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?

Why I am me, Part 3

LEGO:
I'm sure that if you've grown up any time after the 70's, you'll know a thing or two about LEGO. If you're older than that, it's those damn expensive things that your kids asked for when they were growing up, some time after the 70's.

If you still don't know, Google LEGO, and you'll get an endless list of results that could take several days to sift through all of the interesting things in. Just about anything you can think of has been made out of LEGO at one point of time or another. There are several theme parks around the world dedicated to this magnificent and ageless toy. The interchangeable bricks are made for ages 0-100, and bring a joy and frustration all their own, and if you have never played with them, you should try it, even if only so you can say that you have. You need not be a rocket-scientist, an engineer, an artist, or even very creative or imaginative to enjoy LEGO in some respect. It is the simplest concept that has become something quite astounding. And there is an element of deeper complexity that isn't clear on the surface - something as brilliantly simple as the Fibonacci Sequence permitting the infinite complexity of a Mandlebrot set.

Very simply, the basic LEGO element is a block, hollow on the inside, with 'bumps' on the top arranged in a linear array in equal distances in two directions. I think the basic, most recognizable element has two rows of four bumps. These can be stacked on top of each other, and next to each other in a manner that permits them to interlock, and create structures, artwork, and any number of things. They are available in an array of colors, sizes, and even thicknesses to be sure. As the toy has advanced from its humble beginnings in a wooden toy shop in Germany in 1932, 'special' pieces have been developed from the mini figures, to wheels, to wings, antennaes, tools, canopies, etc. There are hundreds of different LEGO elements available today.

Growing up as a child, I did not have the latest video game systems, or the coolest bike, or skateboard. I have never owned a pair of roller blades, or a hockey stick, or ice skates, and my collection of hot wheels fit neatly into just one carrying case. The toy that permeated my memories of growing up was, you guessed it: LEGO.

But you see, I didn't have every LEGO set I wanted either. Even back then, LEGO was very expensive. One of my childhood friends, to my knowledge, had the first LEGO set in the United States, when his father traveled to Germany for business, and brought it back as a gift. I'm certain that has no bearing on the eventual import and marketing of LEGO over here, but suffice it to say that his LEGO collection was the target of my envy. I wrote in for the shop at home catalogs, and I drooled over the photos of the available sets for endless hours, dreaming in my head of an unlimited budget, and the orders that I would place. Oh, the things I would build. Another childhood friend traveled to Germany while in Elementary School, and brought back with him a stack of German LEGO catalogs for me to drool over. Things that weren't available over here, things I would never have imagined. And of course, they were the latest, and greatest. I managed to stop drooling long enough to thank him, I think.

But since Mom couldn't afford to keep me drowning in new LEGO sets, I would disassemble the sets in my mind, trying to figure out how they were built. Then I would spend countless hours trying to build them myself with the parts that I had. Most of the time, I would roughly succeed, proud of myself for my work-around to their special parts that I did not have. Sometimes I would be stumped, and all of my attempts failed to measure up to their intended subjects. But most often, I would learn about another way of combining elements to achieve a result. Something to make my models stronger, more robust, lighter, uniform in color, etc. This kept me thinking of how to do it differently. How to make something with what I had. Resourcefulness, if you will. Oh, sure, sometimes you just HAVE to have the right tool. But most of the time, you can get by without it.

As I got older, my models changed from simple to complex. A Mini figure-scale F-14 Tomcat, with retractable gear, and sweepable wings. A 'low-boy' trailer, and forklift trailer with a forklift for my 'Highway Rig' (5580-1). I worked for years to develop front suspension and steering for the Car Chassis (8860-1). Long-travel independent suspension on the same scale that wouldn't require some sort of sliding drive-shaft. Monster trucks, and tractor-trailers to haul them. An entire LEGO city on top of my desk, with a race circuit, and pits, and racing teams. A two-story house, with a zip-lock baggie filled with water, covered with Kleenex as a water-bed. My Brother and I made stop-motion movies, and elaborate scenarios with our LEGO creations. I once built a crane that would hoist 3 lbs from the floor up to the bed, suspended by the top bunk. In High School, I used a programmable robotic arm to show how container trains and semi-trucks have combined to increase the efficiency of product delivery over long distances. But I don't envision my accomplishments to be anything out of the norm for kids who grew up with LEGO. Still, it has inspired, or at least provided the foundation for the career that I am striving for. It has given me a means, and methodology to design. Because of LEGO, I want to be an Engineer.

It seems all too simple when boiled down that way, and there is still so much more to it. Now, to be sure, I've never built any kind of extravagant model like an Aircraft Carrier that is 15 feet long, or a life-size Jack Sparrow. Nothing that I have built with LEGO will or should ever be displayed in a museum, and there are hundreds if not thousands of people with better brick building skills than I. But LEGO has never been the end to me. Only the start. And so, it is LEGO that makes me who I am.

What was your favorite toy growing up? What part of you did you discover during your childhood?

In Memory

Memorial day:
Just a little note to say thank you to all who serve this country so that I may retain my freedoms.

And in memory of all those who have paid the ultimate price for this country and all of its flaws, I say Thank you.

Why I am me, Part 2

Disneyland:
If you go to Disneyland, California Adventure, Disney World, Disney Sea, Disney Paris, or anything else that Disney owns and operates, and you don't have a good time, it's your own damn fault. I don't care if you are 5 or 50, there is something for everyone at every single one of these parks.

I've lived within 50 miles of the original park in Anaheim all of my life, and I love it. Can't get enough. I visited the park hundreds of times when I was a kid. I was fascinated with everything about the place growing up. Was never a big fan of the parades, the quality of which, I kind of miss now. Like the Main Street Electrical Parade for example. That was another LP that I nearly wore out. From what I can recall, I think Pirates of the Caribbean was my favorite ride growing up until I was tall enough to ride Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. BTRR is still my favorite ride in the park, though Space Mountain is quite a bit of fun once you get past the pesky queue. Star Tours got a little old once you'd ridden it a couple of times, and Indy was just never worth the wait.

Still I went. My Dad got my Brother and I Annual Passes (the cool ones with no blackout dates) my senior year in High School, so we went for Christmas (apparently), and all that we could, every chance we got. That was when Disneyland became more to me than an amusement park. Oh, sure, I was still plenty amused. But people watching - usually while waiting for someone was a fantastic past-time in the park. Listening to the partial conversation of someone walking by, or watching a group of people approach the hub from as soon as they came into view at the head of Main street. Sometimes, the people watching was better than standing in line for a ride. So good, in fact, that it didn't matter if we got on rides or not - watching a child throw a tantrum, and the parents try to save face was more fun than riding the teacups. Listening to two girls cackle "Oh my God"s at each other about some guy that was checking them out was better than Small World. And by far the best, and most memorable - Indiana Jones had just opened, and they were still distributing those little glyph translation cards so you could interpret the glyphs on the walls as you enter the temple. Of course, we'd already been on it like a hundred times, so we already knew what they all said. This couple in front of us had a serious PDA issue, and they were getting on my nerves. We came around this corner, and all snuggled up next to each other, they held the card up to share in the translation. In the deepest, most bellowing voice I could muster, I read the inscription from the wall, "Only the blind shall see" Immediately freaked out, they quickly darted glances in every direction, trying to find out where the voice was coming from. My Brother makes a good straight-man. I could barely hold it in. Who knows if they figured it was me or not, but it never seemed like it. But that was more fun than the ride.

There was a period of time where I didn't go at all. My wife and I had our first date there, like 15 years ago. But after that, I didn't go much. Thankfully, a little over a year ago, my wife insisted that we go for her Birthday, and get ourselves annual passes. The park has now become something more than amusement. Sure, we go for date nights, special events, take friends when they are in from out of town, etc. but most of the fun to me, has been discovering the little things about the park that seem to be lost to everyone else.

My favorite thing about the park is the little details. I know it's been there for 55 years, and I know it wasn't always this way, but I like that every nook and cranny that you can get into has some detail in it that just 'makes' it. That completes the illusion. That fully removes you from your daily life. It is those details that so many other places lack, and which so complete the atmosphere. You can't find those anywhere else. Though, I did like it a little bit more when you couldn't see anything outside of the park while inside.

Recently though, I have really been getting into the history of the park. The fact that it has been there for 55 years, and there is that much attention to detail, while astounding in and of itself has led to making keeping track of that history, and those little details even more entertaining. I can't remember the year it was when I first came to the park, but I do remember, and enjoy recalling, for instance, when Splash Mountain was not there, or the Nature's Wilderness train was still sitting, defunct, on the banks of the Rivers of America. I love seeing the progress of the park, in all of its successes, and all of its failures. How many of you remember when McDonald's invaded Frontierland? But knowing the little things about the park makes each visit more magical. Studying, and researching, and learning about the facts, and tid-bits of the ideas and inspiration, and process that went into building a ride, or what used to be there, and then going there, and seeing it with that new fascination and wonder, and knowing more than the average Joe about why the old man coming to see how my eggs are is a big deal. Despite the monster that it has become, I think Walt would have appreciated that those marks of history are still everywhere around the park, and might give a smile if I told him why I loved his park so much. And so, it is Disneyland that makes me who I am.

Why I am me, Part 1

I am perhaps a little strange. There's probably a reason for it, but I haven't bothered to figure out the reasons for everything I do, because I kind of like who I am. But here, now, for the first time ever, I will attempt to explain away some of the reasons I do what I do, and like what I like. So, I present to you, the first installment of "Why I am me":

Space:
I like space. Space vehicles, Satellites, the sciency stuff about space. Space. Space. What is your favorite thing about space? Mine is space. I have always liked space. I don't know where it comes from really, but I do know that when I was younger, it wasn't so much about the people that made going to space possible; the Engineers, Scientists, Planners, Schedulers, Chemists, Electricians, Production and Assembly, Seamstresses - the hundreds of thousands of people that worked for contractors and sub contractors and all of that - no. It was the vehicle. I have been fascinated with machinery for longer than I can remember. My Mom told me that when I was four, I wanted to be a garbage truck. Not the garbage man - the garbage truck.

So for the longest time, my fascination was about the devices that got us there. The Space Shuttle was-is probably the biggest influence here. I am too young to have known anything about Mercury, Gemini or Apollo when I was younger. I remember as a kid, my Brother had an LP that recounted the first Shuttle mission. We must have listened to that thing a million times. I can still hum the lame theme song that they came up with for it. Looking around a bit, I thank the internet for connecting to some of my childhood memories, because now I can buy that very LP on sites like ebay and the like. But I recall my Brother waking me up for Shuttle launches - I'm still not a morning person. That was about the only thing that could get me out of bed in a flash. It was so exciting to listen to Hugh Harris' distinct voice go through the countdown. Intensity growing as he counted from 10, 9, 8, 7, six, we are go for main engine start, whe have main engine start, 3, 2, 1, Liftoff! Watching the rockets lift the Shuttle into the air, and on its merry way was something that I could never get enough of. If they showed the engineering replays on TV back then like they do on NASA TV now, I would have sat and watched every angle they could have given me. I also know that my Dad played a part in the influence as well. Once, we went up to Edward's AFB to watch Discovery land. I'll touch on that more later. But it was always the vehicles. How cool is the Shuttle that it launches on rockets, and carries that giant tank, then turns into an airplane, and comes back to earth, and land where "it" wants to. All of the mechanisms that thing must have on board. I still drool just thinking about it.

Even more recently, launch vehicles like Boeing's Delta II have come to hold a dear place in my heart. I was more inclined to follow Mars Pathfinder, or Spirit & Opportunity than I was to somehow connect with a live astronaut. Call me an Engineer - I want to see what makes it tick. I'm still learning things about launch vehicles, and complex systems, and how they all play a role in taking man into space, but I am learning more and more that it is not the machines, which are still just as fascinating, but the people that designed, built, and maintain them that make them what they are.

That stated, I am now learning to truly appreciate, rather than simply akowlege the existence of, the people involved, as well as everything that came before dawn of , April 12th, 1981. I am learning just what a big deal it was when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and how much work actually went into getting there. I am learning about characters like Eugene Cernan who just yesterday, gave a speech about the 50 years since President Kennedy challenged us to go to the moon (my favorite speech ever). I am learning just what upstanding citizens they were, that did the work to get us to where we are today. All of the companies that have been involved in building rockets, landers, rovers, space stations, space suits and everything else that we had to have. Did you know that Playtex was involved with Apollo? Do you know where the Shuttles were built? There is so much that can be known or discovered about what has already happened, that it could consume the rest of your life. Part of me would be content there.

But the rest of me wants to do more. I want to design. To produce. I want to build things. To figure out how to use all of these skills and talents, so somehow contribute to accomplishing something that has never been done before. I want to be part of exploration, and research, and the discovery of what else is out there, or why we are where we are. And so, it is space that makes me who I am.

Do you like Space, launch vehicles, and our accomplishments there? Tell me about it!

All Shiny and New

No, not the love boat. My blog.

I've never had a formal place to put whatever I want, and I know there are a million such places on the interwebs, so if you have come here by accident, I hope you enjoy. If you have sought me out, thank you, and if you don't like it, these are not the droids you are looking for - move along.