The View From the Outback© 2000 Richard C. Rhodes
A great deal of what we read in newspapers, magazines, and books, and what we see in the movies and on TV is written and produced in New York City or Los Angeles. Much of the "political wisdom" comes from the PR machines of the White House, the Congress, and from the Washington media corps. In short, one might conclude that all knowledge, wisdom, and wit are confined to those who inhabit New York City, Washington DC, or Hollywood. I am now a senior citizen, in my 7th decade. My experience was gained in many cities in the U.S. and in about 30 foreign countries. That experience has included the U.S. Marines, law school, the ATF, the CIA, Fortune 500 executive, writer, public speaker, educator, editor, and publisher - for openers. Some insights come from talking with ham-radio operators in every major country and such idyllic places as the Cook Islands. For over 20 years, I have written articles off and on for various magazines and newspapers. I've had an enormous number of letters published in major national publications. The Outback is the rural area in Northeast Texas where I have lived for the past 15 years. Since most visits to my pages come from searches, I am no longer trying to keep on a regular schedule for updating the Outback. Click on a Topic to go directly to that topic. Aug. 30, 2005: Will they never learn? Marriage is a wonderful thing. Being in love is one of life's most exhilarating and inexplicable phenomenons. But, yet another celebrity has said: "She's the one I want to spend the rest of my life with." This time it is Jay McGraw, Dr. Phil's handsome and bright son. Jay is engaged to a former Playboy Playmate. Good for him. But, since 50% or more marriages end in divorce, shouldn't we call a moratorium on saying "She's the one I want to spend the rest of my life with"? Maybe. Maybe not. Somebody will quote you in the tabloids if you break up. Here's a substitute that can't get you into too much trouble. "I am so excited and thrilled about us getting married - and feel so lucky." Aug. 29, 2005: David Letterman and the Late Show were in Hi-Def for the first time. Who was the booking agent who booked John McEnroe, the spoiled tennis brat, and Andy Dick - whatever he is? My first night of Late Show in Hi-Def ended after the Top 10 list. As someone was heard in an early voice-over about the show being in Hi-Def, "What a waste of technology." For night one, for sure. My hero, Astronaut Eileen Collins is booked for the 2nd night in Hi-Def. Maybe she can tell us if she has seen any extraterrestrial life forms in space that can explain who or what Andy Dick is. Aug. 21, 2005: Dozens of articles have been written by AP, Reuters and others about the Discovery space shuttle since it landed at Edwards Air Force base. Not one of these articles has failed to mention that the space-shuttle Columbia burned up upon re-entry, killing all seven astronauts. Even an article about Discovery finally making it back to Florida, atop the modified 747, ended with the reminder of the fate of Columbia and the death of the seven astronauts. Give it a rest! Is there anyone who can read, or is able to watch TV, or hear the radio, or scan the Internet, who does not know about the fate of Columbia? This is one example of how the media influences public opinion even in its news reporting. The message is, don't forget that on the mission before this last one, the shuttle burned up and killed everyone on board. I am one who thinks the current lot of space shuttles ought to be scrapped, but I have written several pieces in which I give the reasons for that judgement. The major media uses the now nearly-subliminal message of: "The shuttle is not safe. Columbia came apart and killed all seven astronauts." Aug. 21, 2005: I have not seen one major news outlet report on the "rigging" (fraud) that took place in the "Big Brother 6" Head of Household competition where Janelle changed her written answer in order to win. (See below) It is a sad commentary on our society that people find all forms of lying and cheating as the norm and okay to do. There is a potential $1 million dollar prize at stake here, and nobody cares that the show is "rigged"? I checked some blogs and chat rooms and although the incident was mentioned, not ever fully correctly, nobody seemed upset about it. I e-mailed the FCC that night and complained about this fraud. Not even Drudge, who will headline the most insignificant of matters, mentioned it (I sent him an e-mail that night outlining the same info I sent to the FCC). Aug. 21, 2005: As I surfed looking for mentions of the rigging of the Head of Household competition on "Big Brother 6" won by Janelle with a switched answer on her card, I got really depressed about the future of our society. There are blogs and chat rooms devoted entirely to this show. People summarize each scene and comment on it, like the fate of the world hangs in the balance. What kind of education and intellect do these people have, that they devote so many hours to passionately commenting and arguing about this show? The show is basically about nothing. These must be the same type folks who show up on Jay Leno's Jaywalking segments and cannot recognize the photos of our President, Vice President, or Secy. of State, or know in which year the War of 1812 was fought, for example. Most disturbing were the comments that now that people on the show are starting to yell and scream at each other, curse at each other, give each other the finger, insult their families, physically threaten people, cry, and so on, "the show has finally gotten good." These people, who seem to revel in the demeaning of other human beings, were getting worried that the show was too boring. When people are allowed to post their views anonymously (in alias) on the Internet, it does give us a window into the venal and perverse nature of many, way too many, people among us. In my defense, the only reason I record Big Bro and scan it on my DVR is to try to understand what kind of programming appeals to Americans - and to find things to criticize as stupid, inept, or dishonest. Big Bro is a happy-hunting grounds for anyone who is studying stupid, inept, and now dishonest, TV shows. Aug. 18, 2005: As I watch snatches of "Big Brother 6," on my DVR at +60 frames a second (snatches of the program, of course), I am dumbfounded that this piece of trash is still on the air. There is no plot, no strategy. Just people sitting around whispering "I don't trust her." Or, "I don't think I can trust him to keep his word." And the dreaded "Peanute Butter & Jelly all week" curse. How riveting. Then, there was the adorable Julie Chen, wife of CBS major domo, Les Moonves. She was discussing that one of the previously evicted houseguests would be voted back into the house. She said it would be "Either Kaysar, Michael, or Eric." "Either" is being one or the other of two - not three! Les Moonves is the great nephew of David Ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel. If Mr. Ben-Gurion were alive today, I am sure he would have words with Les about his "mid-life-crisis marriage." "Oi Vey, Les, the woman doesn't know either from neither, Lox from locks, a Bagel from a Beagle." Aug. 18, 2005, 8:40 p.m.: Unbelievable! I just ran the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) recording of tonight's episode of "Big Brother 6." In the Head of Household (HOH) competition, there were three players left. The "tie breaker," question, which is apparently used when they are running out of time (there was no "tie") was: "How many light bulbs did it take to spell out 'SOLD OUT' in the Luxury competition? The one closest without going over would win HOH. If all three went over the one closest to the correct number would win HOH. Beau held up his card and had written 175. Janelle held up her printed answer upside down. It was 300 (backwards of course). Julie Chen said, "Janelle, you're upside down." They went to a shot of April finishing her card. She held it up and it was 145. When the long shot of all three players came back, Beau had written 175, April had written 145. But Janelle's card that at first showed the upside down 300 had "miraculously" changed to 275 and she became the new HOH. The correct answer was 286 lights. Janelle looked liked she had just swallowed the Gold Fish. Not a good poker face. I think the FCC will be interested in this. The show was rigged! In a moment, I am going to log into the FCC site to send them this paragraph. Mr. Moonves, let's see you and Julie get out of this one. I don't intend to erase this program. It may be needed at the hearing. Many critics of the invasion of Iraq said it was all about the U.S.'s desire to control the substantial oil reserves in Iraq. Have you heard of any oil imported into the U.S. from Iraq? First, the oil infrastructure was and still is a mess. Second, insurgents blow up pipelines and other oil-related facilities. But, here's the hoot. In a country that the media tells us is ravaged by the insurgency and basically dysfunctional, car sales have boomed. Iraq does not even produce enough gas to supply the cars of its own citizens, who stand in long gas lines hoping to score a few gallons. So much for the "its all about oil" argument we heard and still hear in the media. My contempt for the Associated Press (AP) and the Eastern Elite Media Snobs continues unabated. Reporting on the delay of the final round of the PGA golf tournament, DOUG FERGUSON, AP Golf Writer, wrote: "Twelve players will return at 10 a.m. Monday ...." And which time zone would that be, sir? In case you have not heard, there is only one time zone that counts, Eastern Daylight Time. The rest of you can suck raw eggs. So, my guess is that I should set my DVR for 9 a.m. Central Daylight Time, on CBS, since I don't normally watch morning TV. Have you ever noticed that the TV networks usually promo a show with 10 EDT/9 CDT? That is because the most important market is, after all, the Eastern Market, even though in any logical numerical sequence 9 would come before 10, as in 9CDT/10EDT. You people in the Pacific Time Zone are on your own. Wi-Fi Comes to the Outback Library. The library in town, population around 1,800, has a broadband connection and several public-use computers. Now, they have Wi-Fi in the reference room. My Acer Centrino laptop is all configured for Wi-Fi, but I had never used it for that purpose. I required one hint from the tech who maintains the system for the library and the schools. I use Zone Alarm firewall. I had to exit (disable) Zone Alarm (Win XP's firewall was already turned off) to avoid a proxy conflict. The network has its own firewall. Not all public access Wi-Fi connections have their own firewall, so you will have to fiddle around or ask. Keep that in mind if you, like me, know nothing about Wi-Fi networks. Immediately, I went to Windows Update and downloaded some updates. It's enough to make you sick, when you have your main computer at home on a dialup connection and are too far out for DSL. Two different times I wrote about the dangers of the prescription drug Amiodarone, and how it has been cavalierly prescribed "off label" for Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB). I continue to be amazed that medical articles still point to Amiodarone as a possible treatment for AFIB. Check the Outback Archives for articles dated Nov. 27, 2004 and March 5, 2005. Many of you will remember Dick Schaap, the sportscaster. Dick died following hip-replacement surgery. In a lawsuit against a cardiologist who treated him before the hip surgery, a jury awarded the Schaap family $1.95 million in damages. Mr. Schaap had been taking Amiodarone for "a non-life threatening heart condition." A good guess is that it was AFIB or Atrial Flutter, neither of which is Amiodarone approved for as a treatment by the FDA guidelines. My article of March 5, 2005 clearly describes the conditions for which Amiodarone is approved by the FDA and of its many sometimes-lethal side effects. Dick was suffering from lung damage, one of the known side effects of Amiodarone. His lawyers said that his cardiologist should have taken Dick off Amiodarone, and given his lungs a chance to heal before allowing the hip surgery to take place. One could argue that Mr. Schaap probably should not have been on Amiodarone in the first place. I drive clerks in stores nuts when I drag them over to an item and explain that although the product bears perhaps the name of a Japanese company or a S. Korean company, the product is likely to be made in China. It's time these young kids understand what is going on in the global economy - so I corner them and preach. SAM's Club has 19-inch Samsung LCD monitors at a good price. These S. Korean Samsung LCD monitors are made in China! Even the S. Koreans have priced themselves out of the labor market. One of the Samsung LCD monitors I already own was assembled in Mexico. Next, I spotted a 1GB - yes 1GB - USB 2.0 flash drive from LG Electronics (www.lge.com), another fine S. Korean company. The package said "Made in Korea." Really. Not for long, I bet. Into the basket it went, and 1GB for only $59. Now, with my 1GB LG, I can carry copies of all the files in my e-mail, homepage, Quicken, and WordPerfect current docs around in my pocket (also backed up to an external USB drive and once a month to DVD). Plus Firefox 1.0.6, Acrobat Reader 7.0 with updates, the Free Zone Alarm firewall, Ad-Aware SE, and other miscellaneous files that help you make friends in the Outback, where dialup modems are still the main access to the Internet Superhighway - more like a gravel road out here. You're in luck. Just happen to have the latest version in my pocket. And a pet mouse, too. Wanna pet it? Oh, my new RIO Carbon MP3 player was made in China. Bought it online from a major vendor. It seems to work, at least for now. I hope there are no subliminal "Buy Chinese" messages hidden in the thing. This may come as a shock, but every piece of music downloaded to the MP3 player came from a music CD that I purchased. There ain't no Top 40 in there. Sinatra, Diana Krall, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Clayderman, classical guitar - old geezer stuff, except for Krall who is timeless. There is so much profit in the pharmaceutical industry that they can run hundreds of TV and print ads, favor doctors with honoraria for given talks about the merits of their products, sponsor lavish "medical information seminars" for doctors in Florida or Hawaii, sponsor untold studies relating to their products (often paying doctors to take part and write reports) and give out literally millions of samples to doctors. They still have plenty of money left over to lobby the U.S. Congress and various state legislatures. Since 1998, pharmaceutical companies have spent $759 million lobbying more than 1,400 congressional bills. Drug companies and makers of health products have used almost 3,000 lobbyists in the past 6 1/2 years. That is about five lobbyists for every member of Congress, just in this one area! In contrast, the insurance industry used only a paltry 2,000 lobbyists. Between meeting with lobbyists, raising money for campaigns, committee hearings, it is a miracle the folks in Congress have any time left to write legislation or read the bills they vote on. I watch an inordinate amount of C-SPAN during the summer TV doldrums. It is fascinating to watch a recorded vote in the Senate. Seldom do the senators vote in alphabetical order, as their names are called. Most of the time, there are only a few on the floor at the start of a vote. Little groups form and animated discussions take place, with a lot of arms around shoulders. I would give anything to be able to hear those informal floor conversations. Some might be along the lines of: "What is this amendment all about? I have not read it. Do you think I should vote for it? If I do, what can you do for me when my amendment comes up for vote?" And so on. Sometimes a group of senators will stand around and wait until more than half or three-quarters of the votes have been cast and then amble up to the desk to cast a voice vote to the clerk. It looks to the TV viewer that they are just waiting to see which way the wind is blowing, or how their buddies voted. It's all very strange. Inscrutable. One of those clerk types who sit down front on the floor needs to write a book called: "Eavesdropping on Conversations on the Senate Floor." In alias, of course. Instant best seller. Among my several careers were Federal agent, CIA agent, and marketing director in a $9 billion company. I can smell a "PR Brainwashing Campaign," from a mile away - even upwind. The relentless press releases for the myriad of things that statins are alleged to prevent or cure are mind boggling. Recently, a headline read "Statins Protect From Death From Pneumonia." I found the same basic headline in nearly 20 news sources. Eric Mortensen and colleagues, from the University of Texas Health Centre at San Antonio, produced the "study." Mind you, it was not a controlled test, but yet another set of "number crunching" in an attempt to validate a preconceived idea or suspicion. The doctors measured the risk of dying from pneumonia in patients admitted with pneumonia who were taking statins prior to their entry into the hospital. They compared it with the risk of dying from pneumonia in patients who were not taking statins at the time of entry into the hospital. Stop and think. How many doctors are sitting around their offices or labs wondering if statins might prevent pneumonia? My answer is only those who are prodded by the statin manufacturers. One big reason is that there is an effective pneumonia vaccine. The vaccine has few side effects, other than possibly minor local irritation at the site of the injection, similar to what you might have with a flu shot. Statins have a host of potentially serious side effects. Why would you even test statins for pneumonia prevention when there is already a pneumonia vaccine? Exactly. I downloaded the study in its .PDF form (http://respiratory-research.com/content/6/1/82). There were 787 subjects in two hospitals whose records were examined for this study. The mean age was 60. The results of their "statistical analysis" show that patients with pneumonia who were on a statin when they entered the hospital were 2.8 times less likely to die within 30 days from pneumonia than patients who were not on statins. The doctors said in part: "Finally, as in any non-experimental study, we are unable to state conclusively that the prior outpatient use of statin is the cause of decreased mortality in this cohort.... Further studies are needed to confirm the magnitude of the impact of statins, either pre-hospitalization or acute, on patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia and to elucidate the mechanism by which they may work." That is not what the headlines (a canned press release) would lead you to believe. As I have said many times, I am gullible, but not stupid. Competing Interests:
None of the authors, except for Dr. Anzueto, have any conflicts of interests to disclose regarding
this paper. Dr. Anzueto is currently a consultant with Pfizer, Ortho-McNeil, and Bayer Pharma. About Pneumonia and the Vaccine There are two main kinds of pneumonia--viral pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia is more serious. One kind of bacteria causes pneumococcal pneumonia. In older people, this type of pneumonia is a common cause of hospitalization and death.
About 20 to 30 percent of people over age 65 who have pneumococcal pneumonia develop bacteremia. At least 20 percent of those with bacteremia die from it, even though they get antibiotics.
People age 65 and older are at high risk. They are two to three time more likely than people in general to get pneumococcal infections.
A recent, large study by the National Institutes of Health suggests that the vaccine prevents most cases of pneumococcal pneumonia.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, everyone age 65 and older should get the pneumonia vaccine. Some younger people should get it also. Ask a doctor for the vaccine if you: Are age 65 or older. How often should I get a pneumonia shot? 65 years and older - if you have received an initial immunization before you turned 65, get a booster shot after you turn 65. There should be five years between the initial shot and a booster. 18-65 years - one immunization and one booster after age 65. The message? Get a flu shot every year and a pneumonia shot as noted above. Why take a statin that may or may not prevent pneumonia, with the considerable potential side effects from a statin? There are and have been several female NASA astronauts, but I have become obsessed with two involved in the current STS-114 mission, mission commander Eileen Collins and CapCom communicator Julie Payette. I record six or seven hours of the NASA channel each day and skim though them on my DVR. I began to have immense admiration for Eileen Collins during her many interviews leading up to the mission. On orbit, I now feel like she is a member my family and I cannot wait for her to land the shuttle safely. Then, I am writing her a letter and tell her she has earned her stripes and should retire from flying shuttles. I could not take another nail-biting mission worrying about her. NASA's Julie Payette is one of the CapCom operators, those who chat with the space station and the shuttle. She is an experienced astronaut. Her Canadian accent is charming. But in more than 50 years of being involved in commo in the Marines, as a Federal agent, and as a ham, I have never heard anybody with such a "bedside manner." She sounds like she is chatting to a girl friend on a cell phone, which I am certain is reassuring to the crew. "Oh, while I've got you, Eileen, please check on page 6-4 and make sure steps A12 and B13 have been done." "Okay, thanks a lot, Eileen. Good job." Julie told the Japanese space walker, Soichi Noguchi, that he was now in the space-walker's hall of fame and the next step was the rock and roll hall of fame (he has a keyboard on the shuttle!). She looks so incongruous, with her trim figure, flowing and wavy hair, and good looks - sitting there looking more like she is the communicator for a bike race. A very cool young lady. I back up the DVR whenever I hear her voice to listen to her - in constant admiration of the way she "chats" the astronauts through some complicated tasks. And she always compliments them on jobs well done. She tends to be the most "Chatty Kathy" of the CapComs. Now, you know how really lonely it is here in the Outback. But, I was vindicated somewhat when a male voice from Discovery, I think it was Soichi Noguchi, thanked Julie for him to be able "to hear your sweet voice every night." Julie replied, "Merci, monsieur." Like a dummie, I responded, "Merci beaucoup, cheri," and "danke schoen, liebchen," like she could hear me in Houston. Julie is fluent in French and English, and conversational in Spanish, Italian, Russian and German. I could listen to her in any of her languages, even if I was able to understand only a fraction of what she said - except that in Russian all I might understand is "Nyet," which means No. Not a good thing to hear.
Julie Payette was heard to loudly exclaim to the Discovery crew, "Yahoo," over some item that escaped my notice. At that time, Sen. Hutchison of Texas and House majority leader DeLay were standing just to the left of Julie, as they prepared to talk with the astronauts. Julie is not shy. And I think I have learned a new terminology. I believe I have been hearing Julie referring to "Ratty Comm," which would be Erratic Communications, I guess. As in, "we will be experiencing Ratty Comm for the next 20 minutes." This would be when ground stations are out of touch, or the satellite contacts are not lined up. They talk about air-to-ground 1 and 2 and "the big loop." I will guess that "the big loop" is the commo using various satellites. There will be no "commo blackout", per se, as we were used to in earlier flights as the space shuttle heated up during re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Part of the reason is the network of comm satellites. There will be some periods of "Ratty Comm," but they should not last long. Also, there will be interruptions to the data downstream from the shuttle, but only for short periods. It is interesting how much onboard data the ground can monitor. Eileen Collins was asked about an indication the ground got about a glitch in a nose-wheel switch check during pre-deorbit tests of systems. She said that she should have mentioned it to them, because she had to flip the switch manually a few times (and that caused On/off indications on the ground). But, she said, all was cool with the nose wheel switch. Or maybe it was just a micro-switch that indicates the position of the nose wheel that was possibly hanging up ("down and locked" is nice to see upon approach to landing). Whatever it is, we hope all is well. Just after the space shuttle's robotic arm was safely stowed back in the cargo bay, we heard the repetitious "Hallelujah" from the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah on the downlink from Discovery. Someone on board said that Eileen had prerecorded it. You miss so much if all you read or hear is the "Doom and Gloom" media reporting. The Japanese crew member, Soichi Noguchi, put on a TV show of, among other things, a complex paper figure that might be thought of as an open-frame flying saucer. He spun it, and in the zero-gravity, it spun eerily in place. He also played keyboard! How they let him bring that large keyboard with him is beyond me. Maybe the crew digs his music. Finally, having the NASA channel on my satellite TV is worth something. For the die-hard police and military TV show and movie buffs who are used to "Roger that," or, "10-4," the astronauts and CapComs simply say "Copy" or "Copy that." That way there never will be any confusion when talking to someone named Roger! I am amazed that a Canadian girl, who almost sounds French, some American guys and gals, a guy with a Australian accent, and Japanese and Russian astronauts with heavy accents all seem to understand each other. Of course, they have been working together for a long time and know each other's speech patterns and accents. The quality of the communications gear is outstanding, with such clarity. It takes very little transmit power to reach Earth when your vantage point is 220 miles in the sky - and vice versa. I once tried to talk on a low-power VHF ham hand-held when flying out of New York City. I was tripping ham repeaters in several states at once. Using only 5-160 watts on VHF and UHF frequencies, and a simple loop wire antenna that looks like a kitchen egg-beater, I was able to talk with astronauts on several previous space missions and to several on board the Russian MIR space station - or send and recieve packet messages (ham lingo for radio instant-messaging, I guess is the closet explanation). As a ham, I am used to saying Bravo 13, for B13, or Kilo Five Oscar Quebec for my call sign (K5OQ), but the only thing I can remember being abnormally emphasized were some commands to turn some piece of gear off, "Turn it off - O F F." Once in a while, a CapCom or crew memeber will revert to the phonetics, such as Alpha for A, Bravo for B, and so on. The use of phonetics seemed to pick up as the pre-deorbit check lists were being gone over by the crew and Houston CapCom. It was also nice to see Shannon Lucid at the CapCom console a couple of times. I had the honor of talking with her briefly via ham radio when she was on the MIR space station. For the next mission, I want to see Eileen Collins at the CapCom table. You have paid your dues in space, Mrs. Collins. Get a desk job. The reporters who ask questions constantly bring up questions about the mood, and the level of anxiety - both onboard the shuttle and in mission control - since the last mission ended up as a disaster. They beat to death the "How are you and the crew feeling? What is going through your minds? Are you making an effort not to fly over populated areas during descent" (answer is Yes , we are trying to avoid heavily populated areas). I never heard one question asked with a positive slant, and I watched most, if not all, of the press briefings. Give it a rest, you ghoulish morons. Go to some funerals or to some autopsies or watch CSI, since you are such a morbid lot. Even crew members and NASA briefers have noted that they wish the press would concentrate more on the positive aspects of a, so-far, outstanding mission. In other words, "stop dwelling on Columbia and try, just once, to look forward." A lot of reporters ask about the relative risks of night landings. The answer is that several shuttle pilots prefer night landings. The runway is lit up like the Vegas strip, and there are "glide slope" visual indicators that are easy to see at night. Plus, of course, the runway is fully instrumented, so that crew can see on their cabin instruments exactly where they are and if they are lined up and on the proper glide slope. Pilots also note that at night there are no visual distractions. The runway lights and the glide-slope lights on the ground get their full attention, along with their onboard flight instruments. They know exactly how far they are from the runway, their rate of descent, their altitude above ground, if they are on the "glide path," and so on. These shuttle pilots are jet jocks. The main difference is that the shuttle comes in a little faster, much steeper, and it is, after all, a glider - and you get only one shot at a landing! All factors considered, it is easy to see why many pilots might prefer a night landing. The Kennedy Space Center runway is 3 miles long! You do have a little wiggle room, day or night. Here is a perfect example of reporters who hear what they want to hear, not what is actually said. MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer, wrote in part in an Aug. 7 AP release: "Good weather was forecast for what was to be a relatively uncommon, less-preferred landing in darkness, something unavoidable given Discovery's launch time on July 26. Of the previous 111 shuttle touchdowns, only 19 occurred at nighttime." I heard the same briefing you did, Marcia. If you had been paying attention, or if you were a pilot, which I doubt, you would have heard LeRoy Cain say that many pilots prefer landings at night, as I "correctly reported" in the previous paragraph. And Marcia had to include the obligatory gloom and doom. "The Mission Control team in charge of guiding Discovery and its crew of seven safely back to Earth was focused on that sole objective and trying not to dwell on that awful morning when the Columbia shattered in the sky just 16 short minutes from home and seven astronauts were lost." Most of the media are hopeless idiots. Marcia, find some other career, like funeral director or mortician. I went to the Houston Chronicle site, since NASA HQ is in Houston. There was Marcia Dunn's AP article verbatim. You would think that at the home of NASA, the newspaper would not feel compelled to run a "canned AP release." I have spoken many times about my concern of the slavish running of AP reports, whether the the facts are wrong or not. But, in contrast was a most informative article by Eric Berger, who writes for the Houston Chronicle. He points out that the shuttle is on autopilot during the "fireball" of re-entry. His description of how the re-entry sequence is choreogrphed and how the angle of attack of the shuttle is critical is the best I have ever read. The shuttle lands at around 214-226 mph. That is relatively slow for such a ponderous machine with relatively small wings. The steep angle of approach, is more like being in a "dive bomber," than landing a conventional jet. The shuttle landing gear is deployed only 15 seconds from touchdown! Those must be the longest 15 seconds in a pilot's life. The top Indy 500 car may run a lap at about 215 mph, but a commerical airliner or fighter jet may land at between 150-160 mph, although it is hard to find exact jet-landing figures without the "owner's manuals." So, if you want ladies who travel fast, check out Danica Patrick in her Indy car and Eileen Collins in her shuttle - and the many female jet jockeys in the military. Now you see 'em, now you don't. Eileen Collins will not begin to fly Discovery manually until its speed is down to around Mach 1 (about 750mph) and that is normally about 25 miles from touchdown. The shuttle does S turns to bleed off speed. The final approach angle is about seven times steeper than on a commercial jet. Hold on to your coffee cups! By the way, I am tracking the STS-114 mission on some satellite software with a world map on one of my computers. Right now, the icons for the Discovery shuttle and the ISS look like two June Bugs copulating. I took a screen shot the night before they docked and you could see Discovery catching up with the ISS - and then when I awoke, they were one. I will not be happy until I see the smoke from the tires when STS-114 makes its landing. Correction, not until the vehicle is parked and the crew deplanes. After about five hours a day of watching these guys, I have way too much emotion invested in this flight. I get pretty emotional about the crews on space flights. When NASA was looking for a "citizen astronaut," I sent in a letter outlining my qualifications, ex-Marine, pilot, photographer, ham-radio operator, writer, athlete, and so on. I never even got sent an application to fill out. As you may recall, they chose a school teacher. On my birthday, January 28, 1986, the Challenger blew up! The flight that I wanted to be on. That memory is burned deeper into my psyche than the tragic end to Columbia in 2003. Cumulatively, the two shuttle losses, and the ridiculous thought that a man has to go out in a space suit to pull a couple of little pieces of felt-like material from between heat-shield tiles, makes me wish they would scrap the Shuttle program right now. The machines are too old, and as long as spacecraft rest on the underbelly of the rocket/fuel tank, there is going to be crap flying off at liftoff and possibly hitting the shuttle orbiter. One NASA official, speaking at a press conference, said that never again would a platform be designed that put the space vehicle on the underbelly of the rocket fuel tank. Now, you tell us. I did not hear anyone in the briefings talk about it, but the suitcase-looking package that Soichi Noguchi placed on the outside of the ISS has several ham-radio projects in it. Hams are already reporting being able to copy some telemetry! The designation is PCSat2 (http://web.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/pcsat2.html). The ISS has other ham-radio gear on board and has for a long time. Software shows you the "pattern" on the ground where you can expect to be able to communicate with the ISS, hear its transmissions, or those of the space shuttle when it is doing ham-radio commo. The software tells you at exactly what time you can expect to acquire a signal and when you will lose the signal, often a window of 12-15 minutes. Those things are moving fast! I actually have an Icon on my satellite-tracking map that has my ham call, K5OQ, which is the exact location of my house (from GPS grid co-ordinates). You can download free software for tracking at many places, and inexpensive shareware (see: www.amsat.org) The downlink frequency for the International Space Station (ISS) is 145.800 MHz. If they are on the air, either voice of digital, you can probably hear them on a scanner if you know when they are passing over your area. The two current occupants of the ISS both have ham licenses, and I think it is 6 of 7 astronauts on Discovery, STS-114, are hams. One final nagging thought. How come we don't seem to hear about the Russian Soyuz space shuttle being disabled by flying debris or of any recent "incidents" during re-entry? How do they manage the heat-buildup problem during re-entry? I am going to do some research, because I am completely unimpressed with a NASA space shuttle that has pads between tiles that might cause excess heat buildup - and after two years of working on the "foam shedding" problem the crap still comes off in huge chunks, one just missing the shuttle on ascent. And unimpressed with the genius who configured the platform for takeoff with the shuttle on the underbelly of the rocket fuel tank, just waiting to be hit by flying debris. Update Sept. 21, 2005: On Sept, 21, 2005, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that would allow NASA to buy the Russian Soyuz vehicles it needs to continue to service and maintain the International Space Station beyond this year. I started out to talk about the ladies, but deep down I worry about all of our astronauts because they are being asked to fly in worn-out relics of the early days of space travel. I pray for their safe return. And I hope that the "hold" on future flights to "solve" the foam shedding is a permanent hold on this class of rugged old warriors of space. They need to be in a museum for kids to look at in awe. "What are all those funny-looking square things on the bottom? They look like a bad tile job in a shower. After billions of dollars, this was the best solution they could come up with? Go figure." The STS-114 shuttle mission wore me out. I taped about 40 hours of coverage from the NASA channel. I sat up the first night of planned re-entry only to have the landing waved off until the next day. The next night, I went to bed with the DVR running all night on the NASA channel. By my bed was a check list of the planned de-orbit burns for the various landing opportunities and the subsequent landing times. I left the TV in the bedroom, which I normally only watch while on the treadmill, set on the NASA channel and on Mute. I set my alarm clock for five minutes before each de-orbit burn was scheduled and would wake up, check the NASA channel and re-reset the alarm as each landing was waved off. On Aug. 12th, I am just now getting back to normal, such as normal can be for me. Why all this interest, yes obsession, with STS-114? I had little faith in NASA's pronouncements that the shuttle was safe to land. And during the flight I finally got a chance to hear hundreds, if not thousands, of air-to-ground communications. Thus, I heard and saw things that often were not reported in the major media. When the gap fillers between the heat tiles were pulled out, I noticed that the red compound used to "cement" them in place was not evenly applied. That gave me pause. Anyway, what an archaic method. They put the gap fillers in there to keep the tile from banging together in the rough and tumble of launch. But, the gap fillers are not needed upon re-entry. In fact, the space walker went out to pluck two protruding gap fillers that engineers on the ground determined might cause excessive heat buildup during re-entry. This whole tile, gap filler, approach is so outdated. As I said, it looks like a bad tile job in a shower. While on orbit, Eileen Collins and Jim Kelly could fire up a laptop and practice "shooting landings" at the various potential destination runways. That software is a glorified Microsoft Flight Simulator. When it became apparent that landings at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) were looking more and more iffy, Eileen made a call to Houston that gave me a chill. She asked if there were any center runway lights at Edwards Air Force Base, where they might be landing at night. And if so, how far down the runway did they begin? She said, "Our book does not show if they are there." Casually, she said, "It's been a while since I have been to Edwards." (Or landed at Edwards, whichever). A while later, Julie in CapCom answered that there were NO center runway landing lights at Edwards. How could Eileen's book of potential landing sites not show the landing-light configuration? This was to be a night landing. And how could her PILOT software not show the actual runway lights at Edwards? It is much easier to aim the nose at the center landing lights than judge your distance left and right from the side runway lights. Eileen also asked for the time of sunrise that morning at Edwards. My GPS tells sunrise and sunset times at destination! It cost about 150 bucks. Julie Payette relayed the sunrise time to Eileen, and added, "It will be a night landing." Somewhere not too far from the time to land, CapCom was told that one of the CDA(?) units on the shuttle had crapped out and they were on the backup. This was some navigation instrument, and I can't find a note about its exact nomenclature. The next disquieting news came from CapCom. They informed Discovery that one part of the instrument-landing system at Edwards had crapped out and Edwards was on the back-up system. Later, as I recall, the second system had been restored and would be available if needed. So, even as a private pilot, I would have been concerned about lack of knowledge about landing lights down the center, and faltering instrumentation in the shuttle and on the ground. And who knows what I missed because I could not understand the NASA jargon and did not have benefit of the check lists and systems parameters in the mission book that were constantly referred to. LeRoy Cain, the flight director during re-entry, said that were a "few other equipment and systems anomalies" during re-entry and the preparation for the de-orbit burn. But, he said they were not of great consequence, or words to that effect. Still, NASA has a fairly long list of things to examine, in addition to the foam-shredding issue. At several press briefings, NASA officials talked about the "wing leading-edge sensors." These were new for this flight and would detect if something struck the leading edge of the wing, and presumably with how much force. These sensors would probably have alerted Columbia that something serious had happened to the leading edge of the wing during ascent - and a rescue mission to the ISS might have been mounted. The NASA folks said that they thought the batteries that power the wing sensors would last for a couple of days, but in fact lasted nearly to the end of the mission. Good grief. Even a cell-phone manual tells you how many hours of talk time and standby time you can expect from a battery. And NASA missed the battery-drain estimation by about a week! They may have made their calculations at sea level and 80-90 degrees F. The cold of space may help batteries last longer. I dunno. Apparently, NASA doesn't know either. You would have thought they would have put a sensor/battery combo in a vacuum chamber at temperatures similar to those in space, so battery life could be closely estimated. A reporter asked if it would be required to do boom (camera and IR) inspections of the wings and belly of all future shuttle flights. One NASA spokesman said that he thought the new wing leading-edge sensors might do away with the need for the boom/camera inspection of the wing leading edge. Not a chance! Every astronaut and any sensible engineer will insist on at least two things. That the shuttle do a back flip so the ISS can do zoom photography of the tiles on the belly - and they will insist on a boom inspection of the nose cone and the leading edge of the wings. Wanna bet? They don't talk about it much, but there are "other assets" taking a look at the shuttle in flight. That probably refers in part to military (or civilian) satellites with a capability for long-range photography and/or IR detection. You know, the ones that can read you license plate from 200 miles up. Eileen Collins is such a great shuttle pilot. I resigned myself to the fact that if all the navigational instruments at Edwards failed, but the runway lights and glide-slope lights were still operative - and she had her attitude control instruments (Flight Director Display) in the cockpit and her altimeter working (how level are my wings, how high am I, what is my heading?) she probably could have landed Discovery in one piece on runway 22. As it was, she was able to turn onto final approach and lock onto the electronic glide slope, range, altitude, etc. - and "painted" the landing, that is, no bounce, no wiggle, and no drifting - or so it appeared the 20 times I replayed it. So much for all the worry-wart reporters who kept asking about potential dangers of landing at night. The danger is landing in a rain storm or thunderstorm, through a low cloud deck, fog - and of course a hurricane. Have you noticed that the shuttle does not have windshield wipers? By the way I took some notes on the approach. At about 46,000 feet, Discovery was 28 miles from the runway and about 4 minutes from touchdown. It had been flying on autopilot. As soon as it went sub-sonic, the pilots took over by hand. Eileen called out "Runway in sight" about 9 miles from the field and about 1 minute and 35 seconds before landing. I replayed the landing and used a stopwatch from the time Eileen said "Runway in sight," until the main gear hit the runway. Not a lot of time to do any radical adjustments. It appeared that at about 1,000 feet Discovery was in level flight and being allowed to sink toward the landing configuration. Then, the nose got lifted slightly, which slows Discovery down and positions the main landing gear to hit first, followed in short order by the drag chute and the nosewheel dropping to the runway. The landing gear came down just 15 seconds before touchdown! I think it was Jim Kelly's job to lower the gear to "down and locked." He was asked during an orbiting press conference what would be the consequence if he did not get the gear down in time. His answer, "I would be fired in a hurry." Another idiot reporter trying to create anxiety and drama. Kelly was having no part of it. As far as I could tell, Kelly was allowed to fly Discovery for only a short time after they went sub-sonic. Then, Eileen took over and "shot the landing." As I watched Eileen standing around after the landing, I simply had a hard time comprehending that any human can bring in a ponderous glider with short wings, at a very steep incline, and land gently on the runway. If I was impressed with her before, I was simply in awe as she stood there looking around, possibly thinking to herself, "Just like we practiced it." I noticed a large crowd pointing and talking about something on the belly near the main landing gear. Perhaps it was one of the locations where the gap fillers had been removed. Or it was some rather large "divot" in the heat-resistant tile. The engineers had guessed right, after exhaustive ground testing, that the puffed-out thermal blanket under Eileen's window did not tear loose during re-entry. Which poses another question? What kind of modern technology is putting a thermal blanket on a space shuttle? Obviously, the blanket is fragile and could cause disastrous results if even a small part dislodged during re-entry. The space shuttle is not a Thermos bottle. An AP release said that there were 101 dings and divots, with 20 over an inch in size. Presumably those dings and divots were on the belly or on the leading edge of the wing or the nose cone, all part of the heat shield materials during re-entry. Did those dings and divots happen at launch from stuff flying off the external tank or elsewhere? Did some debris from the International Space Station (ISS) cause any of the dings? Did stuff whizzing by in space cause some of the dings? And what about the 1 1/2 inch piece (as I recall) of tile that had come off near the nose-wheel landing-gear doors? How did that happen? Did the damage get worse during re-entry? Was it ever a threat to safe return? Maybe I missed all that in a post-landing briefing. I have yet to run all my recorded material on my DVR. I stayed awake nights and worried because I was greatly concerned for the astronauts. They all talk a good show, about how the vehicle was safe to fly, and there are always risks. They are among the bravest of the brave. But, you could see and hear the disappointment in their voices when on-board TV interviews were made. "We thought the foam shedding problem had been solved." And similar remarks. The media at the in-flight and post-flight press conferences continue to always seek out the sensational and the dark side of the mission, instead of talking about the huge successes that came with STS-114. I heard questions asked over and over in which they asked controllers and astronauts about "anxiety," "fear," "trepidation," and "were you thinking about Columbia?" Dumb-asses, as usual. One particularly stupid reporter said that younger people could not understand why if you could fly a small plane or even (I think he said an Ultralight), in light rain and other marginal weather, you could not land Discovery. LeRoy Cain and others patiently went over the litany. This is a huge glider. You get only one chance to land. You are diving toward the runway at an angle many times steeper than a commercial airliner and at a much higher speed than a commercial jet in a landing approach. Rain, low clouds, or fog obscure visibility. Lightning in the area could affect the onboard instrumentation that is needed to land safely. And a bunch of other good reasons not to land in bad weather. The de-orbit burn decision has to be made about an hour and six minutes before landing. The weather at KSC was described over and over by CapCom Ken Ham (an astronaut, with no time in space) as "unstable." Rain, low clouds and some threat of fog were all in the picture. In other words, it does not look very good right now and it might be much worse by the time you are coming in for a landing. After each of the landing "waveoffs," Eileen Collins could be heard to say, "I know you made the right decision." She is unflappable. To the idiot reporter who asked why Discovery could not land in marginal weather, I remind him of only two examples of bad things that happen. John F. Kennedy flew to Martha's Vineyard in deteriorating weather conditions. That unsound judgement cost him his life. More recently, John Walton, the second son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, was killed when his Ultralight aircraft crashed, presumably in good weather. So, for those young people whose opinions he claimed to represent, remind them that space travel is an inherently risky venture and every, every, consideration must be given to getting the crew safely into space and safely back home. Young people tend to think that they are immortal. They have no concept of dying. This is why they often smoke, take illegal drugs that fry their brains, and drive fast and recklessly. And one reason why so many are maimed and killed in vehicle accidents. Did you notice the age of the astronauts and those on the ISS? Not many young people on those crews. Reporters ask if consideration had been given to avoiding high-population density areas as the shuttle would descend for a landing. The answer was Yes. As I watched, I was only concerned about the safety of the crew and not worrying about potential debris falling on my house. Most people probably felt the same way. But, in fact, for the landing a Edwards, the descending orbit was changed to avoid some more heavily-populated areas of Los Angeles. But, in an ironic twist, when the flight path on one of the "waved off" landings at KSC in Florida was being shown, it went over parts of Central America and almost directly over Havana. Nobody seemed to be concerned if anything fell on Havana, is the best slant I could come away with. As I sat bleary-eyed and only half awake to hear the wave-off of several landings at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida - over a two-day period - my thoughts drifted to: "I wonder what kind of brilliant minds decided to put the main takeoff and landing complex in an area of Florida known for its temperamental and quick-changing weather? And what kind of political decisions were made to put KSC where it is?" They need a place with good weather as much of the year as possible, and a place where the shuttle can quickly get out over the ocean in case it blows up (happened only once). The location also has to take into consideration that the solid rocket boosters will jettison about 140 miles from the launch area and parachute back to be reused (preferably landing in water). And there is the consideration that the external fuel tank when it is finally cut loose will at least partially burn up in the atmosphere, but parts may drift to earth - again preferably over water. Is the weather in El Paso, for example, where it is sunny most of the year, possibly a better choice than Cape Canaveral, Florida? Were there not other choices along our long coastlines that would have better met all the needed criteria for launch and landing? Possibly. Probably. Or a space complex in some wide open space Nevada or N. Mexico. Use a bigger parachute for the booster rockets. While I was grousing about being awake at 3 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. on Tuesday for possible KSC landing decisions, both of which were waved off, Eileen Collins was sipping her tea and saying "You folks made the right decision." Yes, but the crew and mission control was living with what was possibly (probably) a bad decision in the first place as to where to locate the launch and primary landing area. There was a third landing site, in White Sands, N. Mexico, which was passed up with a de-orbit burn that would have been at 4:33 a.m., as controllers kept trying to "will" the 4:37 a.m. de-orbit burn for the shot at KSC - and finally gave up. White Sands was always a third choice. Once again, I set the alarm, for 6 a.m., as the de-orbit burn would be at 6:06 a.m. CDT. I keep my timepieces accurate, and when NASA says they will do a burn at 6:06 a.m., you can count on it. Finally, this time, Edwards was selected for landing, with another White Sands and another Edwards opportunities still on the board for Tuesday morning. Nobody in mission control wanted to push the mission into Wednesday. And this was the second day, after landings had been waved off at KSC on the first landing opportunities. My son said that he got up at his normal time and was able to see the landing live at just after 7 a.m. - and he had no idea of what had been going on during the hours from 3:01 a.m. when the first de-orbit burn was contemplated. Only idiot me, with my clipboard of de-orbit burn and landing times, my TV on the NASA channel all night on Mute, my satellite DVR on all night, and my computer tracking Discovery on a world map, had gone through this all-night landing-site Lotto. It was a learning experience though. To see and hear the air-to-ground traffic, see the current weather radar in the area of the Cape, and watch as Ken Ham (CapCom) and Leroy Cain (Flight Director) agonized over having to issue yet another wave-off was worth the lost sleep. As the time drew near for the decision on the second shot at KSC, I had made up my own mind. "Oh, crap, they're not going to make this one either." And I reset the alarm for the next try. In a few minutes Ken Ham told the crew KSC was a no-go and that Edwards had been selected. I was already half asleep. In case you missed it, the landing at Edwards has several disadvantages. It takes a week or so to get the shuttle loaded on top of the modified 747 that ferries it back to KSC. That costs a ton of dough and delays the turnaround time to ready Discovery for another flight. And there is a possibility that the 747 ferry flight could damage some part or parts of Discovery. The families of the Discovery crew were waiting for them at KSC. Instead, they landed on the opposite coast. Bummer, all the way around. I said earlier that I thought the Space Shuttle Program with the current shuttle fleet ought to be grounded permanently. Space travel is a high-risk business. Some space explorers are bound to die. But, continuing to fly the patched-together aging shuttles increases the odds against them. Pres. Bush has said the shuttle should be retired in 2010, but that in the meantime, it will be used 19 times to take components and parts up to complete the ISS. Not a chance they can fly 19 more missions with the existing shuttles - in my humble, scientifically uninformed opinion. Writing in The Wall Street Journal on August, 10, 2005, former NASA engineer, Homer Hickman, probably put his finger on the real problem with keeping the worn-out space shuttles flying. Mr. Hickman points out that there are about 100 Astronauts at NASA. The decrepit space shuttles have to be kept flying or there is not much for these astronauts to do! Hickman claims we are fourth in the world to reliably put astronauts into space, behind Russia, China, and Burt Rutan. Of course Burt Rutan's "space vehicles" only carry you to the edge of space and drop right back down. But, he sure produced a lot of red faces in NASA when for "peanuts" compared to the NASA budget, he built a craft that could take man to the edge of space and back. Back to Mr. Hickman. He suggests that the International Space Station is "notoriously unreliable." My recollection of the chatter about the ISS is that with only a two-man crew, such as is on board now, about all they can do is maintain the ISS. Do housekeeping, if you will. The vaunted "experiments in space technology" that were to take place aboard the ISS have been few and far between, in my memory. Some new "scientific rack of instruments" was delivered this time to the ISS. I wonder what these instruments will "discover" for us. Possibly someting more about the role of weightlessness on the human body. If we abandon the current space shuttles, we are also abandoning the ISS. Let the Chinese, who are filthy rich at our expense, and who graduate engineers like popcorn, built a rocket vehicle to finish the ISS. Of course, this would be a source of loss-of-face for America. We can't have that, so we will continue to fly the Piper-Cub of the space program until the wings fall off - again. Although you can bet that Atlantis will take a big load of excess water and food in case the Atlantis astronauts get stranded on the ISS. Maybe they could go in twos or threes back to Russia via the Soyuz module, which seats only three people. And this presumes that one of our people in each group of three knows how to fly the Soyuz. And then send up another Soyuz, and so on. It sits atop its booster rocket when launched from the ground, so there is no debris shedding problem. It lands by parachute, at least the last model did that I have info on. Soyuz does not have the load capacity of our shuttles, so cannot be used to ferry up big assemblies for the ISS. It is a Russian "space taxi." The Progress space capsule is the Russian UPS to the ISS vehicle. We just launched a new probe to Mars. The payload capsules sit atop the rocket! Amazing. The Russians do it this way. And we are going to insist on trying to fly 19 more missions with a space craft that is downwind of who knows what kind of shedding debris on liftoff and ascent? Who was it that missed the basic message all those decades ago when the space shuttle was designed? Capsule on top. Rocket on bottom. As I recall, the Mercury, Gemini, and Appolo capsules sat atop their rockets. How did the engineers get led astray when they conceived the space shuttle configuration? Only luck has prevented more shuttle disasters. I adore and admire Eileen Collins. I hope she leaves NASA for some other life. I hate to see her associated with a gang that can't shoot straight. At a minimum, she probably will not be asked to fly another space mission. She has done four, twice as pilot. They need to get some of the other nearly 100 astronauts into the act. NASA spent $1.5 billion to correct the shedding foam problem. About all we hear is "Whoops. We didn't get it right." Eileen, and all the astronauts, deserve better. Only the cameras that examined the wing leading edge and the nose cone and the photos of the belly taken from the ISS helped assure the Discovery crew that they were "probably" safe to come home. Plus, the space walk to pull the tile spacers gave one more chance to eyeball the underside of Discovery. Update Sept. 28, 2005: Imagine my delight when the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, said the ISS and the Space Shuttle program were both mistakes! That took some real guts. Think about the implications of what he said. Does he have another job lined up? Return to the List of TopicsCOPYRIGHT 2000 Richard C. Rhodes You are welcome to quote sections from this page - or the whole page, as long as the source URL is included. Of course, I would be flattered if anyone linked to this page. It is very hard to be the writer, editor, fact checker, copy editor, and publisher of anything. So, I beg your forgiveness for the many mistakes that creep in. Suggested Reading From Past Columns Click Here for Suggested Reading List Archive of Back Issues Media List of Addresses and e-mails Postal Service State Abbreviations, etc. Postal Service Abbreviations - Richard C. Rhodes End |