Shuttles

Greetings,
        Let me begin by saying I am quite disappointed that Houston will not be receiving a Space Shuttle Orbiter. Yes I would like that piece of history to come here and be a part of all the other things we have here that are so much a part of one of the best things in our nation's history. It belongs here and it does because of the blood, sweat and tears so many at this center have shed for the last thirty years. Such a resting place would be fitting.

        KSC is another place that should indeed have an orbiter. They had their hands all over that magnificent beast and none I think feel the pride, joy and overwhelming awe of the Shuttle launches more than do they. It is a matter of pride for them and a fitting tribute to the sacrifices made in Florida to make the whole thing work.

        The Air and Space Museam is a good and reasonable place to put a national treasure. This seems fitting. Such a monumental portion of our history at rest in a place dedicated to aeronautics and space endeavors is fitting indeed. I have no qualms about that at all. This seems fitting.

        Rockwell Downey is where the orbiters were born. Each one, from Enterprise to Endeavour, were all built right there. Though times and the center of gravity of the Shuttle program have changed, still this place does have a legitimate connection to the Shuttle heritage. Also it is not a bad idea to have one on the West Coast where it might be more easily seen by those whose tax money flowed East to get them built.
        That said, I wonder if LA in particular and California in general have the financial wherewithal to properly care and feed a Shuttle Orbiter. The question may well be asked and should be answered, carefully. This is a bit of history irreplaceable and oddly fragile. It is not something to be left setting for years in the elements and deteriorating. It must be up kept and well for it to be preserved.
        Therefore in spite of the historical connection, I'm not sure this is a good choice. I could understand it, but not agree with it.

        Then there is New York City. Frankly this is thoroughly inappropriate on almost every level. NYC had no involvement in the creation or operation of the Shuttle fleet. None. I'd be curious to hear the historical gymnastics required to form any rational basis for this decision. Might be entertaining.
        Furthermore the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum does not seem to be a great choice to put an orbiter either. The Shuttle is quite large. It is larger than the SR-71 which has to reside on the open deck of the Intrepid. To house a Shuttle Orbiter will require some sort of specialized building. A single New York winter with it sitting in the elements might be disasterous for purposes of preservation. Perhaps they have a place. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that. But that leads to my last point.
        New York has Broadway, Central Park, The Statue of Liberty, hell... It is New York City for cryin' out loud! This place does not require a boost to attract tourists. It needs no special props to bring people to visit. The Shuttle is more likely to be lost in the crowd, to be forgotten amid the myriad wonderful things for which it is famous. I doubt seeing the Shuttle will supplant Time Square or Broadway for folks going to see New York. A Shuttle that goes to NYC, goes there I think to be largely forgotten. That is the real shame in this.

        This was for the most part, a dreadful set of decisions. The Enterprise going to NYC is a blatant and petty eye-poke to the good people of Houston, TX. This is little better than "I'm going to take my marbles and give 'em to people who like me. So there!" Here was a chance for an administration, whether you like their other policies or not, to act above the fray, to honour the past and to consider carefully where our national treasures could best be cared for and made available to the people. Bad form Mr. President. This does not become you, or any president.

        Ad Astra Per Aspera,
        Kevin

        

Standing Houston

Greetings,
        Lately I've been feeling more and more aches and pains almost all of them arriving or worsening when I've been sitting for awhile.  So the recent medical report that all of the sitting we do increases our chance of heart attack by 54% I sat, er, stood up and took notice.  

        It is likely I spend 12 hours a day sitting.  This does not include sitting up in bed or driving.  This is just sitting at a desk, at work or at home.  Which means of the hours I spend conscious each day 75% of them are spent in a semi-recumbent position. Holy Sedentary Lifestyle, Batman!!

        So for an experiment I thought I would try standing more of today. Here are a few initial observations.

1. I am feeling a bit more energized and engaged. Although I am a morning person this is still a bit of an increase in sharpness.
2. It is obvious that my body is thoroughly unaccustomed ot this. My legs, back and other bits are complaining that they have not been asked to do this for some time. Which is more evidence that this might be good.
3. My office is thoroughly committed to me being in a semi-recumbent position. ☺ I can work at my computer and keyboard in this posture, but as for writing and reading or study, that is completely not feasible. I would need to raise my desk level some 12.5" in order to comfortably write at it.
4. Standing will mean I can look into everyone else's cubicle with ease. As there are few of us over here right now that is not an issue, later it may be.

        So I'm coming up on one hour of verticality this morning. The fun part too is engineers are problem solvers. I just gave my office mates a whole host of problems to solve and are they off to the races. ☺

        Ad Astra Per Aspera,
        Kevin