Typhoid

Ah, thanks!! That explains things. I rolled back and re-installed with pre-May2011 - works fine now.

I wish we had a program in place that would do that. I'm not confident that we will get there with what is presently programmed. I hope we can get a realistic program rolling. The Final Frontier is where the future is. (yea - I'm a space geek too!)

Awesome!!

A sad day. Last report I saw said one dead.

Happy Birthday!!

A great, if greatly premature, ending to a fantastic program. While not a perfect system and never meeting its original goals wrt cost per flight, it was an outstanding achievment that brought a frequency of space flights and delivery to orbit that was unmatched. And prayers for those who didn't make it back.

a late birthday wish sounds like a great reason to party again!! Thanks again!!

different radars, freq, etc., and the jamming is directional. So jamming the inbounds would be looking away from the multi-CV group. daddyairplanes, we played vs a grunch of BUFF's. You have a tremendous radar return!! Interesting ECM capabilities that you all have..........

Likewise!! My daughter in law was astonished to find out that I was such a seasoned citizen. Thanks guys!! Hoisting a brew in celebration (prune juice with a chaser....)

I said we couldn't track airplanes (yet) from space. I didn't say we couldn't look over your shoulder and read the fine print. By the way, you should check your engine - you're number 3 cyclinder is running a little cooler than the others.

not quite the same things. The Texas Towers were air defense radars that extended radar coverage to sea. There was no replacement for those capabilities until the OTH-B radars were deployed, whcih have since been mothballed without replacement. Satellites track ballistic missiles. There is not (yet) a space based capability to track aircraft (with some specific caveats that I'll not go into here)

Awesome!

This evolved into what we called the Outer Air Battle (earlier tactical development included "vector logic", "grid", etc,) The key was to have some intel to cue the force on timing and threat vector. Without that cue - no realistic capability to defend against a mass attack. the standard CAP was as Ezlead described - each squadron kept 2 up for a total of 4 during normal flight ops with another 4 on quick alert. One carrier would go for 12 hours. Two carriers could maintain a 24 hour CAP with 4 and another 4 on alert. With the cueing - everything up, and the flight deck cleared for "Flex Deck" ops for the tankers to shuttle fuel to the grid. With the F-18's replacing the A-7's, they could handle the inner part of the grid but couldn't match the F-14 for range, endurance or missiles in the air. When the F-14's were replaced by the Hornets and Super Hornets, the ranges of the OAB contracted a bit - but of course by then there weren't any more regiments of Backfires our there to worry about. The tactics were part of the carrier and air wing work ups and ORI. We all practiced those tactics on a regular basis. On the Midway, we had to modify the tactics because we couldn't do the Flex Deck without a waist cat. But we could maintain it for about 4-6 hours.

Outstanding!! Congratulations!!!

nope. That's the only network that is anywhere close to being accurate or balanced. And the ratings prove how much more that channel is trusted than all the others combined. The others are all propaganda outlets. If you don't watch/read/listen to the news channels of Fox, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, Reuters, AP, LA Slimes, etc., you are uninformed. If you do watch/read/listen to any of them, you are mis-informed.

Contracted flights on other people's spacecraft. Initially we will continue to pay Russia for supplies and manned access to the ISS. In the future, it is intended to be contracted flights from industry. We could eventually contract for flights from India and/or China. We (US) will have no direct access to space. That's the plan in the near to mid term. In the far term, there are pipe-dreams about going to Mars and the Asteroids. But there is no program to actually do that.

the problems with these schemes is that they are based on scientific frauds paid for by political activists/green energy advocates. If you want to argue climate change - it's based on scientific fraud If you want to argue Peak Oil - it's based on a scientific and political fraud achieved by stopping new production and then claiming the reduction in new wells is proof of Peak Oil. If you want to argue alternative energy on its merits - fine. Do so. There are some good arguments, some of which I've seen here. But quit referring to scientific frauds as the rationale and quit demonizing those of us who point out the scientific failures. Example of a scientific failure - not one climate prediction by the Thermophobes in over 20 years has actually been correct. Not one. And all of the Thermophobic predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models which have all failed in relation to the real world. Claims that alternative energy schemes are cost-competitive are also based on fraudulant cherry-picking of the data and ignoring key limitations (such as wind not working in low-wind and low-temperature conditions, thereby requiring conventionally powered backup plants). Don't call me a denier if I disagree with you. Don't demonize skeptical scientists and don't claim that all skeptics are oil industry shills. (which is the standard response - not saying that anyone here has said that). My 2 cents. Adios.

And carbon credit trading has crashed, big time!! The markets are shutting down after the carbon price tanked to a nickel a ton. Which is not surprising since carbon trading is quite literally trading on nothing more than Hot Air based on a scientific fraud.

"it'd be really nice to not have to wash blood off the walls again tonight... " HA HA HA roger that! I'm outa here!!

crazy would be the word!!

isn't this sort of political? Conservatives are not against alternative energy. Conservatives are opposed to mandatory schemes that are based on scientific frauds. Alternative energy schemes that are voluntary are just fine. If you want to pay the extra costs, that's your privilige. The condemnation of those who misuse science to serve a political agenda is laughable coming from the perspective of the "low carbon" crowd. That entire agenda is built on a scientific fraud and relies on the demonization of opponents. A key factor with respect to plug in cars (not hybrids) is that the electrical grid has to be able to support it. In most places, that grid is powered by Oil, Natural Gas, or Coal. So the plug-in's absolutely do nothing more than shift the source of emissions. The advocates of "low carbon cars" are careful to avoid acknowledging that reality. You all notice the press rebuttal failed to even mention that point. The propaganda about the oil companies paying to keep competitors out of the market is nonsense as well. Those are energy companies, not oil companies. Most of those "evil oil companies" are themselves invested heavily in all forms of energy. Most of them have bailed out of the alternative energy schemes because - Alternative Energy either doesn't work or is not cost competitive.