep a stable of animals anymore! Man has had many of the elements of the design of these devices in place for over 2000 years. The Celts had wagons with complex suspension, and chariots with suspended platforms for the rider's comfort around 680BC. Again, the steam engine was around for quite some time before the car came to be. Once the power density of the device allowed it to become portable, it was only a matter of time before the efficiency allowed it to be practical. But how awesome is that? Finally, we as a civilization, have managed to combine all of the elements needed into one tiny little package that permits the automated propulsion of persons. No pedals. No animals. Oh, certainly, the early examples were crude, but look at how quickly they were refined. Assembly lines brought costs down so that the average family could afford one. Quality went up so they were more reliable. Efficiency increased, so they could travel further. Roads were improved so they would be more comfortable to travel on. Think for a moment - have you ever had to travel on a dirt road to get where you needed to go? Sure, some roads might as well be, but largely, everywhere you need to go, there are paved roads to get you there. Think of all of the things that we have done over the years to tweak the design of the car to make it what it is today, and how different it now is from a chariot, or stagecoach. This transformation has always intrigued me.

Mechanics and machinery is very cool to me. Here, collected, are this series of levers, gears, pulleys, and wheels. Fabricated from the very latest of metal forming, stamping, machining. Upholstery, sewing, weaving, dying, treating. Wood carving, veneering, bonding. Plastic sheeting, molding, vacuum-forming. Electronics for engine tuning, audio receiving and playback, navigation and communication. And now, with today's hybrids, chemistry, thermodynamics, and the like. The integration of these technologies is fantastic!

I really can't pinpoint when or what sparked my love for cars. Perhaps it was my curtains, with cars on them, or a magazine that I found as a kid, but for as long as I can remember, I've loved cars. Trucks too. My Mom tells me that I wanted to be a garbage truck when I was young. Not the garbage man, but the truck! I had books about Monster Trucks, Semi-trucks, and cars of all sorts. One of my favorite books growing up, was by Richard Scarrey - Cars and Trucks and things that Go. Finding "Goldbug" was a delight. The thing I built most with my LEGOs was cars, trucks, or some other ground equipment.

Today, I kind of take cars in general for granted, but I appreciate all of the research and design that goes into making them better. Having impact zones, and fall-away engine blocks, and airbags, and active restraint systems, anti-lock brakes, accelerometers, and even systems that sense when you are trying to perform beyond your talent, and pull the reigns in for you is astounding. Simply astounding. Cars can park themselves. Cruise control that can maintain a distance behind another vehicle, and backs off when someone jumps in between you is awesome. DARPA, and their challenge to have a car successfully navigate the hazards and dangers that we don't give a second thought to is a wonderful thing, and that manufacturers are spending their own money to try to win this competition is even better. I like the refinement. The making of things more efficient. Hybrid technology as it stands today is fine, and yay, we get better mileage, but there is one shortfall that a couple of manufacturers are developing systems to capitalize on - gas/electric or diesel/electric hybrids are well and good, but they aren't as good on long trips. I've read numbers that internal combustion engines are at most 50% efficient. That means, for every gallon of gas that you burn, if we had more efficient means of harnessing that potential energy, we could go twice as far. As I understand it, both BMW and Chevrolet are working on a system that will use the heat from your exhaust to turn water into steam, which will help power the engine. How awesome is that!? BMW's system, is apparently capable of developing 65hp, that can be fed back into the system. Kudos! And VW's concept (which I hope makes it to market fairly quickly) of the 1L - a two-seat, tandem car that uses 1 liter of gas to travel 100km - something like 270 miles per gallon. I want one! Not only would that save a lot of money on fuel, but the car looks pretty sleek as well. Subaru has a vehicle or two in their lineup in the UK that use clean diesel to exceed 45mpg, AWD system intact, and no hybrid technology needed. This is the best of humanity, creating better cars. I love it!

Bucket List:
Of course it's not all about efficiency. Anyone that is a bit of a car nut has that bucket list of cars to own, or at least drive. Here's mine, in no particular order, and a little bit about why.

• McLaren F1 - This is my ultimate car. I have a lot of respect for the Bugatti Veyron, but think about this. The McLaren's top speed record for a production record stood until it was beaten by just three miles per hour by the Koeneigsegg CCR - and it took over 12 years for that to happen. Now, the Veryon just smashes it, but look at what it took to do that.

• Ferrari F-40 - A sexy car. I saw one once. One of the Losi boys from R/C car fame owned one, and it was parked at the Ranch Pit Stop in Pomona. I love the simplicity of it, and it just has beautiful, powerful lines. It's not one of Ferrari's glorious V-12s, but a V-8 with twin turbos can be just as addicting.

• Bugatti EB110 - This, another entry in the 'I can go faster than you can' contest, was one that had remarkable lines, and completely filled out its shape. Mechanically troublesome, its four turbos added most of its power, AWD most of its handling, and the Bugatti name garnering most of its status. It was no slouch, but it was no Veyron either.

• Acura NSX - I always vowed that when I got this car, I would get one of those vanity plates, and somehow work it out to read "Endless Sex". Tight, compact, and low-slung, this V-6 powered pseudo super car has intrigued me since it came to our shores in 1991. Does anybody know what ever happened to the prototype or whatever, that was trapped in customs hell in Long Beach for all of those years? I think they finally reached perfection around 1997, and then kind of fell off the mark after that, but this is one of those cars that I think I could own, and drive, and not actually feel like I should be having a mid-life crisis. I did manage to drive one once. I was working in a tow yard, and we had picked one up for being illegally parked. I watched the door like a hawk, wanting to be the one that was available to drive it up for the owner when they came in. Not that my test drive was in any way a measure of its performance, but it was fun. Just a little taste. Made me want more.

• Porsche 959 - The engineering that went into this car was remarkable at the time. Things like single center lugs, hollow wheels, sequential turbos. Impressive stuff. I've seen one a couple times, when they've been displayed in the Porsche booth at the L.A. Auto show, which I used to regularly attend. It was a nice treat, but being able to drive one would be very cool indeed.

• BMW M5 - The owner of a company I worked for owned one of these, and said that it was more fun to drive than his 911. I wanna try.

• BMW M3 - Precise handling, and gobs of torque. Gimme.

• Honda Preulde - Back in High School, this was the car for me. I wanted one so bad.

• Honda CRX - I owned an HF, but wanted the Si. Good little car. It did me well.

• Subaru Impreza WRX GD - This is my current car, and I LOVE it.

• Subaru Impreza GC - I owned a 2000 RS, and had a LOT of fun driving it.

• Subaru Impreza 22B - Teeny, tiny little body. 350hp. Boxer grunt. AWD.

• Dodge Viper - I've never wanted to own one of these, just drive it. When it first came out, I was interested, but cautiously kept my distance. It had nice lines, big power, but still seemed like a novelty. It wasn't until the GTS coupe was produced that it really seemed like a practical car. I used to do street legal drags with my pickup in Pomona, and there was a viper club that came most days. Their hopped-up Vipers dragging down the strip literally sounded like four riced-out Honda Civics trying to out-rev each other. It was quite the spectacle. I've always heard that they are a handful to drive, especially on a road course, with the higher power GTS-R variants that are built for racing, but I'd love to be given the opportunity to give it a go, see how I do.

• Land Rover Discovery 110 - Don't ask me why, but I think this is one of the sexiest off road vehicles that I can think of. The capability, and the long history of rovers being legendary off road vehicles makes me want one to go exploring in.

• Jeep Wrangler 4dr - These are new, I know, but still seem quite capable, and they have plenty of room for the wife, and all your junk.

• Mazda RX-7 - I love it when there's a different thought about how things should be done. Mazda's rotary engine isn't the most robust thing in the world, but I like that there's a different school of thought. Mazda's 1992 RX-7 R2 was a lovely car. One of my Mom's co-workers owned one of these, and she invited me to lunch one day, and offered to let me drive it back to the office. That was fun.

• Toyota Supra - Gran Turismo. And if you don't know, look it up. This was one of the ultimate cars in the video game. I was certainly a fan of it before, but the video game provided me with an opportunity to drive it.

• Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX - This is one of my favorite low-budget sports cars. A friend of mine from High School had one, and it was a blast to drive. A little bloated with its thicker body panels, and AWD system, but it was quite impressive. I owned a GST as well, which was a lot of fun to drive, but still, not as much fun as the GSX. I think I can blame this car for my addiction to that whistle of a turbo.

Okay, but why cars?
The very best that man can make can always be refined. Tuned. Think of the glorious feeling of slotting a gear-change on a Ferrari gearbox, and compare that to the slop-boxes that most of us can afford. We don't design for optimism, we design for compromise. Performance versus longevity. Weight versus durability. Power versus reliability. These compromises are everywhere you look in the design of anything. To some extent, they have to be. But then... I always love to see what people can do when they remove limits. Take someone that has been really quite good at something for a long time, and then remove the limitations that hold them back - design constraints, budgetary limitations, rules and regulations, convention, judgment, physics. Just let them -do- at their optimum. Take the story of the McLaren F1 as an example. Build the ultimate road car. Period. Let's not worry about cost, or maintenance concerns, or fitting a certain number of people comfortably, or the number of cup holders, just build the Ultimate road car. Car, in the purest form. Carbon fiber chassis. Titanium wheels. Gold-lined engine bay. If you bought one new, it came with a tool box so you could work on it if need be. Driver sits in the middle of the car. Engine is in the back, fuel tank between the two. Perfect weight distribution. Perfect balance. Quick and nimble. The car broke records for years. When it participated in racing events, it smashed the competition. Every example sold with multiple hands eager to shell out the asking price for it. It took multiple attempts by several manufacturers attempting to do the same thing fifteen years to top its speed by any significant amount. It is a masterpiece of engineering because the limitations, the compromises that we normally have to live with were not present. Built for a purpose, without limitation. The utmost precision, a fine watch. With everything at its peak, it simply does everything better. Which brings me to my earlier crystallization - The reason I love cars, is that there are so many different ideas about the right way to do something, or the best way to accomplish this or that in regards to automobiles. But that these different thoughts exist is not the point - it is how they can be combined, and how they can be tuned that makes them magical. That you can rearrange parts, tune their fit, and finish, and the performance aspects of the parts, or replace them with different parts that change geometry, performance, comfort, etc. Being able to discover for yourself, just what, exactly, makes a car good. It is reaching that perfect mix of fuel and air. The temperature is just right. The humidity is low. The fuel is clean, and well atomized. The spark hits at just the right instant, and boom. Bliss. And so, it is cars that makes me who I am.

What are your favorite cars? Why?

24 Heurs du Mans

Having just watched the FANTASTIC 2011 24 Hours of LeMans, it strikes me - When I tell people that I am a fan of Auto Racing, inevitably, the first thing that I hear is, "You mean NASCAR!?" as they get excited, thinking that they know something about auto sport.

No. Not NASCAR. Anything BUT NASCAR.

I will concede, that there are some relatively talented drivers in NASCAR, and that it does take some nerve to drive 180 miles per hour only a couple inches from a wall. There is a lot of strategy in NASCAR, and it takes a bit of endurance to sit in the car for several hours, and I can only imagine the frustration of only being able to turn left. But no, I am not a fan. My issues with NASCAR are numerous, and deep-seated. Here are a couple:

• They call it "stock car racing". It's not a "stock car" There is nothing stock about it. It didn't come from the factory. In fact, there is a very slim chance that there is anything on it that came from the production line in which the car it is supposed to represent is built, much less that manufacturer. Engine blocks might be of the same breed, but beyond that - aftermarket cams, forged pistons, all kinds of go fast bits that would never come with the product put out by the manufacturer. Yes, once upon a time, the cars that they ran were based on street-legal vehicles, but no more, and not for a long time. Change it to NACAR or something.

• Toyota races in NASCAR alongside Chevy, Ford, Dodge, and whomever else. They change so much it's hard to keep track. But, I assure you, a Toyota Camry is not available as a V8 powered RWD car with a solid rear axle.

• There are now four races a year when they have to turn right. Really? I understand that the best possible arrangement for spectator viewing is a stadium, but go to ANY rally course, and you'll find nut-jobs wanting to stand ON the course, just to get a glimpse of the cars. People standing near creek crossings just waiting to get splashed. This number has also doubled in the last ten years, but these cars are still nowhere near equipped to run road courses on a regular basis. Their design is truly one-sided.

Compare NASCAR to WRC:
WRC is a format of Rally racing where  the course is usually a naturally-existing series of roads, trails, and paths that are taken on by cars specially equipped for racing, and the harsh environment. By the regulations, the driver has never driven that car on that course, the car must retain 10% of its stock form, and rather than passing cars on the course, with everyone starting from the same place at the same time, each driver competes against the clock. There are a number of "stages" or "legs" in any one rally, and the driver with the lowest time completing all of them, including penalties for servicing their car for too long, going off course, or any other offense.

• Get a NASCAR driver in the co-pilot's seat with someone like Colin McRae, Sebastian Loeb (whom I do not like), Travis Pastrana, or even Tanner Foust (whom I HATE), and they would sit there screaming, wetting themselves as they go 160mph sideways down a dirt road no wider than their car with trees on both sides of the road, not really sure about what's coming around the next bend.

Something like this, or this, or even this.

• A WRC car actually starts off as a production vehicle of the brand it claims to be. It's in the rulebook. NASCAR vehicles are built from the ground up from tubes, and sheet-metal that has never even been to Detroit. Check out this video of a WRC car being built, and another of a Rally America car.

• WRC drivers don't know the course, their co-pilot does. They have driven it in their "recce" cars, but things change - the driver before might have trailed some gravel onto a twisty bit of tarmac. It might have rained, or snowed. A change of tire compound or tread design might shave a bunch of time, but there are no pits. If you get a flat, you stop on the side of the road, and you change the tire. If you have an incident, and you can keep driving, you do - bumper hanging off, wheels broken, glass broken and all. It is the Co-pilot's job to call out the upcoming turns as they go along. NASCAR teams spend tons of money on testing and development, and practice practice practice on one particular course. By the time the race starts, they've nearly driven the same distance already.

• WRC races in the rain. They race in snow. They race in mud. They race on gravel. They race in dirt. They race under all five of these conditions in one leg of the rally!

Compare NASCAR to F1:
I think that F1 is one of the most hardcore forms of racing there ever was. The budget for these teams is just mind blowing. The rules are explicit, and technical, and every year, as rules creep up to even the fields, the Engineers go to work in wind tunnels, and on dynos, and in chemistry labs to find the loophole that makes less drag, more downforce, more traction, more power, quicker shifts, traction control, quicker pits, better fuel efficiency, etc.

• Granted, you can't go buy the V-10 out of a McLaren Mercedes F1 car for yourself, but the manufacturers involved actually make the motor. They design it from the ground up, and spend millions of dollars on developing it, tuning it, and getting it to do what they want it to. It is their motor. 100%. It turn ump-teen thousand RPM, and develops several hundred horsepower.

• Drivers regularly experience lateral forces approaching 3g in turns without banking.

• Acceleration faster than you can blink. How about 0-60 in 1.9 seconds?

• Fuel, tires, a drink, and a wipe of the visor in under 10 seconds.

• They race in the rain. Tell me what NASCAR drivers know about "wets" or "intermediates".

Compare NASCAR to LeMans:
LeMans is a legendary, and very specific form of endurance racing. Endurance racing takes place in many forms in many locations, but basically, a number of drivers campaign one car, and race for a specified period of time, usually 12 hours or 24. The first to cross the finish line after the clock runs out is the winner. Cars are specially designed for this, and the money and knowledge backing the teams is nothing sort of F1 epic. This year, Audi and Pugeot were having themselves an epic battle. They had each won once in the last two years, and with new equipment, they were eager to show just what they'd learned.

• 24 hours. I know SPEED channel is so in love with NASCAR that we get 24 hours of _coverage_ for every NASCAR race, but there's really, only 3-4 hours of racing. For LeMans, we got 25, but it happens once a year, and there actually ARE 24 hours of racing. After 24 hours, over 400 laps on an 8.4 mile course, the race was down to a 20 second gap.

• These cars go just as fast as NASCAR cars, but then they turn. It takes a "stock" car about a week to reach top speed, and these guys were doing it 4 times a lap, inside of 3:30 min.

• Complete fuel, four tires, a drink bottle, a window clean, and changing the 'data card' (used for highly detailed telemetry recording) in 20 seconds, and they aren't allowed to even touch the car until fueling is complete.

• Corvette started life as a Corvette.
• Porsche started life as a Porsche.
• Ferrari started life as a Ferrari.

• One of the commercials that ran during the broadcast better tells the woes of a LeMans driver. I give you Allan McNish, and Exhibit A who during the early part of the race, walked away from this.

• They race in the rain.


I'll grant you, that I don't know everything there is to know about NASCAR, because I don't much care. That there is some talent that got sucked into that pool is unfortunate. NASCAR is to Auto Racing what the WWF was to wrestling in the 80's; what Don King is to boxing. And I am frustrated by the first response I get every time I say that I like Auto Racing - "You mean, like NASCAR?" No.

Harsh? Yeah. But I've done a bit of homework, and I have my reasons. I'm entitled.

One more thought -in WRC, and LeMans, even a little from F1, what the manufacturers learn from racing goes directly into developing smarter, safer, more efficient automobiles. Tell me the same can be said from NASCAR. Headlight technology has benefited immensely from it, I'm sure.

Do you like auto racing? What kind?