The World’s Ten Scariest Runways

I’ve only flown into three of these, but as I was reading, I wondered if they would mention Saba. Sure enough, it’s number ten. I don’t recall either JFK or St. Maarten being that scary, from a passenger perspective, but we flew into there on our way to Saba, which is quite an experience. As noted, it is a very short runway, with a dropoff over a cliff into the ocean if you don’t stop on time. They fly very short takeoff/land planes in there. We flew in with a naval aviator and his wife who were stationed at Rosie Roads in Puerto Rico, and he said that it would be good training for a carrier landing, except that it was a lot more stable.

Anyway, it was worth it. A very quaint little Dutch tropical island, with a couple nice hiking trails around and up the mountain, with great views of Anguilla, St. Maarten/St. Martin, Nevis and other northern windward islands. And a marine preserve, for great diving.

The World’s Ten Scariest Runways

I’ve only flown into three of these, but as I was reading, I wondered if they would mention Saba. Sure enough, it’s number ten. I don’t recall either JFK or St. Maarten being that scary, from a passenger perspective, but we flew into there on our way to Saba, which is quite an experience. As noted, it is a very short runway, with a dropoff over a cliff into the ocean if you don’t stop on time. They fly very short takeoff/land planes in there. We flew in with a naval aviator and his wife who were stationed at Rosie Roads in Puerto Rico, and he said that it would be good training for a carrier landing, except that it was a lot more stable.

Anyway, it was worth it. A very quaint little Dutch tropical island, with a couple nice hiking trails around and up the mountain, with great views of Anguilla, St. Maarten/St. Martin, Nevis and other northern windward islands. And a marine preserve, for great diving.

Rocket Racing Competition

Alan Boyle has more info on this morning’s press announcement from the Rocket Racing League. It looks like they haven’t necessarily dropped XCOR as a supplier (as I previously speculated–note that there is a comment in that post, ostensibly from someone from the RRL, saying it was good news for everyone), but are looking for more competition for propulsion, so now they’ll have a kerosene engine from XCOR and an alcohol engine from Armadillo. If they can spread the wealth and expand the industrial base for these technologies, that’s all to the good.

And this should gladden the hearts of LLC competitors:

Carmack recently said he would make rocket engines available to customers at a cost of $500,000 apiece. He declined to say exactly how much the racing league was paying Armadillo for the current project – but he said the project had a higher priority than Armadillo’s renewed push to win the NASA-funded Lunar Lander Challenge.

That could conceivably mean that they won’t even bother, and will leave the money on the table for someone else, but even if they compete this year, their chances of winning will be reduced if they’re not focused on it, so it could represent an opportunity for Masten, Unreasonable Rocket, and others.

Anyway, I’m glad to see this industry finally (literally) getting off the ground. I wrote a paper at STAIF ten years ago that we needed a racing industry to push the technology, just as occurred in the auto (and air) racing business. A lot of people at the session in which I presented it were skeptical at the time, but it looks like my vision is finally coming to fruition.

[Mid-morning update]

Here’s another pre-press-conference report from the New York Times.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey live blogged the press conference via call-in. I don’t see any mention of XCOR.

A Space Race To Worry About

Unlike the Chinese slow-motion space program, if the Russians are serious about this, it would put them well ahead of us in spacefaring capability, and in a much better position to do missions not just to the moon, but out into the solar system.

According to Perminova, Roskosmos proposed the establishment of a manned assembly complex in Earth orbit. The government Security Council on April 11, supported the idea. The complex can be built ships too heavy to take off from the ground.

What a concept.

But we won’t have to worry about NASA getting involved in such a race as long as Mike Griffin and the giant-rocket fetishists are in charge.

[Update about 9:30 AM EDT]

This isn’t directly related, but what are the Russians talking about here?

Perminov said Friday that Russia may stop selling seats on its spacecraft to “tourists” starting in 2010 because of the planned expansion of the international space station’s crew.

He said the station’s permanent crew is expected to grow from the current three to six or even nine in 2010. That will mean that Russia will have fewer extra seats available for tourists on its Soyuz spacecraft, which are used to ferry crews to the station and back to Earth.

This is the first I’ve heard of such an “expectation.” While I have no doubt that a fully-constructed station could support that level of crew, what do they do about lifeboats? My understanding has always been that the limiting factor on how many crew the station can handle at once is a function of the ability to return them to earth in an emergency. I’ve never agreed with that philosophy, and always thought that a backup coorbiting facility was a much better solution than evacuating the entire crew back to earth, but what I thought has never mattered. Are they proposing to leave crew without a way home, or adding docking modules for additional Soyuz (you’d need three to evacuate nine)? It has to be one or the other, at least until we get Dragon, or Orion or other alternatives flying, and certainly the latter is unlikely by 2010.

More Obamanalysis (Or, “It’s Not The ‘Bitter,’ Stupid”)

From Kaus, who (smart guy that he is) agrees with me:

It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it’s logically possible to say ‘these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things,.” but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for … him). Yesterday at the CNN “Compassion Forum” Obama said he wasn’t disparaging religion because he meant people “cling” to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they “cling” to “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”–the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those “traditions that are passed on from generation to generation” that “sustains us”? Obama’s unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians’ excess religiosity.

Exactly.

And on his intellectual arrogance:

And Obama never describes his own views as the products of anything except an accurate perception of reality. Come to think of it, has he ever expressed any doubt about–let alone apologized for–his views? He certainly didn’t apologize in his “race” speech. He presents himself as near ominscient, the Archimedian point from which everyone else’s beliefs and behavior can be assessed and explained, and to which almost everyone’s beliefs will revert after the revolution. … sorry, I mean after President Obama has restored hope!

Of course, as someone else noted the other day, when one considers that Obama’s most direct experience with Christianity is sitting in the pew of Trinity United for two decades, it shouldn’t be surprising that he thinks that all religious people are bitter, bigoted and xenophobic.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Obama’s spinmeisters are trying to avoid the real issue:

While the description of small town Pennsylvanians as “bitter” is certainly impolitic, many political analysts say it’s what follows that adjective that is potentially so alienating — the notion that small town folks “get bitter” after which “they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

But Obama allies are trying to focus on the “bitter” part alone.

A robo-call on behalf of the Obama campaign from Mayor John Brenner of York, Pa., says that, “Barack Obama understands us. He’s got it right, we are frustrated — frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community, pensions to be stripped, health care benefits to be taken away and homes foreclosed. Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington. It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us.”

We’ll see if the MSM let him get away with it. So far, at least Jake Tapper isn’t.

[Update a few minutes later]

Donald Sensing says that Obama needs to learn when to quit digging:

So family, community and religious faith are apparently what angry, bitter people embrace. Well, I’m not bitter about anything (except, perhaps, the exceptionally poor candidates all around for the presidency this year), and I turn to all those things.

So, does Obama mean that happy, contented people have little truck with family, community or faith? I can’t believe he thinks that even if he did imply it. (Others have commented that Obama’s speaking strength is from prepared texts and he stumbles frequently off the cuff. I dunno). But if he does think that, it’s just stunning in its error and stupidity. But again, I don’t think he meant to imply it, though he did, and I don’t think he believes it.

But that doesn’t let him off the hook because if he thinks that happy, contented people embrace family-community-religion as quickly as angry, bitter people, exactly what has he said here? Nothing. Really, think about. Nothing. Except that bitter people like to own guns – I truly think that Obama can’t fathom why a happy, contented person would want to do that.

I’m starting to think that what Obama can’t fathom would fill a large library.

More Obamanalysis (Or, “It’s Not The ‘Bitter,’ Stupid”)

From Kaus, who (smart guy that he is) agrees with me:

It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it’s logically possible to say ‘these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things,.” but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for … him). Yesterday at the CNN “Compassion Forum” Obama said he wasn’t disparaging religion because he meant people “cling” to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they “cling” to “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”–the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those “traditions that are passed on from generation to generation” that “sustains us”? Obama’s unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians’ excess religiosity.

Exactly.

And on his intellectual arrogance:

And Obama never describes his own views as the products of anything except an accurate perception of reality. Come to think of it, has he ever expressed any doubt about–let alone apologized for–his views? He certainly didn’t apologize in his “race” speech. He presents himself as near ominscient, the Archimedian point from which everyone else’s beliefs and behavior can be assessed and explained, and to which almost everyone’s beliefs will revert after the revolution. … sorry, I mean after President Obama has restored hope!

Of course, as someone else noted the other day, when one considers that Obama’s most direct experience with Christianity is sitting in the pew of Trinity United for two decades, it shouldn’t be surprising that he thinks that all religious people are bitter, bigoted and xenophobic.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Obama’s spinmeisters are trying to avoid the real issue:

While the description of small town Pennsylvanians as “bitter” is certainly impolitic, many political analysts say it’s what follows that adjective that is potentially so alienating — the notion that small town folks “get bitter” after which “they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

But Obama allies are trying to focus on the “bitter” part alone.

A robo-call on behalf of the Obama campaign from Mayor John Brenner of York, Pa., says that, “Barack Obama understands us. He’s got it right, we are frustrated — frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community, pensions to be stripped, health care benefits to be taken away and homes foreclosed. Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington. It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us.”

We’ll see if the MSM let him get away with it. So far, at least Jake Tapper isn’t.

[Update a few minutes later]

Donald Sensing says that Obama needs to learn when to quit digging:

So family, community and religious faith are apparently what angry, bitter people embrace. Well, I’m not bitter about anything (except, perhaps, the exceptionally poor candidates all around for the presidency this year), and I turn to all those things.

So, does Obama mean that happy, contented people have little truck with family, community or faith? I can’t believe he thinks that even if he did imply it. (Others have commented that Obama’s speaking strength is from prepared texts and he stumbles frequently off the cuff. I dunno). But if he does think that, it’s just stunning in its error and stupidity. But again, I don’t think he meant to imply it, though he did, and I don’t think he believes it.

But that doesn’t let him off the hook because if he thinks that happy, contented people embrace family-community-religion as quickly as angry, bitter people, exactly what has he said here? Nothing. Really, think about. Nothing. Except that bitter people like to own guns – I truly think that Obama can’t fathom why a happy, contented person would want to do that.

I’m starting to think that what Obama can’t fathom would fill a large library.

More Obamanalysis (Or, “It’s Not The ‘Bitter,’ Stupid”)

From Kaus, who (smart guy that he is) agrees with me:

It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it’s logically possible to say ‘these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things,.” but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for … him). Yesterday at the CNN “Compassion Forum” Obama said he wasn’t disparaging religion because he meant people “cling” to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they “cling” to “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”–the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those “traditions that are passed on from generation to generation” that “sustains us”? Obama’s unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians’ excess religiosity.

Exactly.

And on his intellectual arrogance:

And Obama never describes his own views as the products of anything except an accurate perception of reality. Come to think of it, has he ever expressed any doubt about–let alone apologized for–his views? He certainly didn’t apologize in his “race” speech. He presents himself as near ominscient, the Archimedian point from which everyone else’s beliefs and behavior can be assessed and explained, and to which almost everyone’s beliefs will revert after the revolution. … sorry, I mean after President Obama has restored hope!

Of course, as someone else noted the other day, when one considers that Obama’s most direct experience with Christianity is sitting in the pew of Trinity United for two decades, it shouldn’t be surprising that he thinks that all religious people are bitter, bigoted and xenophobic.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Obama’s spinmeisters are trying to avoid the real issue:

While the description of small town Pennsylvanians as “bitter” is certainly impolitic, many political analysts say it’s what follows that adjective that is potentially so alienating — the notion that small town folks “get bitter” after which “they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

But Obama allies are trying to focus on the “bitter” part alone.

A robo-call on behalf of the Obama campaign from Mayor John Brenner of York, Pa., says that, “Barack Obama understands us. He’s got it right, we are frustrated — frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community, pensions to be stripped, health care benefits to be taken away and homes foreclosed. Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington. It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us.”

We’ll see if the MSM let him get away with it. So far, at least Jake Tapper isn’t.

[Update a few minutes later]

Donald Sensing says that Obama needs to learn when to quit digging:

So family, community and religious faith are apparently what angry, bitter people embrace. Well, I’m not bitter about anything (except, perhaps, the exceptionally poor candidates all around for the presidency this year), and I turn to all those things.

So, does Obama mean that happy, contented people have little truck with family, community or faith? I can’t believe he thinks that even if he did imply it. (Others have commented that Obama’s speaking strength is from prepared texts and he stumbles frequently off the cuff. I dunno). But if he does think that, it’s just stunning in its error and stupidity. But again, I don’t think he meant to imply it, though he did, and I don’t think he believes it.

But that doesn’t let him off the hook because if he thinks that happy, contented people embrace family-community-religion as quickly as angry, bitter people, exactly what has he said here? Nothing. Really, think about. Nothing. Except that bitter people like to own guns – I truly think that Obama can’t fathom why a happy, contented person would want to do that.

I’m starting to think that what Obama can’t fathom would fill a large library.

I Know What He Means

Lileks:

The Piccadilly was knocked down for the Marriott Marquis, which is really one hell of a hotel. I stayed there for a week; loved the rooms and the hotel and the location, but I absolutely hated the glass elevators. Practically had to huff a bag of laughing gas to get on the things.

It’s a problem with Marriotts in general. The large atrium with the glass ‘vators seems to be a trademark. I hate them. They don’t seem to take into account the acrophobes among us.

The Obamian’s Prayer

I put this in a previous post on Obama and his fascist (not that there’s anything wrong with that) antipathy to individualism, but decided that it deserved one of its own:

O Bama, who art on the campaign trail,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy election come;
Thy will be done,
In the US as it is in Europe.
Give us this day our daily entitlements.
And forgive us our political incorrectness,
As we forgive those bible-thumping gun-toting hicks
That trespass against us.
And lead us not into capitalism;
But deliver us from patriotism.
For thine is the STATE,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever (and ever).

[Via a commenter at Rantburg]

The Obamian’s Prayer

I put this in a previous post on Obama and his fascist (not that there’s anything wrong with that) antipathy to individualism, but decided that it deserved one of its own:

O Bama, who art on the campaign trail,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy election come;
Thy will be done,
In the US as it is in Europe.
Give us this day our daily entitlements.
And forgive us our political incorrectness,
As we forgive those bible-thumping gun-toting hicks
That trespass against us.
And lead us not into capitalism;
But deliver us from patriotism.
For thine is the STATE,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever (and ever).

[Via a commenter at Rantburg]

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!