1/12 scale Friendship 7

For some reason, I neglected to post progress photos on my blog of paintings and various projects. So, I decided to post some recent photos of my work on a 1/12 Mercury capsule, in this case John Glenn's Friendship 7.

The most recent pictures show a lighting test, among other things. The circuit is very basic: two ultrabright LEDs connected in series with a resistor powered by a 9 volt battery. I added the lights as an afterthought, because when this model is buttoned up the interior will be hard to see in detail (after all that work).

The stock kit being used is the 1/12 Atomic City Mercury. However, there is essentially no detail on the interior, so I completely scratchbuilt everything in the photos with the exception of the black outer hull and parts of the seat. This involved significant research, with the major source being NASA's 1961 Mercury Project Familiarization Manual. Think Chilton's for the Mercury, and you get the idea. One really gets a sense of how cramped and scary being an occupant of this vehicle must have been had the astronaut had time to think about it.

1. The instrument panel thus far. This is entirely made with sheet plastic and wire. The dial faces were made by reducing a line drawing of the panel itself and printing the result on decal paper. I still have a bit to go on the panel - each dial needs a clear plastic cover and I just made stencil decals to label all the switches, something that may turn out to be a nightmare:


2. Another view:


3. Interior arrangement after primer coat and before painting details. The two spheres are helium tanks for pressurization of the reaction control system. The linkages on the right are connections between a hand control and the manual valves linked to the RCS. The small opening is the window directly above and in front of the astronaut, and the big opening is the hatch:


4. Lighting test:


Progress on this model can be followed here or here. From now on, I will post pictures of progress on my projects. Sometimes, this may be awhile because I only work on these a few hours a week.

How the GOP prevents progress, and other matters

President Obama is on his nation-wide tour to sell his health care reform plan. In most instances, you can feel his frustration as he tries to not only describe how the plan will work, but also to correct the misinformation being spewed by the GOP and right-wing blowhards. The intent of the GOP is apparently to make Obama look bad at the expense of the greater good. Indeed, this tactic is reminiscent of the 2008 presidential campaign, when the GOP consistently put party before the country - the selection of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential Candidate, certainly not John McCain's idea, being the prime example. For the GOP, party and religion come before the people of the United States.

We've known for years that our health care system is broken. We have many excellent medical professionals and a bunch of very sick, fat, accident-prone citizens. But the insurance and payment system is so fouled up it represents one of the most shameful and expensive things about our country. Part of my vote for Obama was dedicated to having him propose, sponsor, or otherwise get this problem fixed during his first term. To his credit, he has been trying with great conviction.

However, the Republicans are fighting Obama on everything. Everything. They even inspired a few blue dog Democrats to hang things up. I believe the intent of the GOP (not so much the blue dogs) is to hang Obama out to dry because they detest the man and what he represents.

Why do I think this? Because they consistently lie about Obama's background and agenda. Obama's health care plan, for example, has been called "socialist." This is a lie. What Obama's plan includes is a menu of medical insurance options. All but one are private plans offered by companies, just as the situation is now. However, one will be a public plan - this plan is available for those who can't afford medical insurance. The legitimate argument against this idea (the socialist perpetuators should be ignored) is that the public plan will artificially undercut the private plans, forcing them to lose customers in droves. The objective is to make sure the public plan is competitive to make sure insurance companies stop increasing rates and costs on services. I think this is a reasonable approach to solving the problem. If it doesn't work, we have the capacity to change it.

Another argument is that because the government would provide public health care (which Obama's plan would not, I emphasize), it would do so very poorly. I remind the reader that the Veteran's Administration does provide free medical care to military veterans of war and retirees. While I have doubts about the quality of care sometimes, the majority of veterans apparently believe that the VA does good work. Our veterans deserve the very best, and this means the government owes them medical care for the rest of their lives upon discharge of service (among other things). Does the GOP believe the VA is not providing this level of care to our veterans because it is a public system? If not, doesn't that seem to be a major issue for them to tackle? Conservative dope Bill Kristol was grilled on this very issue by John Stewart just a few days ago during an embarrassing shakedown by the comedian.

Whether members of the GOP covertly support the Birthers but overtly support legislation indicating Obama is, in fact, a U.S. citizen (the bill honoring the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood) or they actively promote the false notion that Obama's medical reform plan is "socialist", it seems clear the GOP is bent on personal and ideological attacks designed to topple a president it cannot stand. In part, the GOP cannot stand Democratic intellectualism and perceived elitism, especially when encapsulated in a popular president who is, OMG, black. One could see this in plain sight with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings (shakedown?) of Judge Sonya Sotomayor, a member of the powerful and destructive Puerto Rican movement that oppressed white man for centuries. "Let's focus on her occasionally stupid remarks instead of her two-decade judicial record in an effort to show who is boss," the racist Senate Republicans were thinking...

This angers me to no end because these people are typically intellectually light but emotionally charged, a combination that leads to blind or misplaced nationalism - jingoism. Jingoism is a dangerous thing that bastardizes an otherwise noble nation, turning it into anything from a theocratic state (Iran), a fascist state (Nazi Germany), or a socialist junta state (Myanmar, North Korea). While we are far from being any of those, GOP members still listen and adopt the insane views of the radical right represented by idiots like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and a putrid pile of others. The same would hold true if Democratic members only listened to radical left-wingers, including socialists and communists. The difference is that the Democrats are focusing on the center, where most Americans are, whereas the GOP is focusing too much attention on the bozos on the far right. Why focus on the base, when this cannot possibly allow for the growth of the Republican Party both in terms of numbers and intellectual capacity?

Where the hell is the intellectual wing of the Republican Party? Do they not care? Why don't they wrest the influence of the party from the inarticulate buffoonery embodied by the likes of Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Keyes, Sanford, Ensign, Sessions, and others? Indeed, how can they hold their heads up high as Republicans when these sops constantly disgrace the nation and their party?

I want a strong Republican Party like I want a strong Democratic Party. When one is weak, the other gets sticky, sloppy and dangerous, gumming up the works. Haven't we learned this?

CNN and the celebration of ignorance

Just a quick note to comment on the above image. Visiting the CNN.com website this afternoon, I notice the lead story is one about how a tiny fraction of the population believes that humans did not walk on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Why is it necessary to highlight this bit of non-news? Put in lay terms, who gives a shit what this conspiracy bozos think?

I love the sort of "news" these idiot media agencies focus on these days...

Moon - A review

Duncan Jones' Moon is a superb film that captures the horrors of corporate greed using a setting in space as background. The lead role in the film, an astronaut named Sam Bell played with impressive skill by actor Sam Rockwell, is our connection between the ordinary and the extraordinary.

***MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW***
We are introduced to Sam during the last two weeks of a three-year tour on a lunar base. The base on the Moon, called Sarang and managed by Lunar Industries, Inc. is designed to manage automatic lunar regolith "combines" harvesting helium 3 for energy-producing fusion reactors on Earth. Sam's job is to supplement the resident artificial intelligence, GERTY, and to retrieve helium 3 canisters from the combines via small utility rovers. The helium 3 canisters are then shot toward the Earth aboard capsules launched via rail gun. Sam is looking forward to leaving, having had his fill of a solitary life. He must also deal with an apparent loss of real-time communications with Earth due to a malfunctioning satellite orbiting the Moon, a shortcoming the company does not seem compelled to address promptly.

We watch Sam's last few weeks on the base turn from a life of monotony to one that rapidly disintegrates into a kind of madness brought on by a solitary existence. Rockwell's performance here is engrossing - he deftly captures the crazed boredom mixed with growing anticipation of finally going home. The ingredients for Sam's character, a professional astronaut that deals with loneliness using humor and obsessive-compulsive behavior is a perfect match for Rockwell. Of course, while I'm watching this part of the film, I'm trying to figure out why a company spends all the money on a lunar base to provide 75 percent of all energy on Earth, but only invests in one human being to live and work there.

Sam's apparent madness ultimately results in him periodically seeing things that shouldn't be there, including his wife, who is actually back on Earth, and a teenage woman. He also sees inexplicable glitches in video communications from time to time, involving his wife and baby daughter as well as work-related reports. Sam writes these off as symptoms of fatigue. We experience Sam's mental difficulties with him, a hallucinatory journey that ultimately causes Sam to collide his rover with a combine during a helium 3 retrieval.

Sam wakes up in the infirmary, tended to by GERTY. We are left wondering how he was retrieved fi he is the only person at the base. Sam is told by GERTY that his shuttle from the Earth crashed into the combine, an event that he does not remember. GERTY says that a rescue mission has been dispatched to fix the combine and that he must stay on base until the task is done. Sam is ordered to remain confined until the resuce shuttle arrives. Sam decides this won't do, especially after hearing part of a live discussion between GERTY and corporate headquarters (Sam wonders how this is possible if the communication satellite is defunct). Sam manages to leave the base to find out what's wrong with the combine himself, only to discover that the astronaut in the rover is a person who looks just like him. At this point, the audience is not quite sure what's going on. Is Sam totally mad? Are there really two Sams? How is this possible?

Jones manages to transition the story of a man apparently suffering from the madness of loneliness to one in which a conspiracy seems afoot. We move from feeling the angst of a man ready to go home to working with him (and his duplicate, real or imagined) to solve a riddle. The Sam that has been on the Moon for years is clearly ill, whereas the newer Sam seems well. Is the newer Sam a rational version conjured by the tired and sick Sam? The confusion regarding who is the real Sam is deliberate on Jones' part, who wants the audience to feel the confusion felt by the characters themselves.

The sick Sam is convinced something is not right, and becomes inspired when the two Sams discuss the possibility of a secret room full of other Sams - the company, it is believed, has produced Sam clones to run the base. During this revalatory sequence, the Sams have a physical fight, among the more realistic fights I've seen - clumsy and almost comical, as they are in reality. In time, the malfunctioning satellite is discovered to be a lie; the two Sams travel beyond the communication jamming equipment beyond the base to confirm their suspicions of a conspiracy. Indeed, following this discovery, the older Sam travels beyond the perimeter and links with his home on Earth, only to discover the horrible truth that his wife passed away long ago and his baby daughter is in fact 15 years old now. Our relationship with the character of Sam has been so well developed by Jones and Rockwell that this scene is powerfully heartbreaking. It is during this phone conversation that Sam and the audience learn that Sam, apparently the real Sam, is living on Earth.

Ultimately, the two Sams find the secret room, filled with hundreds of Sams, each waiting to be awakened with all their replicated personal belongings for a three-year mission. Apparently, the company, despite its wealth and dedication to providing clean energy to the world, has arranged to operate the base secretly using clones of an original astronaut named Sam Bell. Each time a clone is awakened, only the memories of the original Sam are intact. GERTY apparently "cleans up" all former evidence of a previous Sam on base before the next one arrives in the infirmary. Jones' message is clear at this point - regardless of the good a corporation may be dedicated in providing, it is always subject to human weakness, in this case greed. Lunar Industries, Inc. disposes with ethics, seeing clones of Sam as less than human when in fact each one of them is a human being. Jones manages to convince us that this is the argument. Whereas much science fiction focuses on the differences between a human being and a clone, Jones effectively argues that we must focus on the fact that human beings and clones are precisely the same, and that ethical arguments against cloning must be taken seriously. For example, in the film it is demonstrated that after about three years, a clone will start to come apart mentally and then physically. Evidence exists today that cloning multiple copies from an original can result in serious DNA damage that increases in severity with each progressing generation. Rockwell's depiction of a man becoming physically ill is perhaps the best I have seen in film since Tom Hanks in Philadephia, and is difficult to watch.

In a curiously touching sequence of scenes, the newer Sam takes care of the older Sam, and you momentarily think of them as brothers. It is agreed that the older Sam, who realizes he is sick and dying anyway, must go back into the crashed rover before the rescue shuttle arrives. The newer Sam will head toward the Earth using a helium 3 capsule shot from the rail gun to live a real life on the home planet. The newer Sam resurrects another Sam clone and successfully puts the older, now unconscious Sam back in the crashed rover. The latter scene is especially poignant, particularly since you become aware that the awful sequence of cloning may finally be coming to an end. Just before he leaves for his arduous journey to Earth, the newer Sam programs one of the combines to collide with one of the jamming towers, an incident that opens live communication to the base for the first time in over a decade.

The newer Sam makes it to Earth, and we learn through global media coverage that the company is ultimately indicted for crimes against humanity.

For me, Moon is the first space-based fiction film of a serious nature since Alien, released in 1979. It is an inspired piece of work with a complex storyline beautifully acted by Rockwell, almost the sole actor we see in the entire work. For a budget of $5 million, the result is a compelling psychological and ethical drama that just happens to take place on the Moon. Put another way, space is the background, the setting, and never overwhelms the characters as is so often the case in science fiction film.

I must also make a note about the artistic direction in the film, something I have a keen interest in. I was thoroughly impressed by the quality of the sets and models used (CGI is only sparsely used), especially when one reflects on the relatively low budget. The designs were logical and the rendering beautifully achieved. The stark landscape and harsh sunlight was perfectly done, and the "lived in" quality of the based was superbly reproduced. My only complaint would be the sound effects on the Moon - being a vacuum environment, no sound would be apparent. I would have used music or some other mechanism to handle the silence, though Stanley Kubrick managed to use silence with deafening aplomb in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a movie Jones admits provided key inspiration.

Jones' Moon reminds us that even in the quest to do good, darkness is not far behind; that we must always be vigilant and avoid tendencies toward cutting ethical corners. His film is timely - we see the results of unsupervised corporate greed today, the global economy having been seriously damaged by unethical behavior and an apparent unwillingness to monitor and regulate the system. We also see how the desire to do good in America's name via the so-called "War on Terror" has succumbed to the darker side, with leaders willing to compromise principle and ethics to torture human beings and abuse civil rights protected under the Constitution.

If you like explosions, aliens and and all manner of space-based bedlam, then this film is probably not for you. If you prefer psychological and ethical challenges presented in story form by a talented cast and crew, then this is a definite winner. Think of it this way: Moon is the story of twisted corporate greed as discovered by a blue collar miner. The fact that the story takes place on the Moon is incidental, and for this reason I might have picked a different title.

Sarah "The Cud of Comedy" Palin and other semi-related thoughts about the demise of society

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, perhaps the most ridiculous politician in the history of the United States, announced last week her intention to resign before the conclusion of her first term. During her meandering nightmare of a press conference to announce this twist in her career plans, she argued that quiting did not make her a quitter, but rather a fighter. Claiming that pesky ethical complaints are hampering her ability to "run" the state, and once again using the "evil media" as a scapegoat for her intellectual inadequacies, Palin decided to bail on the citizens of Alaska. While this is, in fact, good for Alaska, it also demonstrates Palin's inability to handle the heat of politics. She is, very simply, a quitter.

Now that we have seen her true colors splattered across television screens worldwide, suppose for a moment that things had gone well for the GOP during the 2008 presidential election (and by extension poorly for the country) and that President McCain became incapacitated. Imagining her in a room full of generals and admirals during a crisis is so galactically absurd that it makes Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove look like a Frontline episode.

Palin is a special mix of stupidity and arrogance that makes making fun of her a delight. In the past week, she inspired me to think of her as comedic cud, or partially digested humor. She unwittingly provides pre-comedy to comedians like David Letterman. Not only does the inarticulate fool manage to flub up her press conference announcing her retirement, she shows up on television the next day wearing fishing waders in a failed attempt to add a corrective lens to our view of the previous day's debacle. You simply can't make this stuff up! The "awe shucks" Average American persona often described as the ideal litmus for political representation is already idiotic, but Palin apparently doesn't get it. Indeed, she took it beyond bad politics to surrealism, using strange Alaskaspeak to describe the political process while also claiming incorrectly that President Obama is expanding government to unhealthy proportions (Dubya did that, you blithering twit).

Yes, there are people who think highly of this woman. But these people are morons. They represent the dumb class of our country; the backwoods halfwits that really ought to shut the hell up and let the adults make decisions. These same imbeciles support people like Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann, another mentally challenged Biblical bozo, or Texas Governor Rick Perry, the now infamous tea-bagging secessionist. These are also the same pathetic Americans who actually think George W. Bush was a good president.

There are dumb people of all political stripes, to be sure. But stupid Democrats are relatively rare and not nearly as fun to trash as dumb Republicans. It's always WAY more entertaining to make fun of dumb crooks than smart ones, and the GOP serves up the former nicely indeed. The past month alone proves this.

Consider that the GOP defies physics and manages to somehow rise to mediocrity. It places a fool in the form of Michael Steele to run day to day operations, and grovels at the feet of a brain dead windbag named Rush Limbaugh. It is proud to advocate a Biblical version of the creation of the universe, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary. It celebrates divisiveness by pointing out that some Americans aren't really full Americans (homosexuals) and that marriage should be "protected" from these same individuals (but NOT, apparently, from the likes of GOP politicians John Ensign and Mark Sanford, to name just two). I can't help but wonder where social conservative shrew Anne Coulter is these days. Perhaps that's a good thing since it may be the case that too much idiocy concentrated in a small volume across a short span of time might create a black hole or something.

In the wake of the greatest, most embarrassing circus passing as a memorial service and the awful gussy stuff coming from the aforementioned Sanford, I must say that the past two weeks have been epic in terms of having lack of shame and dignity. With all the YouTubing, Twittering, Facebooking combined with uneducated, greedy gluttony and a media that has forgotten its purpose, have we become our own reality television show? Have we become a 4D freak fest? Is this a continental "Truman Show"?

I often wonder what George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexis de Tocqueville and Abraham Lincoln would think if they saw what was going on. Maybe they would marvel at how the dark underbelly is now exposed to the light and celebrated, and that which makes us noble and great has somehow receded and become objects of quiet ridicule.

Or maybe I just love to write scathing commentary and satire because it is so much more fun. I'm an optimist at heart, so I know it ain't all that bad...

Thoughts on Michael Jackson and mob fetish

I am marveling at the attention levied upon Michael Jackson since his untimely death. It is one thing to honor a person's life after he or she passes on, but then there is a danger of hyperbole. In the case of Jackson's death, hyperbole has been achieved and indeed surpassed.

I don't like the idea of trampling over a man's grave, so I will try to be as careful as I can without being offensive. To some who read this, I will no doubt fail in this regard. But there is always a need for a counterpoint, so here's my contribution.

It has been said that Jackson was a genius and that according to some he was the greatest musical talent of the 20th century. He was not a genius. W.A. Mozart and L. Beethoven were, and Jackson was no Mozart or Beethoven. Further, to say that he was the greatest musical talent of the 20th century is ridiculous. How can anyone possibly say such a thing? It would be stupid to say that the Beatles were, or that Vladimir Horowitz was or that Bruce Springsteen is. What about the rise of Ragtime and Jazz in the early 20th century? What about Scott Joplin? Louis Armstrong? Elvis Presley? Fleetwood Mac? John Williams? Surely their influence was greater than Jackson's anyway.

Jackson was talented, to be sure, but his peak was reached years ago. Since the early 1990s, he's accomplished little in terms of music. Instead, he evolved from rising talent to bizarre man-child. He seemed to me, based on his interviews and overt behavior, to be on the verge of insanity, though it is often hard to distinguish insanity from eccentricity. He allegedly acted inappropriately with children, though he was never convicted of pedophilia. Still, I wouldn't allow my child anywhere near the man. Most parents would probably agree. That is not a trivial issue for me when assessing a person's life.

Finally, do you suppose Paul McCartney will receive such attention upon his passing? Or Sting? What about people outside of music? The passing of Neil Armstrong? Bill Clinton? William Shatner? These individuals played a much greater role in our culture, I would argue. But the memorial spectacle in Los Angeles for Jackson (costing the city an estimated $2 million) will likely not be the type organized for these people.

I think celebrity, a strange status that mixes so-so talent with sensational vulgarity and pathological vanity, is the key. In this country, we tend to celebrate celebrities, people who exemplify mediocrity. Those who are more deserving of honor are typically recognized for a day or so, and many more virtually ignored. Robert McNamara (1919-2009), a tortured man who was the mastermind behind the Vietnam War but afterwards felt it was the biggest mistake the U.S. Government ever made, is an example. A few notes in a paper and that's about it. His impact was huge, even though it was very negative.

I think the mob fetish with Jackson reveals something about our culture, and I don't think what it reveals is flattering at all.

Humanism and politics

There is a need, it seems to me, for a secular humanist political action organization or party. It just so happens I looked into how to establish either of these in Colorado. I also just finished writing a political platform, by coincidence. Imagine that.

More later.