Disqus - Latest Comments for jdhouse4

Re: Brietbart.com got Elon all wrong

jdhouse4 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:39:16 -0000

So Elon has done more for human kind than the researchers who created penicillin or flu vaccines; than Edison; than the Wright brothers; than Gutenberg? Really?

Re: Huntsman tries to carve out role as Republicans' centrist 'truth-teller'

jdhouse4 — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:58:53 -0000

MikeTrip, great post. As a former McCain volunteer in 2008, I'm with you 110%.

Re: White House targets Republican 'Pledge' and college voters in road trip

jdhouse4 — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:56:12 -0000

Good for the President! We need to have a healthy debate between the Right and the Left before our nation's mid-term elections. A vigorous debate can only help the American people as they return to the polls. The Dems have done some good things this year and the GOP has stopped some bad policy from being enacted.

But now it's time for the GOP candidates to start telling the American people what they will do once in power. I look forward to seeing the GOP's detailed spending and tax plan to get us in better financial shape.

Re: Is+Space+the+Valley%26%238217%3Bs+Next%26nbsp%3BFrontier%3F

jdhouse4 — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:18:40 -0000

Gaetano's site is a great source of amusement.

Re: Is+Space+the+Valley%26%238217%3Bs+Next%26nbsp%3BFrontier%3F

jdhouse4 — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:57:24 -0000

Shiva,

You're right, but not in the manner in which you intended. Here's a brief history of our nation's space program.

Eisenhower created NASA and gave the go-ahead for the Mercury program.

Kennedy/Johnson created Apollo and Gemini. Unfortunately, the little thing they got us involved in over in Southeast Asia put the nation in such financial straights, never mind the many and numerous social programs, that Apollo was given notice of its end in 1969, the year we landed on the Moon.

Nixon started the Shuttle program but gave the final word on ending the Saturn program.

Ford kept Shuttle going, though a bit reluctantly.

Carter wanted to kill the Shuttle program but was prevented from doing so by the SALT Treaty, which required verification. Our verification of Soviet adherence to SALT was through the KH-11 Keyhole satellite. Unfortunately for Carter, it was already well along in its design, which was meant to be launched on the Shuttle. So Shuttle stayed.

Reagan created the space station program, called Freedom and tried to invigorate the commercial satellite launch business by forbidding Shuttle to launch commercial satellites.

Bush I created the Space Exploration Initiative that would have returned us to the Moon and set the stage to move beyond. It was killed by Congress, controlled by the Democrats at the time, specifically by Senator Barbara Mikulski and Al Gore.

Clinton scaled-back Space Station Freedom into the much smaller International Space Station and also put the station into a 57° orbit inclination, which, though it allows one to study a great deal of the earth, is fairly useless for future missions beyond earth orbit since the solar system ecliptic is 23.5°. And yes, for a rocket to do a plane change from 57° to 23.5° is usually too much. To calculate the power needed, you can use the Law of Cosines. Anyway...under the Clinton Administration, NASA inflation adjusted budget went down by 20%.

Bush II created the Vision for Space Exploration on January 14, 2004 that became the Constellation program. Constellation would return us to low-earth orbit (LEO), return us to the Moon and set the stage for beyond-earth orbit missions such as Mars.

Obama proposed ending Constellation and turning NASA into some version of the FAA or FCC. So many critics came forward including Neil Armstrong, who hates publicity, that Congress has pretty much ended the President's proposal. On the 7th, the Senate passed its own version of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that effectively restarts Constellation. The House version is even rougher on the White House. I would remind you, but I'm sure you already know this, that both houses are controlled by the President's own Party.

In a nutshell, we have Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II who have pushed to make our nation number one in human space exploration while Nixon, Carter, Clinton and Obama have pushed for our nation to cede its leadership status in human space flight.

Re: Flying+Green%3A+The+Possibilities+And+Challenges+Of+Electric%26nbsp%3BAircraft

jdhouse4 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:55:42 -0000

I'm a private pilot (single-engine, land) and the thing that kills people in a plane wreck is most certainly not the fuel--it's the trauma of going from 125mph, in general aviation, to 0 in less than a second. In commercial flight, we are talking orders of magnitude deceleration.

As for replacing avgas or jet fuel, it's all about energy density by volume and by weight. And batteries don't have it. Fuel cells don't either but at least hold some hope that in the future they will.

In fact, electrical planes still give some the willies.Let's say I get a lightning strike. The Cirrus I fly has two back-ups to the battery because once the electrical goes, I'm back in the 50's (no fancy electrical displays, etc.) dead sticking it. But at least I still have an engine running, meaning I have time to grab my paper charts and find a nice place to land, or heck, just keep cruising to my original destination since I have mechanical, analog backup's powered by the engine. With a battery-powered airplane, how are the batts going to take the surge? Will they survive? Or are you now a glider pilot, back in the 50's with no backup's?

Given those two scenarios, which plane would you prefer to be in?

Re: Urban+Airship+Brings+Easy+Push+Notifications+To%26nbsp%3BAndroid

jdhouse4 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:31:14 -0000

Yeah...but you might want to check out their security.

A friend was dealing with them. Sales claimed that they have some pretty miraculous capabilities, ones that the NSA does not even have...I think, to encrypt/decrypt user data.

Re: Mikulski: U.S. cannot afford new NASA 'every four years'

jdhouse4 — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:32:29 -0000

Mr. Romm is spot on. Cutting Constellation and transferring money that would have gone to Ares I/Orion, and eventually Ares V, in order to free it up for subsidizing the human-rating of "commercial" crewed launchers, is ending our human space program. Space is a national priority, not an corporate priority. Further, as Shelby put it, with the President's space plan (and with COTS), we are subsidizing billionaires to let millionaires ride into space. SpaceX's history is not very encouraging. And as ASAP's Frost said today, the space start-up's will have a great deal of difficulty meeting the human rating (hardware) guidelines that are being released this year and still make their optimistic target of flying 3 years after signing a contract, as SpaceX's President Gwynne Shotwell stated. And just as with EELV, we will be left holding the bag and dealing with the inevitable delays of the commercial launchers should they fall short, as SpaceX will in fulfilling its COTS requirement of 3 Falcon 9 launches before Sept. 30, 2010.Anyone who thinks Constellation is dead as a doornail isn't in play on this.

Re: On Tuesday's NewsHour...

jdhouse4 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:42:04 -0000

MikeP,

While reading The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, keep in mind the context of the times and you'll see that NASA was chartered weeks after Sputnik to beat the Soviets in space and to keep us on top there. That's why it wasn't long until the Redstone Arsenal was taken over by NASA to develop rockets to send astronauts into space. You are right that NACA was focused on R&D. All of that changed when the "Communist Moon" began circling over Americans' heads. For example,

Sec. 102, d)

(1)The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;

(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;

(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

Space exploration was a leading goal.

I thought Gwyn did a good job. Let's face it, when discussing space, it is difficult to meld the technical realities into something people can digest. Gwyn did fine. And she shined when she asked Bretton Alexander why it was better to cancel Constellation if all it means is that we still ride the Russian rockets, just longer. Bretton could not answer that question. Nor did Alexander address the point posed by Griffin about military and civilian air travel coexisting as a model for NASA and commercial space flight.

Compared to the tripe I have sometimes endure on cable TV, I think this would have been informative to the average person as they digest the meaning of changing NASA's direction and the impact that will have on our nation.

Re: Who wears the cowboy boots in Texas?

jdhouse4 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:14:27 -0000

I'm a 6th generation Texan whose ancestor (Samuel Maverick) was a defender of the Alamo, signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, and a member of the Texas House.

Re: Bowing Out of Twestival Local (Sorry, Folks)

jdhouse4 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:53:35 -0000

I think it's easy to forget that there are precious few individuals like Michelle who can step-up to the plate for a cause and execute well. But directing your energies Michelle to keeping clients happy is a noble goal in business if there ever was one.

However, am I to understand from Amanda's comment that Twestival is content to stand by supposed ethics rules that will keep Austin Twestival-free due to sponsors possibly injecting their own agenda?

I wonder if such strict adherance to rules is not a a classic case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and therefore the equivalent of discharging a large calibre firearm upon ones foot?

Re: Millimeter Wave Detectors in the Airports - Jonathan Johnson's Blog

jdhouse4 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:02:15 -0000

I was not aware how lacking these millimeter wave machines were, especially when it came to scanning women. X-ray is the manly way anyway.

Re: Quite possibly the dumbest interview you'll read all year

jdhouse4 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:40:26 -0000

Dowd needs to stop treating change like it's something bad. Just because it isn't in the Times doesn't mean it's going to end civilization. She also needs to take the obnoxious wit down a notch or two--very cool in your 20's, even 30's, but just a bit embarassing in 40's and over.

Re: Ballmer: Microsoft needs to make faster Windows Mobile advances

jdhouse4 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:49:00 -0000

Brunogirl is right, why is someone trying to hold the line for MS when it won't? And why not just have an open-door policy towards personal tech?

Re: NSA Should Oversee Cybersecurity, Intel Chief Says

jdhouse4 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:48:41 -0000

Dan, I call B.S. on your claim that we're at greater risk from the NSA than from the terrorists. You must be either a slave to your hyperbole and emotions or very uneducated. Answer this one question: how many innocent Americans are dead because of the NSA? 0. Terrorists? ~3,000. Get it?

Americans just as loyal and patiotic as you work at NSA.

Frankly, today nobody in our gov't knows as much about cybersec as those at NSA. Perhaps a part of NSA split-off to handle domestic cybersec?

Re: It’s just cool: Cockpit view of the Space Shuttle

jdhouse4 — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:27:21 -0000

I could see how someone who doesn't know much about flight avionics might think the Shuttle's are out of the 80's. First, the Shuttle was originally designed in the 70's. But if you look a bit closer, you'll see that there are very few "steam" guages. In fact, this is a glass cockpit. For a vehicle that goes from 0-17,000 mph in 6 minutes and then docks with another vehicle moving at 17,000 mph before returning back to earth. No other spacecraft in the world can do that. And the Shuttle has done this for the last 26 years.

Re: White House Tech More Tired Than Wired

jdhouse4 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:47:06 -0000

My oh my, XP fanbots do exist after all. Why move from XP to the Mac? Security, certainly. I've seen two demos of Windows boxes being hacked. Zip on the Mac...& don't even start on the BS demo done at Black Hat with MacBook over WiFi. Another reason to move to the Mac OS is productivity. XP fanbots, imagine a week during which you don't play with you confit to keep it running? I know, I know, sounds impossible, but we Mac guys like to play with our partners, not machines running a badly architected OS.

Know what's really funny to Mac users? That we are taking OS market share from Windows. Remember when Windows was over 85%? Bye-bye. No more. And tv number will keep going down.

Yes, Virginia Windows is tired and old and just about to die and is beginning to emit the decaying scent of the rotted corps that is the Windows OS.

Re: Go to iPhone DevCamp So We Can Get Our Butts Off Our Computers

jdhouse4 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:42:12 -0000

Great post, one that most would identify with. The iPhone offers owners a way to stay in touch, chronicle in words, sound and pictures what they are experiencing, and to do more without a bulky laptop. The challenge is for developers to make the apps that make doing all of that on an iPhone drunk-monkey simple. The more people push because "good enough" isn't, the more amazing the creations developers will come up with. And something with such nice looks and great OS deserves nothing less.