The Russians need a presidential aircraft to keep up with the Americans. They just test flew a Tupolev twin engine TU-214 destined for the Russian Air Force One role. Looks like an ordinary narrow body airliner, with winglets like a Boeing 737. No where near as cool and impressive as the Boeing 747 four engine jumbo jet flown by the Americans. But at least it is Russian built, the Russians would loose a lot of status points if they used a foreign built aircraft.
Of course Aeroflot is converting their entire fleet to western built airliners. Aeroflot brags that all their international flights use Boeing aircraft.
Western aircraft enjoy a safety record of 0.73 crashes per million flights. East bloc aircraft show 7.something crashes per million flights. You are ten times more likely to crash flying east bloc aircraft. I wish the Russians all possible luck with their new home built executive aircraft.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
NASA man rates the Russian Soyuz capsule
Ever cautious NASA requires any space craft carrying live astronauts to be "man rated", by which they mean the maker has filled out pounds and pounds of NASA paperwork for every single piece that goes into the spacecraft. One of the reasons Shuttles cost so much and flew so little was the burden of doing the man rating paperwork on every single part.
NASA claimed that man rating was so important that they could not use the highly reliable Delta and Atlas rocket boosters used by United Launch Alliance to launch communications satellites. They claimed that Delta and Atlas were not man rated and hence far too dangerous to boost astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). This was the justification for starting a new development of Ares booster rockets.
In the long interval between the end of Shuttle flights and the first Ares flight, NASA planned buy tickets to the ISS from the Russians. Naturally the Russians don't do NASA paperwork for man rating their Soyuz system. But NASA, based on the Russian record of successful launches (better than the Shuttle) decided to man rate Soyus, just to keep the paper trail in order.
If NASA really cared they could man rate Delta and Atlas just as easily.
NASA claimed that man rating was so important that they could not use the highly reliable Delta and Atlas rocket boosters used by United Launch Alliance to launch communications satellites. They claimed that Delta and Atlas were not man rated and hence far too dangerous to boost astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). This was the justification for starting a new development of Ares booster rockets.
In the long interval between the end of Shuttle flights and the first Ares flight, NASA planned buy tickets to the ISS from the Russians. Naturally the Russians don't do NASA paperwork for man rating their Soyuz system. But NASA, based on the Russian record of successful launches (better than the Shuttle) decided to man rate Soyus, just to keep the paper trail in order.
If NASA really cared they could man rate Delta and Atlas just as easily.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday Pundits
David Gregory's Meet the Press topic was "What can Washington do about the Gulf oil spill". Real answer. Nothing. The men and equipment to deal with the spill belong to the oil industry.
The New York Times man was very positive that Washington could do something, he didn't know what, but something. There goes a man of faith, faith in government. Too bad he is supposed to writing news stories.
The New York Times man was very positive that Washington could do something, he didn't know what, but something. There goes a man of faith, faith in government. Too bad he is supposed to writing news stories.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Don't Mess with Texas
The Texas Board of Education has been updating the curriculum requirements for the state. This update has attracted quite a bit of negative press comment. Liberals accuse the Texans of being too conservative. And, due to the large size of the Texas school book market, they fear that Texas standards will become defacto national standards as text book publishers revise their books to meet the Texas standards.
I've read the Texas curriculum. It's posted on line here.
I don't see anything wrong here. The curriculum is spelled out in plain English, rather than ed major jargon. It is concrete, listing persons, places, events, and concepts to be taught. The selection of material seems perfectly reasonable to me. They want students to know American history, some fundamental economics, and recent important events such as the end of the cold war, and 9/11. It is NOT watered down. The curriculum goes far beyond anything taught in my high school, and I went to a pretty good school.
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) the Texas curriculum is perfectly reasonable and centrist. The critics are drawn from far out in left field.
I've read the Texas curriculum. It's posted on line here.
I don't see anything wrong here. The curriculum is spelled out in plain English, rather than ed major jargon. It is concrete, listing persons, places, events, and concepts to be taught. The selection of material seems perfectly reasonable to me. They want students to know American history, some fundamental economics, and recent important events such as the end of the cold war, and 9/11. It is NOT watered down. The curriculum goes far beyond anything taught in my high school, and I went to a pretty good school.
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) the Texas curriculum is perfectly reasonable and centrist. The critics are drawn from far out in left field.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Regulation? or Welfare for Banks?
Up til now "derivatives", side bets placed between banks and investors, have been on a one to one basis. The two parties to the "derivative" reach a deal between themselves and that's that. Should one party to the deal go bankrupt (can you say AIG?) the other party doesn't get paid. Realization of this fact since 2008 has reduced the number of derivative deals.
The regulatory bill coming thru Congress includes a guarantee for derivatives. The bill requires derivatives to be traded on exchanges, similar to a stock exchange. The seller and the buyer do a deal with the exchange. BUT, the exchange will guarantee the deals against default. If you buy a derivative and the seller goes bust, the exchange will pay you off.
Just what we need, guarantees on gambling. The derivatives are essentially bets that stocks will rise or fall, or that a company or country (Greece for instance) will default on it's bonds. Banks are channeling lots of money into the game 'cause a winning bet pays off big. Money spent gambling on derivatives is money that should have gone into economic development. Derivatives do not finance new factories, new businesses, new construction, inventory, accounts receivable or sales. In short money that should have gone to creating new jobs is frittered away gambling.
We should not encourage the gamblers by offering a guarantee of payoff.
The regulatory bill coming thru Congress includes a guarantee for derivatives. The bill requires derivatives to be traded on exchanges, similar to a stock exchange. The seller and the buyer do a deal with the exchange. BUT, the exchange will guarantee the deals against default. If you buy a derivative and the seller goes bust, the exchange will pay you off.
Just what we need, guarantees on gambling. The derivatives are essentially bets that stocks will rise or fall, or that a company or country (Greece for instance) will default on it's bonds. Banks are channeling lots of money into the game 'cause a winning bet pays off big. Money spent gambling on derivatives is money that should have gone into economic development. Derivatives do not finance new factories, new businesses, new construction, inventory, accounts receivable or sales. In short money that should have gone to creating new jobs is frittered away gambling.
We should not encourage the gamblers by offering a guarantee of payoff.
US to subsidize Brazilian cotton growers.
Talk about craziness. According to an editorial in yesterday's Wall St Journal, the US is subsidizing US cotton growers. 70% of the subsidy money goes to just 10 big cotton operations. Corporate welfare basically.
The international trade laws prohibit farm subsidies because they are a disguised tariff. Brazil sued the US for unfair trade practices and won. Unless the US drops this costly bit of corporate welfare, Brazil is legally entitled to retaliate with tariffs against American exports. The Brazilians have drawn up such a tariff and it has teeth and will hurt.
In last ditch negotiations the US has offered to pay Brazilian cotton growers the same subsidy that US cotton growers get.
This is totally crazy. In this time of federal deficit we should not be paying US farmers to grow stuff. And we should NEVER pay foreign farmers to grow stuff.
The international trade laws prohibit farm subsidies because they are a disguised tariff. Brazil sued the US for unfair trade practices and won. Unless the US drops this costly bit of corporate welfare, Brazil is legally entitled to retaliate with tariffs against American exports. The Brazilians have drawn up such a tariff and it has teeth and will hurt.
In last ditch negotiations the US has offered to pay Brazilian cotton growers the same subsidy that US cotton growers get.
This is totally crazy. In this time of federal deficit we should not be paying US farmers to grow stuff. And we should NEVER pay foreign farmers to grow stuff.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Quoting from today's Wall St Journal. "In its last annual inspection of the Deepwater Horizon (the BP chartered oil rig that exploded and sank) last July, the Coast Guard didn't ask crew members to lower lifeboats to the water due to concerns that the test was too dangerous, Lt Cmdr. Odom told a federal panel investigating the disaster last week."
Wow! What is going on here? Lifeboat drills should be held once a month and the boats lowered into the water, just to make sure the lowering gear hasn't rusted solid. And that the crew knows how to lower the lifeboats. Granted, they ought to do lifeboat drill in good weather, but still it ought to be done, just to make sure the crew knows what to do.
Quoting further. "The Coast Guard also only ran a limited fire drill on the rig's helipad, excusing some workers who were normally supposed to take part because they were busy exploring for oil on the rig, according to testimony."
Wow again. Fire drills are supposed to be for real, and should also be done once a month.
Elsewhere in the article it states that Deepwater Horizon was not a US flag rig, it was registered in the Marshall Islands. Coast Guard checks of foreign flag rigs are completed in hours whereas inspection of US flagged rigs can take days.
That ain't right either. Coast Guard inspections should be the same for every rig out there.
And finally the article stated that standards for fire protection equipment were "of a general nature". That's bad too. Regulations should spell out in some detail how many fire pumps and of what capacity must be installed, the areas to be protected by sprinkler systems, the number and capacity of fire hoses and extinguishers. Inspectors should have the power to insist that rigs be properly equipped. Otherwise cheat skate owners will save money by skimping on safety equipment.
I'd say some tightening up is in order. When Deepwater Horizon sank it twisted the mile of drill pipe running down to the well into pretzel shapes and opened leaks in the pipe out of which oil is flowing. If the rig had stayed afloat, stopping the oil leaks would be easier. The lack of firefighting ability on board let the fire get out of control and sink the rig.
Wow! What is going on here? Lifeboat drills should be held once a month and the boats lowered into the water, just to make sure the lowering gear hasn't rusted solid. And that the crew knows how to lower the lifeboats. Granted, they ought to do lifeboat drill in good weather, but still it ought to be done, just to make sure the crew knows what to do.
Quoting further. "The Coast Guard also only ran a limited fire drill on the rig's helipad, excusing some workers who were normally supposed to take part because they were busy exploring for oil on the rig, according to testimony."
Wow again. Fire drills are supposed to be for real, and should also be done once a month.
Elsewhere in the article it states that Deepwater Horizon was not a US flag rig, it was registered in the Marshall Islands. Coast Guard checks of foreign flag rigs are completed in hours whereas inspection of US flagged rigs can take days.
That ain't right either. Coast Guard inspections should be the same for every rig out there.
And finally the article stated that standards for fire protection equipment were "of a general nature". That's bad too. Regulations should spell out in some detail how many fire pumps and of what capacity must be installed, the areas to be protected by sprinkler systems, the number and capacity of fire hoses and extinguishers. Inspectors should have the power to insist that rigs be properly equipped. Otherwise cheat skate owners will save money by skimping on safety equipment.
I'd say some tightening up is in order. When Deepwater Horizon sank it twisted the mile of drill pipe running down to the well into pretzel shapes and opened leaks in the pipe out of which oil is flowing. If the rig had stayed afloat, stopping the oil leaks would be easier. The lack of firefighting ability on board let the fire get out of control and sink the rig.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)