The Newshour did a piece on lead in toys last night. The opening was alright, they actually reported a real live number, the lead limit is 600 parts per million. Then they showed a fancy non contact lead-detector instrument with a pistol grip looking for all the world like a refugee blaster from a science fiction flick. This technological marvel was pointed at a few suspect toys, who promptly put their hands up, and registered 500 parts per million, comfortably below the limit.
This provoked a tirade from the anti lead lady on the show. She felt it was horrible that the toy contained any lead at all, rather than virtuous that the toy met written standards. Then she moved deeper into fantasy, telling us that lead was removed from gasoline to reduce the lead in the environment, AND, the decrease in the US crime rate since the 1970's was due to less lead getting into children and turning them to crime.
Wow. Three whoppers for the price of one. Manufacturers whose product meet standards are to be praised for their diligence. Tetra ethyl lead was removed from motor gasoline to preserve the life of catalytic converters, not people. Lead poisons the catalyst, and the converter stops converting. There is zero evidence that lead causes criminal behavior.
That this much fantasy was aired on a respectable TV news show is evidence of how ignorant the newsies really are.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The cult of vague generalities, air traffic style
Lehrer's NewsHour did a piece on air traffic control, and what ought to be done to keep the planes moving. They talked for several minutes. Just once, briefly, one of 'em mentioned the real problem, lack of airports. Then the flow of vagueness rushed forth, carrying us viewers along into a sea of mush. No discussion of the real problem.
An airport can only do 60 flights an hour. For safety sake, you have to allow the landing aircraft to slow down and clear the runway before the following aircraft can put his wheels down. And you have to let the aircraft taking off get clean off the runway into the air before the following aircraft releases his brakes. Both of these actions take about a minute, so you get a limit of about 60 planes an hour. You can put in dual runways, and use one for takeoff and one for landing, but that's about it.
We have 53 big cities ("standard metropolitan areas") in the country. Some biggies like New York have three airports, most others (Boston, Philadelphia) have only one. Ball park figures, we have 100 airports in the US. ALL the flights have to depart one, and land at another. Once in the air, there is plenty of air to spread 'em out in. The bottleneck is the airports.
What to do? Build more airports, but we all know this is hard. Nobody wants an airport in their back yard, and the things are frightfully expensive. Send more traffic into secondary airports. Actually this works. For instance, Manchester New Hampshire is as easy to drive to as Logan airport for everyone on the north shore. Manchester is very lightly used whereas Logan is jammed. Ten percent of the Logan traffic could go to Manchester and passengers would be happier. Finally, use bigger aircraft, that carry more passengers, and fly them less frequently. The airlines hate this. They want to offer lots of flights so passengers are more likely to fly them rather than a competitor. Frequent departures mean less time to gather passengers, so they operate smaller aircraft, more often. Regulations could be invented to reduce the number of small aircraft flights into bottlenecks like New York.
All the other stuff they talk about (opening military airspace, expensive upgrades to the air traffic control system) are window dressing, or pork for the makers of ATC equipment.
An airport can only do 60 flights an hour. For safety sake, you have to allow the landing aircraft to slow down and clear the runway before the following aircraft can put his wheels down. And you have to let the aircraft taking off get clean off the runway into the air before the following aircraft releases his brakes. Both of these actions take about a minute, so you get a limit of about 60 planes an hour. You can put in dual runways, and use one for takeoff and one for landing, but that's about it.
We have 53 big cities ("standard metropolitan areas") in the country. Some biggies like New York have three airports, most others (Boston, Philadelphia) have only one. Ball park figures, we have 100 airports in the US. ALL the flights have to depart one, and land at another. Once in the air, there is plenty of air to spread 'em out in. The bottleneck is the airports.
What to do? Build more airports, but we all know this is hard. Nobody wants an airport in their back yard, and the things are frightfully expensive. Send more traffic into secondary airports. Actually this works. For instance, Manchester New Hampshire is as easy to drive to as Logan airport for everyone on the north shore. Manchester is very lightly used whereas Logan is jammed. Ten percent of the Logan traffic could go to Manchester and passengers would be happier. Finally, use bigger aircraft, that carry more passengers, and fly them less frequently. The airlines hate this. They want to offer lots of flights so passengers are more likely to fly them rather than a competitor. Frequent departures mean less time to gather passengers, so they operate smaller aircraft, more often. Regulations could be invented to reduce the number of small aircraft flights into bottlenecks like New York.
All the other stuff they talk about (opening military airspace, expensive upgrades to the air traffic control system) are window dressing, or pork for the makers of ATC equipment.
The 5 million dollar man
The Defense department budget for this coming year is about 500 billion dollars. Congress passed a 400 and something billion defense budget and then just put in another 70 billion for Iraq operations in yesterday's giant continuing resolution. Call it $500 billion overall, give or take a few tens of billions.
For all this money, the country is putting 100,000 infantry men into Iraq. So, for 500 billion, we are paying for a very small active army. Divide $500 billion by 100,000 soldiers and it works out to $5 million per soldier sent into combat. You can hire baseball stars for that kinda money. Too bad the troops don't get much of it.
For all this money, the country is putting 100,000 infantry men into Iraq. So, for 500 billion, we are paying for a very small active army. Divide $500 billion by 100,000 soldiers and it works out to $5 million per soldier sent into combat. You can hire baseball stars for that kinda money. Too bad the troops don't get much of it.
3400 pages for the hiding of the pork
Congress, under the gun at the last minute, decided to keep the US government running. They passed a single giant bill authorizing spending for next fiscal year for the entire government. It's nearly a trillion dollars, 3400 pages, and nobody has read it.
I mean, like who can read 3400 pages of the dull obfusticated text in less than a month? This baby went from Congress to President for signature in 24 hours, so it hasn't been read. The only people who know what's in it are the 20 or so staffers who wrote it. Or cut and pasted it together from last year's budget. Major benefit to the insiders, you got plenty of places to hide your pork.
Used to be, Congress would pass one appropriation bill for each executive department, Defense, Agriculture, Education, State, Treasury and so on. They were supposed to pass all appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year. Back in 1964 this actually happened, I was in USAF at the time, and we took notice of these things. By the end of the fiscal year Air Force money was always tight and we waited for the new budget to come down so we could buy beans and bacon and jet fuel and spare parts and all the stuff you need to keep a fighter wing going.
Next year (1965) Congress was a month late, and things got very tight indeed. So for 1966 Uncle Sam moved the end of the fiscal year back a month to give Congress more time to do the appropriations bills. Naturally the appropriation bills were even later. Give 'em more time and they will take more time. This annual slippage kept getting worse.
Some time in the 80's or 90's, Congress just gave up appropriating and started passing "continuing resolutions" at the last minute. A continuing resolution is an act of Congress that says "Keep things running, limit your spending this year to whatever was in last year's appropriation."
Now, they let everything go til the last minute, and then pass a single giant continuing resolution which in reality, puts the power of the purse into the hands of Congressional staffers, and a few well connected lobbyists. Congressmen just vote on whatever the staffers create, they don't have a clue what's in it.
Back when appropriations bills only covered one department, they were smaller and it was possible for diligent Congressmen to understand one of them. These few diligent Congressmen became legends in the armed services, Carl Vincent, Sam Nunn, and John Stennis for example. Stennis was so legendary that they named an aircraft carrier after him.
Apparently modern Congress men are more interested in making political gestures, like trying to cut off Iraq war funding again and again when they don't have the votes to do it, rather than getting the country's business done. Business has been delegated to unelected staffers, so the elected Congressmen can spend their time posing for the TV cameras.
I mean, like who can read 3400 pages of the dull obfusticated text in less than a month? This baby went from Congress to President for signature in 24 hours, so it hasn't been read. The only people who know what's in it are the 20 or so staffers who wrote it. Or cut and pasted it together from last year's budget. Major benefit to the insiders, you got plenty of places to hide your pork.
Used to be, Congress would pass one appropriation bill for each executive department, Defense, Agriculture, Education, State, Treasury and so on. They were supposed to pass all appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year. Back in 1964 this actually happened, I was in USAF at the time, and we took notice of these things. By the end of the fiscal year Air Force money was always tight and we waited for the new budget to come down so we could buy beans and bacon and jet fuel and spare parts and all the stuff you need to keep a fighter wing going.
Next year (1965) Congress was a month late, and things got very tight indeed. So for 1966 Uncle Sam moved the end of the fiscal year back a month to give Congress more time to do the appropriations bills. Naturally the appropriation bills were even later. Give 'em more time and they will take more time. This annual slippage kept getting worse.
Some time in the 80's or 90's, Congress just gave up appropriating and started passing "continuing resolutions" at the last minute. A continuing resolution is an act of Congress that says "Keep things running, limit your spending this year to whatever was in last year's appropriation."
Now, they let everything go til the last minute, and then pass a single giant continuing resolution which in reality, puts the power of the purse into the hands of Congressional staffers, and a few well connected lobbyists. Congressmen just vote on whatever the staffers create, they don't have a clue what's in it.
Back when appropriations bills only covered one department, they were smaller and it was possible for diligent Congressmen to understand one of them. These few diligent Congressmen became legends in the armed services, Carl Vincent, Sam Nunn, and John Stennis for example. Stennis was so legendary that they named an aircraft carrier after him.
Apparently modern Congress men are more interested in making political gestures, like trying to cut off Iraq war funding again and again when they don't have the votes to do it, rather than getting the country's business done. Business has been delegated to unelected staffers, so the elected Congressmen can spend their time posing for the TV cameras.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
End it don't Mend it
Title of a piece on Transterrestrial Musings I agree. CIA has so discredited itself over the last ten years that nobody should take their findings seriously. Why fund an intelligence agency that will never produce another piece of believable intelligence? The codebreakers and the recon satellites do most of US intel work. State dept is there to provide unclassified intel, the military would be happy to do the covert action. Why fund CIA?
Broken gas gauge grounds shuttle (Aviation Week)
Last week's shuttle abort was caused by failure in the hydrogen level sense system in the big external fuel tank. Four engine cutoff sensors are supposed to signal when the hydrogen is all used up and cut off the engines. Otherwise the turbopumps will overspeed when the fuel line goes dry and they start spinning in air (or vacuum). Centrifugal forces from pump overspeed can cause the pumps to fly apart, flinging pump parts thru out the spacecraft at high velocity and triggering an explosion. Normal operating speed of the turbopumps is 39,000 RPM, which is faster than stink. For comparison, a car engine will blow up at a mere 5,ooo RPM, a turbojet can shuck turbine blades at 10,000 RPM. These pumps are running on the ragged edge of failure under normal conditions. Letting them spin faster when the hydrogen runs out naturally makes all hands pretty nervous, and rightly so.
The failure only shows up when the hydrogen tank is full of supercold liquid hydrogen. NASA was going to run a ground test yesterday by filling the tank with 385,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen. I don't know what hydrogen costs, but at gasoline prices, that's about $1,000,000 worth of fuel. A lot of it will boil off just sitting in the tank.
Apparently the problem has been there all along.
"It seems to me likely that we have been flying the entire history of the shuttle program with a false sense of security and that we never had reliable protection from a [catastrophic] liquid hydrogen low-level engine cutoff. That is a really sobering thought ." writes Wayne Hale, NASA program manager, in an email obtained by Aviation Week.
So far, the shuttle computers have been shutting down the engines when orbital velocity of 25,700 foot per second is reached. Up to now, there has been hydrogen left in the tank at engine cutoff. Any one of a number of malfunctions, starting with a leaky tank, could cause hydrogen to run out before orbital velocity is achieved, causing the shuttle to explode unless the hydrogen level sensors are working.
Managers had initial considered flying the 9 Dec mission with "relaxed ECO rules", NASA speak for flying with broken hydrogen sensors, but the Astronaut Office objected.
The failure only shows up when the hydrogen tank is full of supercold liquid hydrogen. NASA was going to run a ground test yesterday by filling the tank with 385,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen. I don't know what hydrogen costs, but at gasoline prices, that's about $1,000,000 worth of fuel. A lot of it will boil off just sitting in the tank.
Apparently the problem has been there all along.
"It seems to me likely that we have been flying the entire history of the shuttle program with a false sense of security and that we never had reliable protection from a [catastrophic] liquid hydrogen low-level engine cutoff. That is a really sobering thought ." writes Wayne Hale, NASA program manager, in an email obtained by Aviation Week.
So far, the shuttle computers have been shutting down the engines when orbital velocity of 25,700 foot per second is reached. Up to now, there has been hydrogen left in the tank at engine cutoff. Any one of a number of malfunctions, starting with a leaky tank, could cause hydrogen to run out before orbital velocity is achieved, causing the shuttle to explode unless the hydrogen level sensors are working.
Managers had initial considered flying the 9 Dec mission with "relaxed ECO rules", NASA speak for flying with broken hydrogen sensors, but the Astronaut Office objected.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Israel wants the new F-35 Lighting II fighter
Of course nothing is perfect.
" Weaknesses include a one man cockpit, the perishability of of it's stealth, and the need to use Israeli-specific equipment" reports AW&ST Senior Military Editor David A. Fulghum on the Aviation Week blog here.
F-35 is the latest hottest fighter, so new it isn't really in service yet, just a couple of prototypes flying.
" Weaknesses include a one man cockpit, the perishability of of it's stealth, and the need to use Israeli-specific equipment" reports AW&ST Senior Military Editor David A. Fulghum on the Aviation Week blog here.
F-35 is the latest hottest fighter, so new it isn't really in service yet, just a couple of prototypes flying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)