Recently in Thinking Category

It's only Tuesday but it's already been a weird week. I find myself trying to get certified to work a position that, for now, is specific to the space shuttle. The space shuttle, however, is going to stop flying in two years. There are lots of decisions being made about how to conclude flight controller training for the shuttle and begin to transition a large part of the NASA workforce to the new Constellation program. And I feel pinched. I really, really want to finish the training flow I am about to begin, and I really, really want to be able to work a shuttle flight as lead rendezvous officer before the program ends. I feel like I need this certification, and the ensuing experience, in order to put myself in a decent position to make contributions to the future vehicle -- and to position myself for a fulfilling job after the shuttle program ends. But upper management is trying to figure out how to reduce the number of sims that we run. This is necessary to free up people to work the new program, but it also adversely affects people like me who are still in a training flow. It's a race against time, but many of the factors involved are beyond my control, and I'm afraid that I might not win. So I feel very anxious about my future career.

I swam 1800 yards last night and I can feel it in my arms and back today. It was a good swim, three sets of 500 yards freestyle, each followed by 100 yards of breaststroke. There was a crazy guy two lanes over from me. I couldn't figure out what he was doing. As I left, I noticed his bag had tags hanging off it that read "Speedo" and "Athlete" and things like that -- they looked like athlete passes from some kind of event. But his behavior in the pool was just strange. He never swam more than 50 yards without taking an extended break. He swam each of those 50 yards all-out, but his breaks were so long that it didn't seem as if he was doing any sort of structured workout. At one point, he wore flippers on his feet and paddled backstroke furiously while his body was angled in the water at about 45 degrees. I can't even describe well what he was doing but it was strange. Basically, everything he did seemed designed to produce the maximum amount of splash and noise. Weird.

I bought two more orchids last night at HEB. I know, HEB! A grocery store. Seems like a strange place to buy orchids, but they were only $9.99 and they looked very healthy. Plus, they were both still blooming, so now I've got some new flowers to enjoy while my purple one goes dormant for the year -- or whatever it is they do.

After two up-and-down years, I surrendered the HARRA webmaster position to someone else. I enjoyed working on the website, and being a part of the HARRA board, even if I wasn't very active as a board member. I enjoyed redesigning the site and getting things up and running with a new system. But after two years, I needed a break from the day-to-day maintenance work, and from the emails from members asking questions that were new to them, but that I felt like I'd answered a thousand times already. I think I'm a lot more interested in website design than in website maintenance anyway. It will be good to have fresh blood working on the site.

Today is the Hubble Space Telescope's 18th birthday. It was launched aboard space shuttle Discovery on April 24, 1990. After some growing pains in the first three years, the 1993 repair mission turned the telescope into a fully-functional and very clear-sighted window on the universe. I saw that mission on the launch pad in Florida as a 9th grade student, and that visit to Kennedy Space Center was the single biggest force in driving my future and my decision to become an aerospace engineer.

For more awesome images, visit the Hubble Gallery. Happy Birthday Hubble! Hopefully the final servicing mission later this year will give you many more years of beautiful picture-taking.

On Saturday, a Soyuz landed in Russia carrying three crewmembers home from the International Space Station including two females: Peggy Whitson, the first female ISS commander and new American record-holder for the most time spent in space, and Yi So-yeon, South Korea's first astronaut. This was the first time the number of women onboard any space vehicle has outnumbered the men.

The Soyuz had a guidance problem during entry that resulted in a downmode to the ballistic entry -- a steeper trajectory that resulted in the crew experiencing up to 10 times the force of gravity (much more than the normal 4 g's) and a landing more than 250 miles short of where the Russian Space Agency expected them to come down. It took half an hour to locate the crew (who were all ok), which was much improved from the landing in 2003 where a similar error occured and the crew's whereabouts were unknown for two hours. This time, the crew had a satellite phone which essentially allowed them to call and say "ok, we're back, here we are, come get us!"

This is not the first time this has occured. There have been at least 2-3 ballistic entries in the last 5 years. Obviously there are still a few problems with the Soyuz entry guidance -- although I will fully concede that the Soyuz is perhaps the most reliable of all space vehicles. In the grand scheme of things, it is definitely a good thing that the vehicle has an entry guidance downmode to the steep ballistic re-entry that, while rough on the crew, is still survivable. However, there's certainly no excuse for the quotes in this Associated Press article:

"The most important thing is that the crew is healthy and well,'' Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov told a post-landing news conference. "The landing occurred normally, but according to a back-up plan -- the descent was a ballistic trajectory.''

He did not elaborate.

I usually try to let stuff like this roll off my back, but COME ON. This is a high-up manager in the Russian Space Agency, NASA's #1 international partner. To imply that having multiple women onboard a spacecraft is bad luck, or leads to any kind of strange behavior -- or to even imply that part of the reason the Soyuz landed off-course is due to the two women onboard -- is simply unacceptable.

What's that saying? Something about how the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I've been having the same conversation again and again. It is never resolved and so it just keeps coming back after a few days or a few weeks. The status quo is not working as well as it once was. What do I want to do with my life? The only answer I've been able to come up with is I don't know.

My sister and Jen both posted accounts of their experiences in the Washington state caucuses last Saturday. I found both interesting, especially Katie's. I had not thought much about the logistics of a caucus prior to reading her entry, except for thinking that the idea of gathering together to vote seemed fairly out-dated. Reading Katie's account of her precinct's caucus only reinforces that thought. She has many good points. Why should your ability to vote depend on your availability for a two-hour block of time on a single day? Why should we put voters in situations where they may be unduly pressured into casting their vote one way or the other?

I'm excited about the upcoming Texas primaries on March 4. I don't recall voting in the primaries in 2004, though I did vote in the general election. I would guess that Kerry had probably already become the default nominee by the time Texas rolled around four years ago, and thus it didn't strike me to bother. It is so exciting that my vote is important this year.

Why are the primaries so spread out? Why does Iowa vote at the beginning of January but Montana votes a full five months later? I wonder what sets this crazy schedule that puts so much importance on the seemingly random selection of states that get to vote early. Why aren't all primaries held over the span of a few weeks? Or even a few days? That would be much more like a general election, I suppose, but I'm not sure what the problem with that would really be.

Jose's mom mentioned that Hillary made an appearance just outside of Corpus Christi last week. After that, Jose and I spent a while looking through both of the Democratic candidates' websites on Thursday evening, searching for a schedule of their upcoming appearances. We couldn't find anything. We found many instances of supporters holding rallies, and many listings of upcoming Bill Clinton appearances in east Texas, but nothing about where Clinton or Obama will actually be each day. I'm sure their campaigns are scheduling on the fly, but I still found it odd. Shouldn't they want to make it easier for voters to find them? And hear them?

The Chronicle reported today that Obama is coming to Houston for a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps I will go hear him in person. I hope I have an opportunity to hear Clinton as well. I've got to decide which candidate gets my vote on March 4. I have flip-flopped between the two many times already.

A scary thing is happening. I am actually watching the news. And listening to the analysts. And reading the news stories. I am actually paying attention to politics. For once, the field of candidates is not composed entirely of old, white men. And that makes me excited.

I like Hillary Clinton. I like that she's different because she's a she. But I don't buy that she's more experienced than some of the others. I don't like how she is rarely spoken of as "Hillary" or "she" but more often referred to as "the Clintons" or "they." And I absolutely cringe at the thought of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. That's 24 years of two families. And another Clinton isn't the change that she claims to be.

I like Barack Obama. I like that he's young and different. I love listening to him speak. But I wish he had more than two years of Congress under his belt (though maybe not having been in DC for years and years is a good thing), and I don't like his already-announced intention to delay NASA's future programs to fund education programs. Education is important, and I don't believe that we should choose our next president based on what he or she thinks about the space program. Yet that is my chosen career, and decisions made in that arena hit very close to home for me.

I'm indifferent to John Edwards, perhaps colored by my parents' opinion of him as a former North Carolina senator.

I even like Mike Huckabee, oddly enough. Probably because he's a likeable, friendly guy. I like that he's actually willing to diverge from the Bush path, even in the face of other candidates falling over themselves to emphasize that they'll stay the course. (Do they really think anyone wants to stay the course anymore?) But mainly I'm scared that he might turn out to be an overly religious nut-job. He doesn't believe in evolution. I don't understand people who don't believe in basic principles of science. I don't trust people who don't believe in basic principles of science.

I like McCain. I respect McCain. If we have another Republican president, I hope it is McCain.

Romney has always seemed like a user car salesman to me, and Guiliani's entire campaign revolves around 9/11. No thank you to both of them.

I haven't decided who will get my vote. I still have months to decide. But I'm watching more closely than I ever have in the past.

Dear Houston,

I get it. You like to screw with us. But it's December, ok? The month for Christmas? The beginning of winter? The solstice? All that stuff? Remember? It's not supposed to be this warm, or this humid. Save it for the summer, Houston, because we all know you love that oppressive summer weather. Why use it now? Why waste it on December? Last night when I went running it was 72 degrees. The dew point was also 72 degrees. You know what that means, right? Fog, and some of the nastiest humidity ever created. It sucked, and 3.4 miles hasn't seemed that hard in a long time. Everyone's got their holiday decorations up, but I'm having trouble getting in the mood because it just doesn't feel like December. I've been running my air conditioning all week, for pete's sake! So get over yourself and let us have some normal weather. After all, it's the holidays.

Love, Sarah

The shuttle launch managed to hold my weekend hostage even though we didn't up up actually launching. Disappointing, but it was the right decision. The problems with the engine cutoff sensors have to be figured out; they are just too important to keep on launching without fully understanding the issue. On the plus side, I now have plenty of things to work on this week, including two ascent sims and my rendezvous midpoint evaluation. On the minus side, the launch date is currently no earlier than January 2, and if that does indeed turn into the new launch date, I won't be going to Corpus Christi for New Years after all.

Such is life in the space program.

A lot of people compare the space to aviation, with understandable reasoning. Both involve flying, both involve getting up in the sky. Both involve fantastic machines. Both get you somewhere faster. Both defy gravity in their own way. Heck, I have two degrees that clump airplanes and spacecraft together to form one big field of study called aerospace. They seem similar, right? People are always saying that where we are in the space industry is where aviation was a hundred years ago. But I think comparing an airplane to a spaceship is like comparing apples to oranges. Sure, they're both round and they're both fruit, but that's about it. It's the same with airplanes and spacecraft.

A Cessna flies on what's basically a souped-up version of an automobile engine; larger planes use more complicated jet engines but can stay in the air if one fails. They fly fast compared to cars, but still usually under the speed of sound. They only go a few miles above earth. They use the air to generate lift. And maybe most importantly, they never leave the atmosphere, so they don't require extensive life support systems. Anybody can learn to fly one.

Spaceships require so much more. Engines that generate an order of magnitude more thrust than an airplane engine. Toxic chemicals kept a sub-zero temperatures. Life support systems to support long-term occupants, including air to breathe, a pressurized cabin, a toilet, and more food than just some soda and peanuts. Because remember -- astronauts go into space for a few days, not a few hours, and simply gliding down to where the air is thicker or the pressure is greater isn't an option. Spacecraft need heat-resistant materials to keep the vehicle intact, since it's going thousands of miles per hour faster than an airplane. Nobody can learn to fly the space shuttle during portions of its flight; it must be controlled by computer. The environment is hotter, colder, and emptier. The vehicle is faster and infinitely more complex.

We were pondering some of these issues over the weekend as Jose considered what will happen someday when a commercial spaceflight operation encounters similar problems. Will they scrub the launch for a month while a team of hundreds tackles all the nitty gritty details of the problem? Will they even have hundreds of people to tackle a problem? What kind of manpower will they have? Will they relent to the pressure of paying customers to launch despite potential issues?

NASA made the right decision to stand down for a month, but we have that luxury as a large public organization that answers to the population of an entire country. Will private companies act the same way when faced with similar problems? Because they will have problems.

Such is life in the space program.

An article in the Chronicle today announced that Houston was ranked 21st on a list of the most walkable cities in the nation. Sounds great, right? But they only ranked the top 30 metropolitan areas, and much of Houston's "walkability" was actually found in Sugar Land, a large suburb well southwest of the city. Also:

Leinberger attaches one major caveat to his report: The survey did not take into account the size of each walkable place. For example, midtown Manhattan is given the same weight as Reston Town Center, a lifestyle center outside Washington, even though the latter has only a tiny fraction of the office and retail space, residential units, and hotel rooms of midtown.

This seems like a pretty worthless survey to me. It only took into account "walkable areas per capita" and didn't appear to factor in other issues like the availability of public transportation, the safety of various cities, etc. Some of the top 10 are pretty accurate -- I have visited DC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and New York and have walked around or taken public transportation in each one. Any of those cities is orders of magnitude more walkable than Houston. It's laughable to me that Houston is even included on this list.

To me, a single good measurement of walkability would be to ask a resident: "Could you live here without car, or would not having a vehicle be a major obstacle?" In Houston, I can safely say not having a car would be a major problem. You would be limited in access to the few square miles around your home, so hopefully you could find a home near your job. If you lived downtown, you might have a little more access to other parts of the city via bus and metro, but that access would be limited. Many major roads have no sidewalk. There are few bike lanes.

Part of the "walkability" issue in Houston relates to the climate, and the fact that not many people look forward to walking around town in the middle of August when it's 90 degrees with 95% humidity. Another major issue is the size of the city; Houston covers far more physical area than many of the other cities on the list and thus presents more of a logistical problem. Yet the city has done little over the years to encourage residents to lose any small part of our dependence on cars. I live in Clear Lake, which is surrounded by suburbs yet is still part of Houston. The city line runs down NASA Road 1, and yet in this area there is no public transportation. You can catch the commuter bus that goes into downtown, but you can't catch a bus to get to, say, the grocery store.

In contrast, my sister and brother-in-law live south of Seattle and own a single car despite the fact that their job locations are tens of miles apart. Katie can walk from her house to the train station, take a half hour train ride into downtown Seattle, and get off within a half mile of her building (actually, more like 300 yards!). You can ride the bus in the immediate downtown area for free. You can take a bus across Lake Washington to the suburbs.

When I was at Stanford, I could bike from my on-campus apartment to the train station and ride the train into downtown San Francisco, where I then had access to buses that went all over the city. When Jose and I visited Boston in July, the T took us anywhere we wanted to go, and we never had to walk more than a half mile to get from the T stop to our final destination. Thousands if not millions of people live in New York without owning a car and never have a problem getting anywhere.

Walkable? Houston? Not really.

Jose and I watched Michael Moore's documentary/mockumentary "Sicko" tonight. This was the first Michael Moore movie I've seen, and I went into it with a healthy dose of skepticism. While I think that the U.S. healthcare system is pretty much screwed, I still wasn't prepared to swallow everything Moore said. After all, it is easy to paint a picture one way or the other when you have access to hours of film and an editing room.

Moore is obviously a fan of socialized healthcare, and he paints an incredibly rosy picture of what things are like in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Cuba and (in the DVD extras) Norway. It's difficult to watch the movie without wanting to immediately pick up and move to France. Having a baby? It's free. Need medicine? Free. Get cancer? Treatment is still free. With the 35 hour work week and tons of vacation, France seems ideal.

Socialized systems. Public services. Moore does make a good point in saying that many things in the U.S. are already socialized. If someone breaks into your house, the police will come and help you, for free. You can go to school through 12th grade, for free. You can go to the public library and borrow a book, for free. If you need to send a letter across the country, you can do so via the postal service for a very small fee. If your house catches on fire, the fire department will come to put it out, for free.

Think about that. The fire department will do their best to save your burning house -- at no charge to you. But if you fall down the stairs and break your leg while you're running out of that same burning house and need medical assistance? Well, I hope you have insurance. We protect people's property before we protect the people themselves.

Obviously socialized medicine does come with its own problems, and is not some kind of panacea. But if our goal is to provide a reasonable level of service to all people, instead of a high level of service to only those who can afford it, we will have to change the way our system is currently run. Jose asked if I thought the U.S. would go to a socialized healthcare system in our lifetime. After a moment's thought, I was forced to admit that while I wasn't ready to give a definite "no," I don't think we will see significant change anytime soon. Why? Because it would involve such a widespread and fundamental change in how the healthcare system is run, in the government's involvement in such a system, and in the government's ties to the large insurance and pharmaceutical companies. And, as Jose pointed out, those companies are not going to go down without a fight.

And yet the fact remains that being an American unfortunate enough to get a serious illness leaves you with only two options: foregoing treatment or a lifetime of debt.

Regardless of how we fix it, I hope everyone can agree that there is something wrong with that.