ClearedHot
Administrator
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
The issues with the Boeing Starliner were FAR closer to disaster and loss of life than was publicly disclosed. Thanks to a recently completed investigation the event was reclassified a "Type A Mishap." Some key findings are beyond troubling...it appears despite losing two Space Shuttles NASA still has serious safety culture issues AND there was a willingbess to cover up how bad the event was to protect the reputation of the program and Boeing. Here are the key details regarding the investigation and classification: Initial Classification: The mission was not initially labeled a Type A mishap, which is the most serious classification NASA has, often triggered by a loss of life or damages exceeding $2 million. Why It Was Delayed: The initial decision to skip this designation was influenced by concerns about the reputation of the Starliner program. Retroactive Change: Following an independent investigation launched in February 2025, the investigation concluded in November 2025, and in February 2026, NASA officially reclassified the mission as a "Type A mishap" to ensure lessons were fully captured, noting that costs had exceeded the threshold by a factor of over 100. The Findings: The 2026 report revealed serious failures in the propulsion system and criticized both Boeing and NASA for a lack of proper oversight and a problematic safety culture. Astronaut and Starliner first flight commander Butch Wilmore gave a very candid and chilling interview on the Shaun Ryan Podcast.
-
Very bad on the good bad scale. Them Them 🍻
-
Brother Bill trying un-alive Hillary by pushing her into traffic. Break Break - why does she always dress like Charmian Mao? AQMnD1eaZ9nTx_usU7ZG9njlu_ozqA2WxUQTd-1fD5WSoCNwoLev7nJey670MQM8XbmDOupkxAoKDxMBQe8iVk4KXhHssDh_HEjNqiHPPQtVGA.mp4
-
-
State residents are already visiting the gun counter, as data from Virginia's adjusted NICS background checks in Feb. 2026 were 65,501 compared to 42,193 for Feb. 2025 – a jump of 55 percent.
-
Virginia goes back blue and full retard. Senate Bill 749 passed yesterday... SB 749, as passed, criminalizes the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of so-called “assault firearms” and bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. The bill outlines an "assault firearm" as a semi-auto centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has either a folding or collapsible stock, thumbhole or pistol grip, grenade launcher, or threaded barrel. Likewise, any semi-auto centerfire pistol with a detachable magazine and a second pistol grip, a shroud over the barrel, or a threaded barrel, would be outlawed. The measure also goes after semi-auto shotguns with a folding, thumbhole, or pistol grip stock, or if it accepts a detachable magazine. Guns and mags already owned by Virginians before July 1, 2026, would be grandfathered in, at least until future legislation is passed.
-
Fairly certain @M2 gave Eddie Rickenbacker his first intel brief.
-
-
Cuba is teetering on the edge, out of fuel, 90% of the island has been without power for the last 36 hours. If Trump cleans up Venezuela (not complete yet, Iran and Cuba)...Liberal minds will explode. Again, the dude is a narcissistic asshat, but he has done some good things. Still early on all three but at least not the status quo of the last 47-60 years.
We had a plan for optionally manned... Obviously this program was and is personal to me. In the simplest terms, the Tactical Tanker debate comes down to one core issue: vision. For years, we’ve all acknowledged the “tyranny of distance” in the United States Air Force fight—especially across the vast operating areas of United States Indo-Pacific Command. Distance is the pacing threat’s greatest ally. It stretches logistics, constrains sortie generation, limits persistence, and ultimately caps combat power at the worst possible time. The Tactical Tanker concept directly attacked that problem. If I could distill the entire discussion down to the basics: it was about putting more gas forward. Not incrementally more. Not marginally more. Transformationally more. The modeling—while I can’t share specifics here—showed roughly three times the fuel offload at the IPs compared to the current construct. Three times. That’s not a tweak. That’s a different fight. More fuel forward means: Fighters push deeper without sacrificing weapons. Bombers retain flexibility instead of flying razor-thin margins. Tankers operate with more options instead of predictable orbits. The entire air campaign gains elasticity instead of brittleness. In a Pacific scenario, fuel is range, range is presence, and presence is deterrence. The Tactical Tanker fundamentally changed the calculus of how airpower could be projected and sustained. And yet, the conversation kept getting stuck. Specifically—on the boom. The boom became the intellectual gravity well. Instead of stepping back and asking, “What does tripling fuel forward do to the operational problem?” the debate narrowed into technical objections and legacy expectations. The inability to zoom out and process second- and third-order effects stalled momentum. That’s not a knock on anyone’s professionalism. It’s a reflection of institutional inertia. Large organizations optimize around what they know. They protect existing paradigms. They scrutinize deviation more harshly than stagnation. But transformational capability rarely fits neatly inside legacy mental models. The Tactical Tanker wasn’t about replacing the fleet. It wasn’t about novelty for novelty’s sake. It was about solving the INDOPACOM logistics geometry in a way that current constructs simply don’t. At some point, we have to ask: Are we optimizing for yesterday’s constraints—or tomorrow’s fight? Because in the Pacific, fuel isn’t a support function. It’s the strategy.In Libya? I don't believe that is settled science...
