President’s Perspective - 2003/05
Dave Brown, AMA president
Let's not allow those astronauts to have died in vain.
As I write this, the official period of mourning has ended for those lost on the space shuttle Columbia, and the investigation to discover the cause of the accident is just beginning. The seven astronauts who lost their lives in the tragedy are heroes. They gave their lives in the pursuit of scientific knowledge that will enrich our lives for many generations to come.
Unfortunately, this tragedy is giving more impetus to those who would cancel the space program despite the positive effect it has had on the quality of life for all people. I still remember the day, as a high school student, that I watched as Alan Shepard became the first United States astronaut. Heck, I remember watching Sputnik fly overhead in awe.
To think of the developments that have resulted from the space program is overwhelming. I doubt if anything in human history has resulted in more technological advancements than the space program. Admittedly, the cost of the space program is astronomical, and that cost is not restricted to dollars alone. Lives are put on the line, and occasionally lost, as lessons are learned.
When a tragedy of this magnitude occurs, it is bound to bring out the naysayers—those who are just waiting for a tragedy of this sort to capitalize on it and put a halt to the program. Thinking of the space program in the short term, and concentrating on the immediate goals, is shortsighted.
Most of the benefits of the space program are the result of the journey rather than of reaching the destination. Landing on the moon has actually brought about little change in our lives, but the journey to the moon and the development of the "Trip Tik" have enriched our lives in more ways than we can count.
In many ways, this program is like our involvement in aeromodeling. It isn't winning a trophy or completing a model that brings joy and pride, but the one-step-at-a-time process through the unknown as we advance toward that goal.
I watched interviews conducted with several crew members of Columbia. Two of the astronauts specifically mentioned flying model airplanes as part of their early background in aviation. What we do as a hobby and sport also lays a good foundation for many careers, not only in aviation but in many fields. As in the space program, what we learn through our activities in aeromodeling will enrich our lives in areas unrelated to model airplanes. Just as quitting aeromodeling would leave a giant hole in our ability to grow individually in a technological sense, abandoning the space program would affect our ability to grow as people. I hope the space program survives, and that it will continue to enrich our lives as humans, as virtually each of the fallen astronauts related in interviews before their journey. We need to allow NASA to find what caused the problem, fix it, and continue the quest for knowledge. Let's not allow those astronauts to have died in vain. They would have wanted the program to continue.
Traveling with models and airport security
In the last couple of months, I have written about problems traveling and transporting models by commercial airliner, which have been exacerbated by the increase in security since September 11, 2001. I asked for information from those who traveled this way, and I'm pleased to say that most of the reports I've received have been of successful journeys. In the process of getting input from concerned modelers, many "theories" of how to get models onboard have been mentioned—usually by people who have never actually traveled by airline with a model, but all are appreciated.
Several people theorized about what the security “sniffers” were reacting to, and most of the ideas had already been considered and dismissed; most of them center on fuel residue. One idea triggered a thought that might just explain the randomness of the alarms.
One member mentioned that he was told the sniffers were sensitive to nitrates. He theorized that it was the nitromethane in the fuel residue that caused the problem. Admittedly, the words nitrate and nitro sound similar, but I don't believe there is any technical connection that would explain the problem. The nitromethane in the fuel is all burned up or has evaporated long before you get to the check-in line, and this wouldn't explain the randomness of hits—or would it?
What contains nitrates? Fertilizer does, but what does fertilizer have to do with our models? Let's suppose that our models were to pick up traces of fertilizer from a grass field, a lawn, or a farmer's field in an off-site landing. Is it possible that would be enough to trigger the sensors? It's possible, and that would explain the "randomness" of our problems.
Is this the problem? Who knows, but it certainly could be. If it is, then these factors should be included in any report of trouble in transporting models.
I'd like to hear from anyone who has had, or does encounter, a hit by a sniffer during a security check for air travel. Please let me know if this has any possibility of being a culprit. One sure indication that this is a possibility would be if a glider triggers the sniffer.
Does anyone out there have any experience with nitrates in fertilizer? I'd like to know if they dissipate with time, and what length of time they could be expected to linger on a model or in a field. Perhaps there is a period of time after which the fertilizer is absorbed into the ground and nitrates no longer present a problem in terms of transfer to a model.
Please bear in mind that all of this is just a theory, and may not prove to be a factor at all. However, I do not know of any way to prove or disprove it without input from the membership.
As president, I'm kind of used to being told I'm full of "fertilizer," but I would never have thought I would have to consider fertilizer as a potential transportation problem for modelers!
'Til next month ...
Dave Brown AMA president [email protected]
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
