Yep this was another Quora question and I shamelessly clipped it because it had infoo I never heard of before and I thought it was pretty neat.
Seventeen days before Apollo 11 landed, a loose metal fragment brought down a 3,000-ton Soviet moon rocket. It triggered one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history.
This catastrophic failure on July 3, 1969, was the decisive blow to a secret crewed program that had made significant progress. The Soviet Union possessed much of the necessary spacecraft hardware for a human landing. They had designed the Soyuz 7K-LOK orbiter and constructed their own lunar lander, the Lunniy Korabl (LK). Unlike the two-person American Lunar Module, the LK was designed to carry a single cosmonaut to the surface. This hardware was not just theoretical; the Soviets had already built engineering models and flight units, eventually launching uncrewed LK landers into Earth orbit to verify the vehicle's systems.
An engineering test unit of the Soviet LK lunar lander, built in 1968, which was designed to carry a single cosmonaut to the lunar surface. Photo by Andrew Gray is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
The bottleneck was the launch vehicle required to leave Earth orbit. To match the American Saturn V, Soviet engineers built the N1 rocket. While the Saturn V relied on five large engines on its first stage, the N1 used a ring of 30 smaller engines firing simultaneously. The plumbing required to synchronize and feed fuel to 30 engines created immense complexity. Lacking the budget for a ground test facility capable of firing the entire first stage at once, the Soviets were forced to test the complete system during live launches.
The first N1 rocket had already exploded 68 seconds into its flight in February 1969. During the second attempt in July, the loose fragment was ingested by an oxygen pump mere seconds after liftoff, automatically shutting down the engines. The fully fueled rocket fell back onto the pad, destroying the launch complex and ending any realistic chance of a crewed landing. "Here are the details of the N1 Rocket"
Still desperate to beat the Americans, the Soviets made one final play: a robotic sample return probe. On July 21, 1969, while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were still on the Moon, the Luna 15 probe crashed into a mountain just 500 miles away, definitively concluding the space race.
I picked this off "Quora", it was some tidbits I didn't know. I did know about the removal of heavy industry to the USSR under Stalin's orders, this is part of the "reparations" and to punish the Germans for what they did to the "Rodina", that did cause heavy resentment, and the heavy Soviet response to the 1953 protest. It did cause some pucker factors with the Berlin Brigade. especially after a few years earlier when Stalin tried to push the allies out of West Berlin. The Soviets viewed the East Germans as their private playground back then, and the "Osties" had to endure a lot as an occupied people, far worse than the West did. It did get a little better as time went on, but but the Soviets called East Germany the "Land of Milk and Chocolate". For a conscript posting, it was one of the far better postings, better equipment, training, and the locals didn't complain.
East Germans never believed their Soviet-backed system was superior. After tanks crushed a 1953 uprising, they didn't accept the regime—they retreated into a secret double life to outlast it.
This survival mechanism is best understood through the concept of the Nischengesellschaft, or "niche society." In the years immediately following World War II, genuine acceptance was nearly impossible. The trauma of Soviet occupation—marked by mass rapes and the dismantling of East German industry for reparations—had already fostered deep resentment. The brutal suppression of the 1953 protests over production quotas simply cemented a lingering lesson: active resistance was futile, and Soviet rule was there to stay.
Once the Berlin Wall went up in 1961 and emigration became nearly impossible, East Germans had to adapt. People retreated from public political life into private "niches," such as weekend garden plots (Datsche) and tight-knit family circles, where they could speak freely without fear of the Stasi, the state security apparatus.
This is not to say there was zero genuine support. A minority of committed socialists believed in the state's official anti-fascist ideology. Others took pride in specific aspects of the German Democratic Republic, such as guaranteed employment, extensive child care, cheap housing, and the nation's outsized success in Olympic sports. These social safety nets provided a sense of security that some later missed after reunification.
However, the regime could never convince the public that its system was fundamentally better than the West, largely because of television. The majority of East Germans could receive West German broadcasts (Westfernsehen). Every evening, they watched Western news and entertainment, contrasting the colorful, consumer-rich society of the Federal Republic with their own gray, dilapidated cities and chronic shortages of basic goods like fresh fruit or modern cars.
When the Soviet Union's grip loosened under Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s, the illusion of acceptance evaporated. Hundreds of thousands of East Germans took to the streets in the autumn of 1989, not to reform the socialist state, but to dismantle it.
More than 100,000 people gather in Leipzig on October 23, 1989, during the Monday demonstrations that precipitated the fall of the East German government. Photo by Friedrich Gahlbeck is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de.
I heard this song on the way to work this morning, the 80's channel on my Sirius/XM was playing the top 40 from February 10, 1981. It was an interesting time for 80's music, there still was disco on the chart, a lot of what is called "Yacht Rock", Think Christopher Cross for example. I couldn't get a whole lot of stuff on this video or the song. That happens with older songs, before MTV became popular, a lot of groups didn't make music video's or explain what the song was about leaving people to make up their own reasons for the song....Well This is my opinion what prompted the song. And remember what she looked like in the 3rd installment in the movie on Jabbah the Hutts Barge. Remember this was the early 1980's.
"Change my Mind..."
"Leah It's been a long, long time You're such a sight You're looking better than a body has a right to Don't you know we're playing with the fire But we can't stop this burning desire Leah..."
Beginning lyrics
to the song
"Ah! Leah!" is a song by Mark Avsec and American rock musician Donnie Iris from his 1980 album Back on the Streets. The song was released as a single in late 1980 and reached number 29 on the US Billboard Hot 100, 22 on the Cash Box Top 100, and 19 on the US BillboardTop Tracks chart. The song is widely considered to be Iris' signature songand was most popular in Canada, where it became a Top 10 hit.
A full complement of eight musicians appeared in the early live performances of the song, including lead singer Iris, a drummer, three guitar players, one keyboardist and at least two backing vocalists, one female and one male. The title of the song has been referenced in the form of puns on a few of Iris's later albums—the 2009 live albumAh! Live! and the 2010 Christmas albumAh! Leluiah!.
I had snagged this article from "Aviation Week" and as I was reading it, I kept adding certain words like "TSA" and 3rd world or carnival cruise behavior at the airports where manners and high trust behavior was expected but now it is what I see when I go into a democrat run city. I can understand why the well heeled individual would want to avoid "The Great Unwashed". I loved the word like "Frictionless" basically meaning where the passenger ain't hassled by TSA and having to worry about their stuff getting either physically stolen by either TSA or another passenger or some scammer digically skimming their information. So yeah I can understand the attraction. Alas, I'm too cheap, even if I was "loaded" I don't know if I would do this to me being invisible is better than flashing the wealth. Still to me it is a good business model and will fill a niche.
With demand for private jet travel surging, providerssuch as NetJets, Flexjet and Magellan Jets are making multimillion-dollar investments in their own branded private terminals that mirror the premium service found onboard their aircraft.
At the same time, fixed-base operators (FBO) are investing in passenger lounges, crew rest areas and concierge services, transforming their private aviation facilities from simple refueling stops into luxury venues featuring white-glove amenities, such as hotel-inspired lounges, private meeting rooms, fully stocked bars, concierge services and other features.
For private jet providers, it is about controlling the journey from curb to cabin as they build networks defining their future. For customers, the services eliminate stress and provide peace of mind. For operators, the private terminals offer operational efficiencies—a critical factor, especially during peak travel seasons.
“What’s important is providing as much privacy and discretion as possible but as much of a friction-free environment as we possibly can,” Flexjet Global CEO Andrew Collins tells BCA. “We’re investing at this scale because our owners deserve a consistent, world-class experience no matter where they travel.”
Flexjet has been building up its footprint since opening its first facility in Naples, Florida, in 2016. The fractional ownership provider now operates branded terminals in six U.S. locations. Expansion plans are underway at five additional sites and across Europe— including a nearly 22,600-ft.2 European headquarters in Farnborough, England. Flexjet also partners with FBOs and airports in other locations. For example, it plans to open a private lounge in the main terminal at Milan Linate Airport in Italy. Flexjet makes its selections based on two criteria—it is either a popular traffic spot in a geographic region, or it is a strategic location for clients, Collins says.
At NetJets, the largest fractional ownership provider operates more than 10 exclusive-use private terminals in the U.S. alongside dedicated spaces at more than a dozen other terminals nationwide. Globally, the company maintains more than 50 locations, including 15 NetJets Service Hubs paired with private terminals. Projects are under development in Augusta, Georgia, and Austin, Texas, among other locations. It also is transforming its dedicated terminal at NetJets’ singe busiest airport in Teterboro, New Jersey.
In the days surrounding the annual Masters Tournament in Augusta this year, for example, NetJets operated more than 720 flights to and from the area, up 25% compared to a year ago, the company says.
“Private terminals offer several advantages,” NetJets officials say. Among them, the company says, are “greater privacy and discretion for owners; faster, more effortless arrivals and departures; direct access from vehicle to aircraft; reduced congestion and fewer touchpoints; enhanced operational efficiency and aircraft availability; and, in our exclusive-use terminals specifically, dedicated facilities designed around the NetJets travel experience, accessible only to our owners and their guests.”
Magellan Jets operates a dedicated private terminal at its headquarters in Laurence G. Hanscom Field near Boston. Credit: Magellan Jets
On a smaller scale, Magellan Jets, a private aviation company and broker offering on-demand charter, jet cards and other services, opened a dedicated private terminal in 2024 at Laurence G. Hanscom Field near Boston and has plans to grow elsewhere. Magellan also partners with other operators with terminals to create a consistent experience.
“It’s a differentiator for us,” says Anthony Tivnan, founder and president of Magellan Jets. “It’s a way for us to take away the tension and take away the anxiety and the stress from the second they step foot on the airfield.”
The investments follow concentrated, growing demand at high-traffic destinations.
Las Vegas exemplifies the trend, where flight activity for NetJets grew nearly 45% between 2022 and the end of 2025. Flexjet is also targeting Las Vegas—but the company notes that it is “interested in partnering with somebody preexisting there, knows the market, has the right real estate and is on the right side of the strip,” Collins says.
Private terminals differ from a typical FBO.
Unlike traditional FBOs, private terminals focus exclusively on client experience rather than fuel sales, eliminating the chaos clients face hunting for crews on high travel days like Dec. 26. “It’s chaos on some of those peak days,” Tivnan says.
Dual-Purpose Strategy
Private terminal investments offer operational advantages. NetJets and Flexjet each pair their facilities with maintenance and service capabilities to enhance fleet efficiency. Flexjet’s terminals include satellite maintenance hangars for climate-controlled overnight positioning and scheduled maintenance. NetJets employs a similar approach, pairing many of its terminals with service hubs that perform aircraft detailing, stocking and proactive maintenance at the same complex.
“Everything in our business, especially in the back half of the year, it’s just so important to have as much of your fleet available as possible,” Collins says. Flexjet operates 350-360 aircraft and aims to exceed 400 by 2027. The company saw a 20% increase in flying in the first half of 2026.
Jet Aviation opened its 12th U.S. FBO at Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport in July. Credit: Jet Aviation
Evolving Expectations
Client expectations are changing, driven by demographic shifts as the average age drops due in part to the transfer of generational wealth and wealth creation in artificial intelligence and technology.
“We’re seeing more people evolving around experiences as opposed to things and material things,” Collins says. Younger clients and others expect seamless technology integration, prompting Flexjet to equip its fleet with Starlink connectivity.
Magellan’s personalized service extends to unexpected details—one customer praised staff for greeting, walking and onboarding his dog, noting the difference from traditional FBOs where “passengers are not actually known.”
Flexjet celebrated the grand opening of its new $34 million 22,600-ft.2 private terminal at Farnborough Airport in England in September. The terminal includes a Gulfstream G700 Fuselage Lounge, a full-size recreation of the G700 cabin. Credit: Flexjet
What’s Inside
Flexjet’s facilities feature familiar personnel, complimentary food and beverages, meeting spaces and conference rooms. Flexjet’s new Farnborough location includes a Gulfstream G700 Fuselage Lounge—a recreation of its flagship aircraft, an owners bar and lounge, bespoke sculpture, security screening and other amenities. It also includes a training center, control center and acts as Flexjet’s European headquarters. Its Scottsdale project, a $36 million investment, will feature a 9,000-ft.² terminal with first-of-its-kind private underground parking, a welcome feature in the Arizona heat.
NetJets’ terminals offer on-site personnel, premium interiors, direct ramp access and dedicated planeside parking.
Magellan Jets recently launched a greeting service where representatives meet clients at its terminal and targeted high-traffic FBOs.
“As much as we’re an aviation company, we’re a hospitality company,” says Miranda Hlaing, Magellan Jets director of integrated marketing. It is more than flying a client from Point A to Point B. “We really pride ourselves in offering an end-to-end experience,” Hlaing says. “The service starts before the flight ... We hope it feels a little bit like a safe sanctuary where we can provide, just like our flights, custom catering to our clients.”
FBOs and Upgrades
Major FBO chains are upgrading and adding facilities to meet rising demand, supported by a rise in demand and in high-net-worth travelers used to premium amenities.
Atlantic Aviation is investing $40 million in a four-story terminal renovation at Boca Raton, Florida. In July, Jet Aviation opened its 12th U.S. FBO at Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport. “We continue to look at our sites and services to ensure we meet the changing requirements of our customers,” says David Best, Jet Aviation senior vice president of regional operations for the Americas.
Challenges
The biggest challenge is deciding how best to serve a given market, Collins says, including the size of space, delivering on expectations and whether to partner or invest alone in the next terminal.
“That’s probably the things that require the most thought,” he said.
Magellan’s Tivnan agrees.
It is a major investment in the brand and client experience, he says. “The investment is solely for what’s in the best interest of the client and how do we create that personalized service. Every journey is personal.”
Britain to me as as Europe changed with the effect of unfettered immigration as the 3rd world migrants flooded the country, the elites trying to be accomodating I guess by some perverted sense of empathy and "white guilt" totally bent over and allowed these 3 world invaders to run roughshod over the locals. It is the same in other western European countries as well. If there is a confrontation between the migrant and the local, the police will side with the migrant. The locals work, but the migrants don't, they bring their wives over and their children and they have kids much faster than the locals. There is a reason today in London the most popular baby name is "Mohammed". Because if all of this, the authorities are afraid to do anything that might upset "the visitors", they might riot, ya know...kill people ya know..knife people ya know..SA local women and children ya know oh wait they already do that...they might burn police cars ya know... so in their shame the authorities do nothing to risk offending the visitors because the sensibilities of the visitors are sooo easy to offend.
SO yes I can understand why the Department of War pulled the bombers out, it is totally logical and prudent to do so. I personally am of the belief that we should start drawing our stuff out of Britain and Germany because of the risk and instability. Poland is an option?
For decades since the end of the Second World War, Britain’s “special relationship” with the United States rested on more than shared history and diplomatic rhetoric. Britain provided bases, intelligence, nuclear cooperation, warships, soldiers, and, perhaps most importantly, a government Washington could generally expect to stand beside it during a crisis. But the recent departure of 12 American B-1B Lancer bombers from RAF Fairford following security threats against the base raises an uncomfortable question: Can the United States still rely upon Britain as a serious military ally?
The bombers had been deployed to RAF Fairford, the strategically important Royal Air Force base routinely used by the United States for bomber operations in Europe. Following the arrest of several suspects in connection with suspicious activity around the base, and intelligence concerning a potential Iranian-linked drone attack, the entire deployed B-1 force left Britain. President Donald J. Trump subsequently acknowledged that threats played a role in moving the aircraft.
The Fairford Debacle.
Five British men were initially arrested following suspicious activity involving vehicles near the base. They were subsequently released on bail just a day later. A British-Iranian dual national was later arrested and bailed; additional arrests followed.
From Washington’s perspective, the more important question is whether Britain can adequately secure a base housing billions of dollars’ worth of American strategic aircraft against the sort of comparatively cheap drone threat that has transformed modern warfare in places like Ukraine and the Middle East.
Trump himself expressed surprise over the release of suspects, while the B-1s ultimately departed. Whatever conclusions the investigation eventually produces, the sequence of events hardly inspires confidence. Fairford, however, is merely the latest example of a much wider problem.
Chagos and the Limits of the Special Relationship.
Britain’s handling of the Chagos Islands has already raised similar questions over whether Washington can automatically rely upon access to British territory during wartime. Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos Archipelago, is one of America’s most strategically important overseas military facilities. Sitting in the middle of the Indian Ocean, it provides America with a vital staging point for operations stretching from the Middle East to Asia.
London, under former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, pursued a controversial agreement to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which has a close relationship to China, while retaining arrangements intended to preserve the Anglo-American base on Diego Garcia in exchange for substantial cash payments.
The problem became especially visible during the Iran conflict. Britain did not completely prohibit American use of British bases. The British government authorized narrowly defined American operations involving British territory. But the Labour government continued to insist that the use of British bases for combat operations was subject to approval on a case-by-case basis.
The question facing the Trump administration is not simply whether Britain technically remains an ally, but whether American commanders can confidently assume access to strategically vital British facilities during a rapidly developing conflict.
Britain’s Vanishing Royal Navy.
Britain is an island nation dependent upon international trade and maritime freedom, making the security of waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz a direct British national interest. However, when tensions escalated in the Gulf, the British government did little to provide any sort of armed response.
Asked in Parliament about deploying forces to Hormuz, the government said it was considering military options while declining to discuss operational planning. The reality is that Britain’s political hesitation coincides with an increasingly severe shortage of available warships. Official Ministry of Defence statistics showed Britain with just 52 Royal Navy surface vessels as of April 2026, following years of contraction and the retirement of additional frigates and amphibious ships, down from 1,176 navy vessels following the Second World War. The Ministry of Defence maintains that the Navy retains high operational readiness, but it has declined to publish precisely how many warships are immediately available for operations, making it unclear how many ships Britain’s navy could send to a theater like the Strait of Hormuz even if it wanted to.
An Army Struggling with Recruitment.
Britain’s Army is faring no better and has undergone a similar decline. According to House of Commons Library figures, the British Army had approximately 70,759 trade-trained regular personnel in April 2026, below its target strength of 73,000. Across the armed forces, Britain was approximately 8,460 trained personnel below target. The Royal Navy and Royal Marines were around seven percent below target, while the Royal Air Force was roughly 12 percent short.
By contrast, Britain had approximately 186,000 full-time armed forces personnel in 2012. By 2026, that number had fallen to roughly 149,000, a reduction of around 37,000 personnel in little more than a decade. Britain’s Army is now smaller than at any point after 1793, just before the Napoleonic wars, according to some estimates.
Despite this, Britain continues to talk like the global military power it was in prior decades, while maintaining armed forces increasingly lacking the manpower and numerical depth traditionally required of one.
From America’s Closest Ally to Strategic Liability?
Britain remains deeply integrated into American defense and intelligence structures. Five Eyes intelligence cooperation, nuclear collaboration, NATO planning, joint special forces operations, and America’s continued access to British facilities still give Britain a privileged position among America’s allies.
For much of the last century, Britain offered Washington a uniquely useful combination: geography, intelligence, military capability, diplomatic support, and governments prepared to fight alongside America from Korea and the Persian Gulf to Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why the image of America’s B-1 bombers departing RAF Fairford is so striking.
American bombers arrived in Britain because Britain was supposed to provide a secure forward operating location from which the United States could project military power to places such as Iran, something Britain seemingly cannot do itself.
The danger for the special relationship is that Washington may increasingly find itself asking a very different question: not whether Britain remains America’s friend, but whether Britain can be relied on.
