text:
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Brock R. "Randy" Stone
Interviewed by Sandra Johnson
Houston, Texas – 31 October 2006
Johnson: Today is October 31st, 2006. This is the second interview with Randy Stone, and is being conducted in Houston, Texas, for the NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project. The interviewer is Sandra Johnson, assisted by Jennifer Ross-Nazzal.
I want to thank you for joining us again today to talk to us.
Stone: You're welcome. It's good to be here.
Johnson: Good. I want to start today—the last time we talked, we were still in Landing and Recovery, and I just wanted to get some more background information. If you could, share with us some details about the relationship between NASA and DoD [Department of Defense] during those recovery operations, and how that relationship worked, and what the protocol was while you were on the ship.
Stone: Without the DoD, NASA would have been unable to do the recovery of spacecraft at sea. Clearly we needed the help of the Navy to provide the ships and helicopters and the Air Force to provide the long-range search-and-rescue aircraft. Because of the uncertainties of the early launches, we actually strung ships out across the ocean to accommodate any of the potential aborts that may occur during ascent. So there were a lot of involvement with the Navy, and in some cases, the Merchant Marine, when there weren't Navy ships that we could schedule—could not schedule underneath the flight path of the vehicle; we would look to see where merchant ships were, and have arrangements if we needed to use one of those ships as an emergency recovery vehicle.
We had a very strong working relationship with the Air Force and the Navy. We actually had a number of liaison officers within Landing and Recovery to help us with the DoD interface. Without that it would have been just hugely complicated. Because of the presidential directive to go to the Moon, we had a lot of resources from the DoD that were easily obtainable, even though in the early stages of Apollo, we were involved in the Vietnam War and there was a lot of other things that the military was doing with their ships and aircraft.
But it was a big logistical effort to schedule all these things for a flight, and then if the flight slipped, you kept rescheduling and rescheduling, and oftentimes one ship that was available for the flight the first time, if it slipped, was not available, and some other ship had to be substituted. For the primary recovery ships, they did commit those for an extended period of time, so we were never surprised with the primary recovery ship. Once they made the commitment to commit that ship to recovering the vehicle, then it stayed that way even if we had multiple slips.
But it was a very good working relationship, and it was very interesting to see the cooperation, even on the lesser ships that many of us served on, that were really probably never going to see an Apollo Command Module, because of the low probability that they would be used, but they went through their drills and their training with as much enthusiasm as the primary recovery ship.
NASA provided all of the training to the DoD, both the Air Force Pararescue men that would jump into the water if the spacecraft did not land close to a ship. They provided the first response to safe the spacecraft and make sure that it had the flotation devices installed and was safe to just bob around out there until a ship got to them. And we did all the training for the Navy dive teams. Typically we used the Underwater Demolition Team [UDT] divers as our primary rescue swimmers on board the ships, or at least the primary recovery ships. We did all the training for them; taught them how to use the flotation collars and the special rafts and the special procedures, when we were coming back from the Moon, to help quarantine the crew.
So NASA engineers, we built the training manuals and delivered them to the DoD, and then followed up and went out and helped them train. Oftentimes we delivered a boilerplate spacecraft for them to practice with, to take out of the water and put on the deck of the ship, and show them where the hazardous areas on the spacecraft were and that sort of thing.
So that was the relationship. It was a huge team and a huge team effort. On an aircraft carrier primary recovery ship, we would have upwards of thirty to forty NASA folks on board on the primary recovery ships in support of the recovery of the spacecraft, training of the swimmers, training of the ship's complement for handling the spacecraft, bringing it on board, and running the Quarantine Facility.
Johnson: How early would you go out on a primary recovery ship before the actual splashdown?
Stone: We would typically train at least once with the dive teams before we ever deployed the ship. It depended oftentimes on how far the ship had to go from whatever port it was at to the landing site. But it could be anywhere from one to three weeks prior to the predicted launch time that the ship would set sail, and then we'd stop and do training en route to the recovery zone. So it really depended where the ship was coming from, how far it had to go, on how much earlier you deployed. Typically we deployed with a ship about two weeks before launch; got to the ship, and then depending on how far it would go, we might do some of our training in port before it would sail.
Johnson: What was the protocol on the ship, especially during that training time and then during the actual mission? You mentioned that you had thirty to forty NASA people on the primary recovery ship, and then you had the Navy and who answered to who on that ship. How did that relationship work and who directed that?
Stone: The NASA team had a team leader, and he dealt with the senior officers of the ship. All of the NASA team, whether there were two of us on a secondary ship or thirty of us on a primary ship, would be treated as an officer, in that our quarters would be in officers' country. We dined in the officers' mess. But clearly we operated within the protocol of the military chain of command. They tried to stay out of our way when we were doing something that was very specific to our job and didn't involve military people. But when we were working as a team, we went through the normal chain of command; with the swimmers. Our senior training person would work with the officer in charge of the swimmers. So it was a very regimented way of dealing in a military environment.
Johnson: You mentioned last time it was the same ship for Apollo 11 and then again with [Apollo] 12. Did you work with the same divers and the same personnel?
Stone: We did on [Apollo] 11 and 12. It was the same UDT team that recovered the spacecraft, so, of course, the second time it was easier. It was the same deck officer that was responsible for our accommodations in the hangar deck, and it was the same captain of the ship. It was Captain [Carl J.] Seiberlich on 11 and 12. He just recently passed away, and some of the folks that were on Apollo 11 and 12 actually went to his memorial service at Arlington [National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia].
Johnson: So the relationship while you were working with the DoD personnel, obviously you got close to them, living in close quarters for two or three weeks at a time.
Stone: Yes, and oftentimes we made friends that became lifelong friends from those events. I still keep track of a couple of the young officers that were on board ship when I was. Of course, they're not young anymore. They're in their sixties just like I am.
Johnson: Being from Texas, when you first started in Landing and Recovery, was this the first time you were exposed to being on ships and boats and that sort of thing?
Stone: I had been on small boats. I'd been out in the Gulf [of Mexico] fishing often with my father. But I had never been on a large ship at all, and so it was just a great adventure for a twenty-three-year-old.
Johnson: I just wanted to ask a question about when you first joined NASA. There was something in some of the research [about] qualification tests for recovery engineers. Back in the late sixties when you joined, you went to Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth [Texas] for a high-altitude chamber qualification test?
Stone: Actually, by the time I came on board in 1967, we had an altitude chamber here at NASA. It had been installed at NASA. So I didn't go to the one at Carswell. I did my altitude chamber runs here at JSC [Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas].
But the early folks did, and that was just to—when we were going to fly on military aircraft, there was a requirement to understand high altitude or relatively high altitude hypoxia event, if you had a depressurization of the aircraft. It's not like an airliner where the little oxygen mask flips down. You had to take some specific action to get to where there was a walk-around bottle to breathe, or you were going to be unconscious when they got down to altitude. Of course, you'd probably revive. But we all went through that training, because we were going to be flying on military aircraft.
Johnson: If you'd like, let's move on to Apollo 13 and talk about your assignment for that mission and if you were on a ship, and, then, of course, after the accident and what role you played during that.
Stone: Well, I was still a part of the Mobile Quarantine Facility team on Apollo 13. I was one of the folks who was going to operate the outside of the trailer. I believe Buddy [Ralph H.] Culbertson was the engineer that was going to run the trailer from the inside and be in quarantine with the crew. We deployed out of Hawaii with the Quarantine Facility, and I believe that was the USS New Orleans that we were on for that flight. We sailed into the South Pacific, and the period of time before Apollo 13 launched, we were going through our normal training exercises with the Navy divers.
This was a different dive team, a different helicopter team, so there was some amount of restart on the training that we had to do. And we were getting to know a new ship, understanding its idiosyncrasies on using its power and making sure the trailer operated well in that shipboard environment.
Once Apollo 13 launched, it felt just like a normal flight. The daily routine on a Navy ship, until it comes time to work on the recovery, there's four highlights of the day, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and the movie. Just looking back at it, most of us don't remember exactly what we were doing when unless it's a major event, and Apollo 13, when it was declared in danger, was one of those events where you remember exactly where you were. For us on board the ship, we were way out in the Pacific Ocean and several times zones away from Houston.
So we were eating dinner, or had finished dinner and were in a movie in the wardroom when the captain of the ship called all the NASA people to the CIC, the Command Information Center, where we did all of our briefings and things, and we were told that there was a problem. A movie as bad as this one was you would never remember, but the name of the movie was The Green Slime, and to this day I remember the movie. I actually bought a copy of it. I found a copy of it in a video store several years ago, and I said, "Well, I probably will never watch it, but this is a really good souvenir," so I've got it with my Apollo 13 stuff. So that's what I was doing when we were told.
Of course, we felt quite helpless, being so far away. We couldn't participate in any of the planning to get them home safely. The only thing we could do is work with the Recovery Control Center back in Houston to make sure that we were positioning the ship resources and the aircraft resources in the most optimum place for return. Of course, for a couple of days when they were outbound and were going to go around the Moon, it was really unknown what part of the ocean they were going to land in, because they'd had some trajectory disturbances with the explosion of the oxygen tank, and they had been unable to do the precision tweak burns that we do to be right on target to land close to the ship, just because everything was turned off in the Command Module.
But in the two days coming back, where they were really getting good radar tracking, we could determine better where they were going to land. We repositioned the ship and the aircraft assets to be in what we hoped was the most optimum place for Apollo 13. And then we were just as nervous as everybody else, probably more so, because we couldn't contribute in the [Mission Operations] Control Center. So we were just waiting.
The morning that Apollo 13 reentered, we actually, on board the ship—if you saw the movie, there was a long period of time where they didn't hear. We actually saw the spacecraft and the chutes before the Control Center got the crew on the radio. We were trying to tell them we had them in sight, but the communications delays—I don't know whether we got to them before they really got radio voice with the crew or not, but it was close, because we were trying to tell them we saw them with three good chutes. But that was just an amazing feeling to see this spacecraft float down, and we got to it with the swimmers, and clearly the crew was physically and emotionally spent.
They recovered very quickly once we got them on board the ship. Fred [W.] Haise [Jr.] was the crewman that had suffered the most. He actually was ill by the time he got back, suffering from an infection, and he went straight to sick bay. But the other two crewman, [James A.] Lovell [Jr.] and [John L.] Swigert [Jr.], within thirty minutes they were bouncing around on the hangar deck, looking at the spacecraft, and they actually had dinner with the officers that night and we had a big celebration. Fred didn't feel like coming, so he was still in sick bay. But the other two guys were doing great.
But being part of the quarantine team, we really didn't have anything to do since they didn't go to the Moon, other than help the other guys with the spacecraft deactivation and the work that we normally do to make the spacecraft safe to take back to shore. We did provide all of the personal com [communications] for the crews. They did get to talk to the President, like they did on [Apollo] 11 and 12, and then we set up personal com for them so they could talk to their families through our communications gear in the quarantine trailer. It gave them a private place to go and to be able to talk to their families.
Johnson: That was quite an experience to see firsthand.
Stone: Oh, it was. It certainly was.
Johnson: After Apollo 13, what was your assignment on 14? Were you again on the prime ship?
Stone: No, I actually was not. I did not go out anymore after Apollo 13. I started a transition to the world of flight control. I had moved into the Flight Control Division and had begun training as a Guidance Officer for the follow-on Apollo missions. By the time the program was cancelled, I had served two planning shifts, or off shifts, in the Control Center as a Guidance Officer.
So I did not go out anymore after Apollo 13 on a recovery ship, though I did get deployed on Apollo 14, associated with a scientific experiment where the Ames Research Center [Moffett Field, California] was doing a study on supersonic shock waves in near-space environment. So we actually went out and got underneath the flight path of the Saturn V on [Apollo] 14. When it got up very, very high, we were trying to measure the shock waves that were being generated at very, very high altitudes.
We were on an oceangoing tugboat called the USS Grasp. It's interesting, because I saw a thing on the Discovery Channel the other day. The USS Grasp is still in existence as an oceangoing tugboat for the Navy.
But that's where I was for the launch of Apollo 14 is about forty miles offshore, watching this thing fly overhead, being real quiet so we could listen for shock waves with these real sensitive microphones. That is the only Apollo launch that I ever got to see was Apollo 14, because 15 and 16 and 17, I was training in the Control Center and was unable to go to a launch down at the Cape [Canaveral, Florida].
Johnson: What brought about this transition to Guidance Officer?
Stone: Well, it was clear that we had done all of the prep work for doing recoveries at sea, so the need for the design and the test groups was rapidly falling off. So instead of a hundred people, we needed about thirty to forty people to deploy on the ships, and we didn't need the other organizations in that division.
The division was actually disbanded, and they started moving the people into other disciplines. About forty people stayed on to fly out the rest of the Apollo Program, and then, of course, we did Skylab and ASTP [Apollo-Soyuz Test Project], but it was this smaller group of people. So the division had been disbanded, and it actually became a branch in the Flight Control Division to finish flying out the use of the Apollo Command Module.
Because of my background in aero [aerospace], I was really anxious to get on with something that was more aligned with my education, and the guidance position in the Control Center was a good place to be. It was just kind of a random selection. I thought it would be good, and so did they, and they were shorthanded, so that's how I started down my path as a Flight Controller.
Johnson: If you will, talk about that early training as a Guidance Officer and what that entailed, and, as you said, you were involved in the planning shifts, and those last Apollo flights.
Stone: The training program was becoming more and more sophisticated as we went farther and farther into the program. It started out, a lot of it was just you worked on the system, became an expert, and you kind of learned as you went in the Control Center. By the time I started the process, they did have a number of training manuals that were designed for the specific positions in the Control Center. I went through that self-training using the manuals, and then I started doing simulations with an experienced Guidance Officer, learning how to use the tools in the Control Center and learning the spacecraft better and better. So it was really an on-the-job training and working in that area, building procedures and working on malfunction procedures that we kept doing right up until the last Apollo Command Module flew. I'll bet we redid and got smarter every flight, and redid procedures nearly every cycle. So that was how we went through the training process.
I guess one of the funny stories that I like to tell people, typically the training path for a Flight Controller is to start in the back room, where they're responsible for looking at a specific data screen, learning everything there is about the discipline, and consulting with a senior Flight Controller in the front room that actually talks to the Flight Director and is the primary interface. But my boss called me in and said, "Hey, we want you to start training, and we've decided that you probably aren't smart enough to be in the back room, so we're going to make you a front-room operator."
I did have the ability to communicate fairly well, and that was kind of a leg up on some people. I had the ability to look at lots of data and boil it down. So I got the opportunity. They had plenty of back-room people in the guidance area that truly did not want to go to the front room. They just wanted to be the data folks and the analysis folks, and so in the guidance area they were actually shorthanded for people that could take it, boil it down, and talk to somebody else about the problems and the solutions.
So I got an opportunity that a lot of people didn't get to have, where I didn't go through that two or three years of training in the back room. And it may not have been an opportunity. It may have been, "Hey, I got shortchanged in my training." But it finally all worked out.
Johnson: If you will, just talk about that position in the Control Room itself, and where you were located and who you worked with during those missions.
Stone: Okay. Well, the Guidance Officer was part of the "trench", and I'm sure you've had Flight Dynamics Officers, FIDOs, and other people that were in the trench talk about the tradition of the trench where, hey, we were the guys that were really in charge and knew it all. So there was a little bit of rivalry from the front row, which was the trench, and the folks up in the back of the room.
The Guidance Officer was the person that actually commanded the Command Module computer and uploaded state vectors and burn targets and that sort of thing. Things that the Flight Dynamics Officer computed, we were responsible for getting on board, making sure it was in the computer properly and cycling proper in the computer. The Guidance Officer was responsible for all of the onboard computer system for the Apollo Command Module, and so it kind of spanned a lot of positions, because the computer operated the engines and actually ran the guidance software. It kind of cut across all the various systems. So it was a great place to learn about the spacecraft and to be a part of that.
The last two flights, because my training was moving along okay, but I wasn't ready to be the guy that flew launch or the guy that was responsible for configuring the spacecraft to return or go to the Moon or that sort of thing. I did a lot of shifts at night when the flight crew was asleep. But it was a great experience to be part of the history of the Control Center and learning more and more about the discipline. Because even though we weren't going to go to the Moon again after Apollo 17, the Command Module was going to be the principal transport vehicle to orbit for Skylab and then the Apollo-Soyuz Project.
After Apollo I became one of the Guidance Officers that did ascents, that did rendezvous in Skylab, and then I was the lead Guidance Officer that did all of the flight integration work for that position for the Apollo-Soyuz Project. So it was a great transition from riding ships to being in the Control Center.
Johnson: If you will, go ahead and discuss a little bit about the Skylab missions and the simulations and how you trained for that, and your duties during those missions.
Stone: Okay. The first Skylab launch was an unmanned launch, and, of course, since there wasn't a Command Module, we weren't there. But that put up the lab and started the process.
One of the things that NASA had never done, leading up to Skylab, was continuous operations in space, and so we had a lot to learn about twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, forever and ever type operations. There were going to be some of us that were going to do those things all the time, and then there were going to be some of us, like Guidance Officers, that we operated the Command Module up through rendezvous, and up through power-down once it got attached to Skylab. Then once a week we came in, and the crew powered everything up, and we looked at the ship, and then they powered it down, and we went away.
So the guidance position was really a cool position in Skylab, because we weren't there seven days a week. We were there once a week. We were there when they did EVAs, Extravehicular Activities, going outside, because we had the Command Module powered up as an emergency lifeboat if something happened while you were doing that. Anytime there was a critical operation, we powered the spacecraft up, and a couple of times we actually used the Command Module to reorient the Space Station to desaturate its CMGs [Control Moment Gyros], the big rotating gyroscopes that they use to hold its position. So we came in just for special events.
Unfortunately, a lot of those special events were Christmas, New Year's, Thanksgiving. So I think the guys that were there twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, scheduled these special events so the other guys who had it so good had to come in on holidays.
On the first manned mission, it was the first launch that I participated in as a Guidance Officer. I did that with Ken [Kenneth W.] Russell. He was the lead on that flight, and then I actually took over after we had begun the rendezvous to finish the rendezvous with Skylab. Then the next two manned parts of the Skylab mission, I was the Guidance Officer for ascent and entry for those missions.
Johnson: Before the launch of the first Skylab, it was almost delayed because of some of the software, and they had to speed up that development. Do you have any memories of that?
Stone: We did have some involvement in the Skylab software. Most of that Skylab software development was a Marshall [Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama] activity, not a JSC activity. But we had a number of interfaces between the Command Module software and the Station for flight control system. So we did a lot of simulating working those interfaces when they were trying to speed up the development. But I was not a part of that development team at all, other than the fact that we simmed with it and figured out what wasn't working and what was working.
Johnson: Did you have any involvement during SMEAT [Skylab Medical Experiments Altitude Test]?
Stone: No, none at all.
Johnson: You mentioned that you would be there for the rendezvous and then you would go away and then come back every once in a while. What were you doing in between, on those times when you weren't on duty in the Control Center?
Stone: Typical office work; following the mission and then working on planning for the next mission.
Johnson: Is there anything about Skylab that you'd like to mention that we haven't talked about?
Stone: Well, it was interesting, quite interesting for me. I had gotten married just before we started Skylab. My wife worked at NASA, and she was one of the teleprinter operators for Skylab, the person that put together the messages and shipped them up. Skylab was the first mission that we had that we had like a teleprinter. It was not as good as a fax machine, but it was how we communicated with data, written word, with the crew. It always seemed like we were—when I was doing shift work in the Control Center on the Command Module, she was always on a different shift, and so several weeks in a row we'd kind of pass in the night as we were working odd shifts. It made me absolutely certain I did not want to be a shift worker forever, for long period of times.
Johnson: Yes, it could be a little difficult on a marriage even after you've been married a while.
Stone: That's right. That's right. But I guess the two most memorable things was the first manned flight with Pete [Charles Peter] Conrad [Jr.] and the work they did to save the Skylab vehicle, because it was wounded seriously during the ascent, losing one of the solar arrays. Without the incredible design team on the ground that built the solar heat shield and the work of Pete and his crew to get all that installed, we would not have had a Skylab mission. It was an amazing engineering feat, both on the ground and in space, to make all that happen.
Johnson: Did you stay in that area? I think you said you stayed in it for Apollo-Soyuz, also. What were your duties during that time?
Stone: Yes. Well, when we were getting ready for Apollo-Soyuz, it was an interesting challenge. Obviously, we knew how to operate the Apollo Command Module, but we were going to have to interface with the Apollo-Soyuz docking module. We were going to have to rendezvous and dock with a Russian spacecraft. So the procedures and the interfaces that we had to develop with our Russian counterparts were extensive and really made that flight complicated from the standpoint that there was a language barrier; there was kind of a distrust of each other. We certainly didn't trust them. They certainly didn't trust us. And in the Russian culture, you have to build that one-on-one trust before you can get anything done technically, and that was a big challenge.
We had a number of Russians come here, and a number of us went to Moscow [Russia]. I did not have a direct counterpart on the Russian flight control team, so I never went to Moscow during ASTP. But I helped build all of the procedures that we were going to use to interface with them when we rendezvoused and docked. So there was a lot of iteration of changing procedures and building procedures and simulating with the Russians to get to the point that it was really safe to fly the Apollo-Soyuz mission.
I was the Guidance Officer for the launch of the Command Module going to dock with the Soyuz, and I was also on console for the docking with the Soyuz spacecraft. So it was neat to be part of history. Then it just seemed like, "Boy, this is hard work, working with the Russians." And "I hope we don't ever have to do it again," was kind of my thought. Little did we know that here nearly twenty years later we would be building an International Space Station with the Russians, and that interface that we built back in Apollo-Soyuz was very, very important.
We'll talk about it when we get to Space Station, but some of the people that in Russia that the Americans worked with on Apollo-Soyuz were the same people that we worked with at the beginning of Space Station. Russian engineers in their space program seldom ever change positions. They did the same thing their entire career. If they were a structures guy, they were a structures guy forever. If they were a Flight Director for Apollo-Soyuz, they were still a Flight Director when we got to flying Space Station. So it was very interesting. Many of the names I recognized when I started working Space Station, and yea, verily, they were the same people.
Johnson: You mentioned that some of the Russians came here, and you didn't have a direct counterpart, but you did have dealings with as far as some interaction?
Stone: Some interaction, but for me not very much.
Johnson: You were on console when the actual docking took place. Can you just describe that time for us?
Stone: Yes. You know, Apollo-Soyuz, the crew was a pretty unique crew. General [Thomas P.] Stafford was the commander. "Deke" [Donald K.] Slayton was the Command Module pilot for docking, and Vance [D.] Brand was the Command Module pilot for deorbit and entry. So everybody was going to get to do something, so it was an interesting cockpit management, I'm sure, for General Stafford and the crew, because here are three experienced crewmen, and even though it was Deke Slayton's first and only flight, Deke was probably the most experienced astronaut of the bunch. He had trained and trained and trained and trained, and had been head of the Astronaut Office. So he was just as much a commander of the vehicle and people as General Stafford, so I'm sure that was an interesting interplay.
But Deke was the Command Module pilot that did the rendezvous and docking and actually flying the ship right up close. Watching the docking, the Russian hardware really expected a small amount of delta V to force it together for us to dock to it, and looking at the final phases, comparing it to the way we fly a Shuttle up to the Space Station today, it looked pretty scary, because the closing velocities, though not high, were definitely you could see them coming together much more rapid than you see in a Shuttle docking. I think Deke was always afraid he was going to bounce off and not make a good interface, so right at the last minute he kind of punched it, and it was a fairly significant whack.
Those of us in the Control Center that were looking at the velocities kind of took a big gulp, and we were really relieved when the crew said they had capture and the latches were latching. We were wondering if something was going to be broken. But, it was completely within the acceptable parameters of it, it was just on the high end, and there was a pretty good bump. If you talk to them today, the crewmen that are still with us, they'll tell you it was a pretty good bump when they docked.
But it was exciting to dock with a Russian spacecraft and know that it was—this was one of those things that isn't going to happen very often, especially with our relationship with the Russians at the time. Of course, it's gotten much better over the years, but then there was a lot of tension, and we knew it was something historical, the beginning of something that might change the world someday.
Johnson: After Apollo-Soyuz, did you stay in the same section during that time?
Stone: I went to a group that we started working on Shuttle things, Orbiter things, and the group I was in was a Flight Test Group. We were just kind of struggling to figure out what to do next to get ready. Those of us that had some Landing and Recovery background—and aero background—were in this Flight Test Group that was to figure out what flight test was going to look like for the Shuttle. So we benchmarked some of the big aircraft programs, and B-70 was one of them, the B-52 Flight Test Program, because they were big aircraft, complex aircraft, looking at those flight test programs. We built kind of a "straw-man," here's what you've got to do to test the Orbiter as an aerodynamic vehicle, not as a spacecraft.
So I worked on that for, I guess, about a year, and then it was clear that my background as a Guidance Officer and onboard computer systems might have a better place working in the flight control area for Shuttle on the flight software and the flight computer system. I joined a group that became the Data Processing System Group, and the DPS—the acronym for it was the DPS Officer that was going to be responsible in the Control Center. I went back to work for Ken Russell, who was my mentor in becoming a Guidance Officer and showing me the ways of the flight control world.
I got heavily involved in the development of the Shuttle software, the flight control software, and the computer system. It was a very unique computer system, in that it had four computers running together in parallel, and then everything divided up between these four computers so you had redundancy for every major thing on the spacecraft that the computers were controlling. So I was on the design team that was trying to help IBM [International Business Machine, Inc.] learn how to run computers in sync and do the same thing at the same time, talk back and forth, and so I worked on that for a number of years until we got close enough that, yea, verily, we're really going to fly on Orbiter.
Then we started building displays to be able to look at the computer system on board the Orbiter. And because of the complexity of the system and the way everything on the Orbiter was tied together through the general-purpose computers, you became—because you were working on the data system—you became somewhat of an expert on everybody else's system, the propulsion system, the reaction control system, the environmental system. Because all of these things fed inputs into the computers and were being talked back and forth in this redundant set. So it was a wonderful time of systems engineering on figuring out how this was really going to work.
We had some really, really good programmers that had put all this stuff together, but making it work was an ops problem, and we spent several years building the display so you could see into the computer system, see all of the systems and subsystems, and how it played together. And then how does the crew interface with all of this without it being so overwhelming that their workload is too high to be safe? That was a real challenge, because this was the first time we had so much data in one place we were actually overwhelming the flight crews with data. So that was an interesting time, turning data into information on displays and working the crew interface for the Shuttle cockpit.
Then once that all kind of started coming together and it was clear we had to establish some leads to get ready to fly the first flight, I was assigned as the lead to do ascent for the data processing system. Darrell [E.] Stamper was assigned the lead to do all the entry things. Then he and I were just going to—STS-1, the first Shuttle mission, was going to be a short mission, and we were just going to leapfrog each other. I'd work a ten-hour shift and go away and then come back and do the next planning shift, and then he'd take over and do entry. So it was only a fifty-some-hour mission, so there were only two of us that they did have a planning shift guy in there someplace or a second-shift guy. Now, I don't remember who it is at this point.
But getting ready to fly the first ascent and getting ready to fly the first entry was arduous. The simulator didn't work very good in the beginning, and we'd fly part of an ascent, and the simulator would break. We'd fly a full ascent, and then we'd debate for two hours whether it flew it right and we were getting the right data and the flight dynamics were right and this, that, and the other. So the early simulations for the first flight of the Orbiter were difficult, because you didn't get much accomplished in an eight- or ten-hour day.
But by the time we got that working smoothly, and before we launched the Space Shuttle the very first time, those of us on the ascent did over a thousand ascent runs. So we had seen what we thought was just about every kind of failure that you could imagine and knew how to deal with it. So we were fairly confident we knew how to operate the vehicle. We weren't real confident what the vehicle was going to do for real during ascent. So as we got closer and closer to flight, and the simulations ran better and better and had higher and higher fidelity, we started realizing that there are a lot of things that can go wrong that will keep you from getting to orbit.
But by the time we got there, we felt like we were extremely, extremely well trained, probably better trained than any other team in the history of the program, at least in the number of sims [simulations] and the number of different failures that we had seen and dealt with during our training period. And that, what I've just talked about, spans a number of years, the development of the software, the learning how to operate the software, building the simulation capability, and then starting to train.
The Mission Control Center was way more sophisticated than it was in the early Apollo days, but it was still very difficult to reconfigure and get new displays into it. So the set of displays we flew for STS-1 started being installed in the Control Center probably a year and a half, two years before we actually flew. During that period of time we learned so much about the system that for STS-2 and [STS-]3 and [STS-]4 there were going to be lots of changes to these displays in the Control Center.
So the Control Center being not very flexible, we'd fly one mission on one floor; get ready to fly the next mission on another floor. So we had two separate software systems, two separate hardware systems. So the way the Control Center was configured was really a boon for us, because we could get ready to fly in one FCR [Flight Control Room] while we're working on the next flight in the other Flight Control Room.
But by the time we got to STS-1 we figured we knew just about everything there was to know about the software and how it was going to react; pretty naïve, I might add. But when we started counting down for the first mission, I had a number of people in my back room, Jerry Canori [phonetic], Bill [William E.] Lychwick, and a couple of others, that were in training that were very, very knowledgeable of the Shuttle primary and backup software systems.
As we came up on the time in the count that the spacecraft needed to go to flight mode—it had been in a preflight mode in the computers up to this point, for the whole countdown, the hours and hours and hours of countdown. But at t-minus-twenty minutes we had to reconfigure the spacecraft to a flight configuration, in that we took these four synchronized computers and transitioned them into flight mode. And we transitioned the fifth computer, which was the backup computer, which was completely independent software, into flight mode, and those two computer systems actually talked to share data.
When we came out of the t-minus-twenty-minute hold, we had four good primary computers, but the backup computer couldn't see two of the flight control strings in the vehicle. Clearly it was unacceptable to fly your first flight when the two systems didn't match, and then the debate started to rage about, "Can we back out of this and see if it was just some funky phenomenon? We'll transition again, and if everything's okay, can we launch?"
My back room was analyzing the data, and Jerry Canori [phonetic] came up. Everybody thought there was something wrong with the backup machine, and he was my backup flight computer specialist. The other guy that was back there, Jim Hill [phonetic], a guy with a huge amount of experience, even then, he is still a Flight Controller in the Control Center, getting ready to fly his last flight. He's nearly seventy years old; I guess he is seventy years old. But they came to me on the loop and said, "There is nothing wrong with the backup. The problem is with the primary computer system. It's not sending data."
Well, everything is still raging in the Control Center and down at the Cape. All of the IBM experts are looking, and this can't happen. So we all decided that we were going to go back into the prelaunch mode, which was called OPS-9, and we transitioned everything back to
OPS-9. The computers all looked good, and I'm thinking, "Man, if we come out of this hold and it works, am I go to fly?"
I've talked to my back room, and Jerry Canori [phonetic] and Jim Hill [phonetic] and Bill Lychwick all said, "We don't understand it. We don't want to fly today." And we don't know what the Cape is going to do, because we'd been counting down. We'd tried launch, and the first flight had slipped and slipped and slipped. So it was really on everybody's mind that today was a good day to go fly. Beautiful weather.
But I made a decision with the help of the folks in the back room that it is not the right day to go fly. So I got on the flight loop and told Neil [B.] Hutchinson, who was the Flight Director. I said, "Flight, I don't care what happens when we come out of the t-minus-nine-minute hold. DPS is no go for launch." And man, you could have heard a pin drop in that room. I mean, it went from a lot of buzz to quiet.
The Flight Director asked me, "Are you sure you are no go for launch?"
I said, "Yes, sir. We do not understand what happened here. If it works this next time, I can't guarantee it's going to work through ascent, and I can't guarantee it's going to work when we bring these computers back alive to do entry. I am no go for launch."
He says, "Boy, I'm sure glad you are no go for launch, because I was, and I didn't have a good reason." [Laughs]
So we did come out and thank goodness, we didn't have to make that hard decision, because it still was a problem. The computers still didn't match up. But that has always been my claim to fame is I was the guy that was no go for launch on STS-1 before we ever found out if it was okay or was going to work when we came out of the hold again. And truly, I believe that was a turning point in my decision-making process where I was confident enough to say no in an environment when everybody else wanted to say yes.
Shortly after that and after we flew STS-1 successfully—and it took several days to figure out what was wrong with it, and it was, by the way, the primary computer system, just like Jerry Canori [phonetic] said. It was a timing problem that was in the computers. When you brought them up from the mass memory and started them, one in six hundred times or something you're going to get this funny timing problem, and it wouldn't work with the backup machine. IBM fixed it, and we never had the problem again after the first flight. Once we understood it, we were prepared to just recycle the machines and move forward on the next attempt. But after that first flight IBM fixed the flaw in the software so it couldn't happen, and we moved on.
But Dr. [Christopher C.] Kraft, after we landed, came down and told me that the ascent call I made being no go for launch was the right one, and if I hadn't of done it, he was going to come down and slap me around. So I was really glad I had done that. And about three weeks later I got selected to be a Flight Director, so it was kind of an event that was scary at the time, but it actually probably benefited my career as much as anything I had done to that point, as far as recognition was concerned.
Johnson: After that flight, and if three weeks later you were selected to be a Flight Director, did you continue working in the data processing system for the following flights?
Stone: I did for two more flights. For STS-2 and [STS-]3 I did the entry. Darrell Stamper and I flip-flopped. He did ascent on [STS-]2 and I did entry on flight 2. Then we flip-flopped again, and I did ascent on [STS-]3 and he did entry on 3. By that time we had enough other DPS people trained for the front room. We had people working the other shifts, and they were ready.
But I had started already training for the Flight Director position and running what they called Flight Techniques meetings before I ever finished my DPS tour of duty, and was actually, on STS-4, one of the assigned Flight Directors to do what we today—or then—called Team 4. If something happened during the flight, this fourth team would activate with all of the right experts to try to give the on-console flight control team some support. So, flight 3 I was a DPS. Flight 4, I was actually a Flight Director, and I actually flew my first shift as a Flight Director on STS-6, two flights later.
The training program for the Flight Director then was not very regimented. It was mainly based on your previous history of getting ready to be an operator, and then on-the-job training in this Flight Techniques environment was part of your training ground. Today the Flight Director training syllabus is very well documented and has about a six-month flow before you're ready to really sim and get ready for your first flight. In the early Shuttle days we transitioned very quickly from a Flight Controller to a Flight Director. From STS-4, where I had my first taste of getting ready for a flight, to STS-6 was only several months, six or seven months, so it wasn't a lot of training time.
Johnson: What exactly were the Flight Techniques meetings?
Stone: Flight Techniques, because every flight was a new flight. Everything we put in the payload bay was something new we'd never done before. So we had to go through an analysis of, one, whatever the payload was we were going to do, how we were going to operate it; what impacts it would have on the Orbiter.
Flight 4 was interesting. We had a DoD payload in the bay, and we're doing some remote manipulator arm testing and some flight testing on the payload bay doors, exposing them to different attitudes with respect to the sun to look at the physical warping of the Orbiter because of heating. So the Flight Techniques for STS-4 were divided into this payload bay door activity, this DoD payload activity, which had to be operated at the secret level and you couldn't talk about it.
So we had two kinds of Flight Techniques. We had the test Flight Techniques, where everybody could be there. We had the Defense Department Flight Techniques, where we're going to operate their payload. Then we had the Flight Techniques where we were going to do the testing with the RMS [Remote Manipulator System]. We were still trying to understand the characteristics of the Orbiter at that time and do payload operations, so it was a great learning ground for everybody.
We had to build the procedures. We had to understand what these thermal things were going to do to the doors. We had to understand what we were doing with the arm and the loads we were putting on the arm. Very little was known about this arm, using it in space. We'd done a lot of simulations on the ground.
So it was a real flight test program, and that's what Flight Techniques did. It pulled all the procedures together. It made sure that we had identified all the things they ought to analyze. We had looked at the analysis, and we weren't doing anything dangerous. We knew how to recover from things.
We knew we were actually going to put the spacecraft in a position where you could not close the doors, potentially, because there was enough warp that they wouldn't close, and we wanted to demonstrate that you could warp it and then unwarp it by going to a different attitude, and yea, verily, that all came to pass, and yea, verily, it wouldn't close. When we did one of the door tests, it actually hung up, and we had to stop and reopen the doors and reorient the spacecraft to get it out of the banana shape into a straight shape so the doors would close.
That's the kind of things we did in Flight Techniques.
Johnson: Before we go on to the first flight, the STS-6 flight, where you were on the first shift, at the end of Apollo and then Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz, the Center itself was going through a lot of transition and getting ready for Shuttle. In the late seventies there were a lot of layoffs and those RIFs [reduction in force].
Stone: Lots of turmoil.
Johnson: Lots of things going on. If you can, share some of your memories of that time period as far as the Center was concerned, and the morale at the Center at the time.
Stone: Those of us in Flight Control Division felt like that we had really been somewhat protected from the RIFs because of the formal training program that Gene [Eugene F.] Krantz had put into place; that because of the intensive training programs to get you to the point where you were a Flight Controller, it made you less susceptible to being RIFed, because you had some valuable tools that were costly to re-create later. So our morale was pretty good, in that we believed that we were part of the core that was going to go forward, though you could see around us some people getting RIFed and that's a very uncomfortable thing.
In fact, when the Landing and Recovery Division was shutting down, they actually went through a RIF and a gentleman in another area that got RIFed was going to bump my position, and I would have been the one that went out the door. Because he had the seniority and the educational background, he could have taken my job. As it turns out, he decided to retire, and I didn't get RIFed. So I went through that for a real short period of time, that kind of uncertainty.
But transition from the excitement of Apollo to the little bit lesser activity of Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz—not that they weren't really great programs to work on, but they weren't bigger than life, like going to the Moon. That transition down was difficult for a lot of people, and at that time a lot of people actually left and went to other industries, because they saw it as a better future. I have a number of friends that left at the end of Apollo and worked in the oil patch here, in the chemical industry, the rest of their careers.
So I felt very fortunate that I was on a career path that actually transitioned relatively smoothly from the shutdown of Apollo to Skylab to Apollo-Soyuz, and then I was in the big middle of getting Shuttle ready to go from the software standpoint. So I know all that stuff was going on around me, but I felt very, very secure as long as we didn't lose the funding to build the Orbiters.
Johnson: There were a number of other changes going on. For one thing, the [19]'78 class of astronauts came through, and for the first time there were women and minorities involved there, and also women were starting to show up in Flight Control. Do you have any memories of that time period and those transitions?
Stone: Well, of course, the women starting to show up in Flight Control started to happen at the tail end of Apollo. We didn't have any front room operators, but we did have some back room people that transitioned in. We had some front room operators in Skylab, a limited number of women. But by the time we finished Apollo-Soyuz and we were getting ready to go for the first flight of the Space Shuttle, there were women popping up in all of the different disciplines in Flight Control.
Most people, most of the Flight Controllers that I know, especially the ones my age, thought that was great. There was no competitive thing going on. We were just glad that women now felt comfortable sticking to the engineering curriculum and going out into what had once been almost completely a man's world. No women graduated my engineering class in 1967, zero. So I thought it was a good thing. And, of course, the women astronauts that they selected were outstanding individuals, easy to work with, as capable as anybody that had come before them in their own disciplines.
So that transition, to me, did not cause any problem. It probably caused more difficulty in the astronaut corps itself than it did outside in the other disciplines, because the astronaut corps at that time was still almost 100 percent fighter pilots, and "women didn't belong in the cockpit" type folks. I mean, it changed. There's still probably some strain there a little bit, but that transition has gone as well as one could expect, I guess.
But I guess my claim to fame on women in the Control Center, I was the first Flight Director that had more than one woman on his flight control team on a given shift, and that was on STS-6. I actually had three women in the Control Center on the front room flight control team for that flight, so it was kind of unique. Mimi [Cheevon B.] Lau was my Flight Activities Officer, and that was the first time we'd had a woman in that key position of FAO in the Control Center. I didn't think anything about it, but it got quite a bit of notoriety at the time.
Johnson: All the Flight Directors got to pick a color. What was your color and what was the reason behind picking it?
Stone: Well, by the time I became a Flight Director, there weren't a lot of good colors left. We had one of the historians of NASA, Bob [Robert D.] Legler. I don't know whether you know Bob, but if you haven't had him come through on the oral history, you really need to have him do that. He was kind of the local historian. He sent out a note to us new Flight Directors. "Here are all the colors that have been used, and here are all of the other options that you may have."
Well, he called me up personally, and he says, "You need to be infrared flight." I thought about it a minute, and the acronym, IR, IR flight, I decided that wasn't good. Fuchsia didn't sound like a good color. The good [University of Texas, Austin, Texas] Longhorn Pete [M. Peter] Frank had already taken orange, and, you know, red was gone. White was gone. Black was gone. Green was gone. The primary colors were all used, and so as I'm looking through the list, I decided on amber, and probably for no other reason than it sounded okay.
I didn't want to be yellow flight. That one has never been used, by the way. I don't think there's a yellow flight. I don't think so. It implies unpleasant things. But amber just seemed like it was still a color, and it didn't have any connotation that I was worried about. So I picked amber flight, so that was my team name. Then after that people started picking rocks and stars and stuff, so we've gotten away from the colors by necessity.
Johnson: You just ran out.
Stone: Just ran out.
Johnson: Well, speaking of running out, I think we're going to need to change our tape.
Stone: All right.
[End of interview]
Return to JSC Oral History Website
Curator: JSC Web Team | Responsible NASA Official: Lynnette Madison | Updated 7/16/2010
Privacy Policy and Important Notices


text:
"Warriors don't look back" - China's fear of collective action upon dissident's death
By Daniele Pestilli on June 8, 2012
Caption from Hong Kong Cable TV's documentary on Li Wangyang on YouTube
On Wednesday, just two days after the 23rd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protest, wherein tens of thousands of people demonstrated with a united voice for democracy, social equality, political reform and freedom of speech, Chinese dissident and activist Li Wangyang was found dead in a hospital in Shaoyang city.
According to Associated Press, Li Wangyang had advocated for independent labor unions in China's Hunan province. On June 9, 1989, he was caught, jailed for "counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement," tortured and forced to labor.
He was discharged from prison in June 2000, but upon suing the government for compensation, was imprisoned a second time for instigating counter-revolutionary incitement. In all, he spent twenty-two years of his life in prison – more than any other dissident following the Tiananmen Protests – and was finally released a year ago and transferred to a hospital where he remained under surveillance until his death.
Officials said that the 62 year-old Li committed suicide, but his brother-in-law, Zhao Baozhu deems this account of the story highly suspicious: Li had never suggested a will to commit suicide, nor would he have been able to given his dire physical conditions following years of torture and intensive labor. Li was practically blind and deaf, and was being treated for heart disease and diabetes at the Daxiang Hospital.
Adding to the suspicion are images (warning: very graphic) that show Li's feet clearly touching the ground as he stands hanged, which suggests a second party's premeditation and involvement. At the hospital, Li was being monitored by about 10 police officers, 24 hours a day: unnoticed suicide under such conditions would have been a hard trick to pull off even for Houdini.
On June 2, Hong Kong Cable TV broadcast a video called "23rd anniversary of Tiananmen Massacre, when will it end?" which interviews Li Wangyang prior to his death. Struggling to walk to his seat for the interview, he explains his chilling but inspiring story. His blindness was a result of optic atrophy, which he comments, "is due to blows to the head. There is no other reason." To ask him questions, the interviewers write Chinese characters on his leg, above his knee. When asked whether he regrets having participated in the Tiananmen Protests, he bitterly and furiously replies with a toothless mouth
Every individual is responsible for his country's wellbeing. I will keep on and never look back, even if you chop my head off.
But it is his powerful and passionate reminders to rethink power hierarchies that can spur collective action which central authorities in Beijing fear the most. Li comments, "warriors don't look back. China's future is to be decided by Chinese people. Those in power cannot decide it... I believe China will soon be on the path of freedom and democracy. That day is not far. We've reached the finish line."
In fact, collective action was soon taken: hours after Li's death, a petition appeared online urging the government to open an investigation on the actual causes of the hanging. It was started by Hong Kong-based journalist Bei Feng, economist Xia Yeliang and literary scholar Wu Renhua. By the following day more than 2,000 people had signed it.
In a recent study released by Harvard University entitled "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression," the argument is made that "contrary to previous understandings, [online] posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of the state, its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to be censored. [Rather,] censorship is oriented toward attempting to forestall collective activities that are occurring now or may occur in the future."
The study, which collected and analyzed 11,382,221 posts through automated algorithms for lexical analysis as well as real-time monitoring of the censorship process, found that online criticism of the government, its leaders or its policies did not increase the chances of censorship. Instead, the Chinese machinery appears to activate itself when the probability that the post will generate collective action is highest.
These findings were consistent throughout the Harvard researchers' topics, which they categorized into 95 separate areas of high, medium and low sensitivity, such as Ai Weiwei, the one child policy and popular online video games. Importantly, they conclude that any area that threatens to encourage group formation is censored: for instance, following the Japanese earthquake and subsequent meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant, a rumor spread through Zhejiang province that the iodine in salt would protect people from radiation exposure. What followed was an en mass rush to buy salt. Harvard researchers write that the rumor was biologically false, and had nothing to do with China's governance, but was highly censored due to the story's potential to conflagrate into collective expression.
Contrary, posts that one assumes would be censored because of their staunch criticism of the government are often left alone, such as the following: "This is a city government that treats life with contempt, whose government officials run amuck, a city government without justice, a city government that delights in that which is vulgar, a place where officials all have mistresses, a city government that is shameless with greed, a government that trades dignity for power, a government without humanity, a government that has no limits on immorality, a government that goes back on its word, a government that treats kindness with ingratitude, a government that cares nothing for posterity..."
The Harvard study does not mention what the readership is like for the uncensored posts compared to the censored posts, nor does it explain how difficult it may be to find the uncensored posts via Chinese search engines. However, the argument is interesting as it alludes to the predicament censors find themselves in when facing incendiary topics such as Li Wangyang's dissidence: not suppressing him would beckon collective action, and suppressing him has the same result.
We at the East Asia Gazette believe one reason why the Chinese censorship machine does not block off all blog posts that condemn the government and its policies is precisely because censoring posts by irate citizens who judge and criticize the government is, in and of itself, a cause for collective action. Li's murder testifies to this reality.
The pressure must be let out of the pressure pot in order for the entire mechanism to remain intact. As can be observed from the Li Wangyang incident, when an individual's voice has the potential to beget an abyss of internal disorder, suppressing that voice is just as perilous for China as leaving it uncensored: as aforementioned, only one day after passing away, more than 2,000 citizens signed the petition asking for a thorough investigation on the causes of his death. What's more, many more have taken to the streets of Hong Kong in protest.
In the meanwhile, Li's family has been pressured by local authorities to speed up the cremation process, The Shanghaiist writes. To quote blogger and activist Wen Yunchao, "if Li Wangyang is hastily cremated against the wishes of his family members, then there can be no doubt that Li Wangyang has indeed died at the hands of security agents."
Chinese authorities have stated they will soon conduct an autopsy of the corpse. What the official results will be is still a mystery. However, one thing is certain: the power to inspire people to collective action is hitting a tremendously sensitive nerve for China. It is in this direction that the people must proceed if they want to rid themselves of the government's stifling fear tactics; it is in this direction that the people must proceed if they want China's future to be decided by Chinese people.
Li Wangyang

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


D.L. Hughes is an author, editor and educator. He has written 22 books so far, including seven on various aspects of the writing and publishing enterprise. He covered stories as a journalist in 31 countries. He teaches online writing courses and owns VelocityWriting.com.


text:
Aamir Khan avoids clash with Shahrukh Khan
Aamir Khan has shifted the launch of the second poster of his upcoming film PK. Aamir has asked the film's team to move it to 20th August i.e. five days later than the date decided earlier.
view PK movie posters
The makers of PK had earlier decided to unveil the second look of the film on 15th August. Incidentally, the first look of Shahrukh Khan's HAPPY NEW YEAR is slated to be out around the same time.
However, Aamir has asked the film's team to postpone it as he doesn't want any collision of sorts and he feels that since HAPPY NEW YEAR'S first look launch date was pre decided, it would be only right and fair to move the date of his own event.
CHECK OUT: Aamir Khan to shock; Shahrukh Khan & Ajay Devgn to stun on August 15
The first poster of PK created a lot of intrigue and chatter among the people which has only built immense anticipation around the second poster. Also this is the first time ever that a poster is being launched like this. Usually it is the trailer that gets launched.
Directed by Rajkumar Hirani, the film also stars Sanjay Dutt, Anushka Sharma, Boman Irani & Sushant Singh Rajput and is set to release on 19th December, 2014.
Previous articleShahrukh Khan, Abhishek Bachchan, Sonu Sood: Actors switch to their reel names
Next articleAkshay Kumar's 72 MILES EK PRAVAS adds another feather to its cap


text:
University Chaplain
About Us Programs Student Groups Places of Worship Community Service Learning Department of Philosophy & Religion
Spring Break Service Week Wilderness Ministry Baccalaureate Christian Life Catholic Campus Ministry Jewish Life Muslim Life Other Religious Traditions LGBTIQA Ministry
Programs Places of Worship
The Chaplain's Office views Jewish life as integral to the richness of our interfaith community at OWU.
We provide support and opportunities for Jewish students to explore and deepen their connection to Judaism and to share their religious and cultural heritage with others. Many of the events created by our staff and by OWU Hillel, the Jewish student organization affiliated with Hillel International, are open to all interested students.
The Chaplains work to empower student leaders in OWU Hillel and to provide support for vibrant Jewish and interfaith opportunities on campus.
We provide assistance for interested students to attend synagogues and events in the central Ohio Jewish community and ensure students have the opportunity to participate in services for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and other holy days. On campus, Shabbat programming is offered twice a month during the academic year.
Additional events throughout the year include Pizza in the Hut for Sukkot, a Kristallnacht Commemoration, a huge Passover Seder, a Tu B'Shvat Seder, as well as a variety of film screenings and speaker events as issues of interest arise from the students.
The Chaplain's Office provides counsel for Jewish students, staff, and faculty who wish support in personal matters, a friendly ear, or assistance with their Jewish journey.
We know that it can sometimes be a challenge to observe Jewish traditions amidst a predominantly Christian culture. We are confident that Jewish students are supported in finding the space and resources to flourish both Jewishly and as part of the OWU community.
Office of University Chaplain
Hamilton-Williams Campus Center #308
Delaware, Ohio 43015
E chaplain@owu.edu
Facebook Visit Us


Chace Crawford is an American actor known for his role in 'Gossip Girl.' Check out this biography to know about his birthday, childhood, family life, achievements and fun facts about him.
Christopher Chace Crawford is an American actor who became popular for playing the role of 'Nate Archibald' in the teen drama television series 'Gossip Girl'. He played the primary male character in the series, which was based on Cecily von Ziegesar's book of the same title. He has also featured in several other television shows over the years, most notably in the prime time soap opera 'Blood & Oil' as 'Billy LeFever'. His performances in the TV shows 'Family Guy' and 'Casual' were also praise-worthy. Besides these TV projects, Crawford has worked in a number of films as well. He made his debut in the American horror film 'The Covenant' in 2006. He appeared as 'Hayden Price' in 'Loaded' and as 'Joseph Young' in 'The Haunting of Molly Hartley'. The son of a medical professional and a teacher, Crawford never considered acting as his first career choice. Initially, he planned to pursue a career in marketing but fate had other plans for him and steered him towards a career in the show business.
Chace Crawford made his acting debut in 2006 in the thriller television film 'Long Lost Son' as 'Matthew Williams / Mark Halloran'. He made his debut in the film industry in the same year. Crawford appeared in the horror film 'The Covenant'. The film was directed by Renny Harlin and featured Steven Strait, Taylor Kitsch, Toby Hemingway, Sebastian Stan, Jessica Lucas, and Laura Ramsey besides Crawford who played the character of 'Tyler Simms'. Around this time, he got the opportunity to play what would become his most successful role to date. Crawford was signed by the makers of the teen drama television series 'Gossip Girl' for the role of 'Nathaniel "Nate" Archibald'. He portrayed one of the lead male characters of the show—the boyfriend of one of the lead female characters. His character was also known as "the golden boy of Manhattan's Upper East Side." Crawford was part of the show for 115 episodes between 2007 and 2012. He received numerous nominations and awards for his performance in the series.
After appearing in 'Gossip Girl', Crawford appeared in several films like 'The Haunting of Molly Hartley' in 2008, 'Twelve' in 2010, and 'Peace, Love & Misunderstanding' in 2011. In 2012, he was cast as 'Marco' in the romantic film 'What to Expect When You're Expecting'. The film was directed by Kirk Jones and featured artistes like Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Banks, Brooklyn Decker, Anna Kendrick, Matthew Morrison, Dennis Quaid, and Chris Rock. The film revolves around five couples who are expecting their first baby. Crawford was cast opposite Anna Kendrick in the film. He was nominated at the Teen Choice Awards for Choice Movie: Male Scene Stealer after impressing everyone with his work in the film. His other film credits include 'Rules Don't Apply', 'Eloise', 'I Do... Until I Don't', 'All About Nina', and 'Charlie Says'.
Crawford appeared in the prime time television soap opera 'Blood & Oil', created by Rodes Fishburne and Josh Pate. He appeared as 'Billy LeFever' in ten episodes in 2015 and earned a nomination at the People's Choice Awards for Favorite Actor in a New TV Series the next year.
Chace Crawford was born on July 18, 1985, in Lubbock, Texas, to an educated and cultured family. His mother, Dana Plott, is a teacher by profession, while his father, Chris Wayne Crawford, is a dermatologist. He has a younger sister named Candice Crawford who was the 2008 Miss Missouri USA winner.
Crawford attended Ridgeview Elementary School in Bloomington, Minnesota, and later went to Trinity Christian Academy in Addison, Texas. He then began to study broadcast journalism and marketing at Pepperdine University, California, but dropped out before completing his degree.
Crawford suffered from attention deficit disorder during his childhood. Before joining the acting industry, he had tried multiple jobs, including working in an Abercrombie & Fitch store and modeling for Hollister.


According to The Wall Street Journal, the Lower Manhattan district endured a 14-foot storm surge that put approximately 40 buildings out of commission. Businesses like Morgan Stanley, American International Group Inc., and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP were among those affected by Sandy. Many companies have retreated to Midtown Manhattan or asked their employees to work from home. These are temporary solutions for what has the potential to be a long term problem. Despite the city's best efforts, cleanup has been moving at a snail's pace in Fidi. City workers have run into environmental issues, mainly the contamination of water that has flooded many basements. It cannot be pumped due to traces of oil and gas being detected.
TF Cornerstone, Inc has found a way. Rather than let tenants find homes in other parts of Manhattan, the company managed to place 50-60% percent of the residents at 2 Gold into open listings that they pulled immediately after the storm. The company is currently in the process of finding temporary homes for 2 Gold's remaining tenants.
No matter how long cleanup takes, the FiDi will always bounce back. With 9/11, a recession and two hurricanes, Wall Street has proven its resilience.


text:
Q: Hide component on specific pages on community Is there a way to hide a component on specific pages? I am talking specifically using the Napil Spring '17.
I am familiar on how to create components and that I can hide them with JS but I was wondering if there was a way to do it on the server side so that the data is not rendered on the page at all.

A:
You can try this if you are using App builder for both pages with same
  component

In your component open -> DESIGN tab in left sidebar Bundle Version Settings
<design:component >
    <design:attribute name="isHomePage" label="Home Page" description="Home page or not" />
</design:component>

Access it as Boolean value in main component

Eg.
<aura:attribute name="isHomePage" type="Boolean" />

In App builder there you can check or unchecked according to your page
  type
Based on Boolean value you can hide/show your data using
  Aura:if

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Converting nested dictionary to pandas dataframe and plotting I have a listener which is constantly logging received messages in the following way --
class Listener:

    recorded = defaultdict(lambda: defaultdict(list))

    def on_message_received(self, msg):
        self.recorded[msg.id]["timestamp"].append(msg.timestamp)
        self.recorded[msg.id]["data"].append(msg.data)

It can be assumed both the timestamp and data are floats.
For a single id, I can plot the data with --
import altair as alt
import pandas as pd
import streamlit as st

listener = Listener()

plt, frame = st.empty(), st.empty()

def plot():
    c = listener.recorded.copy()
    df = pd.DataFrame.from_dict(c[100]) # using id: 100 as an example
    chart = alt.Chart(df).mark_line().encode(x="timestamp", y="data")
    frame.write(df)
    plt.altair_chart(chart)

Which produces a dataframe and plot of:

So my question is, how would I back up a level and generate a dataframe/plot from the dictionary listener.recorded so that each unique id is plotting correctly with a legend? I cannot seem to quite get there on my own...

A: You can create the dataframe with pd.concat, reset the index, and then use Altair as normal. Here's a short example with data similar to the dictionary you are generating:
import altair as alt
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np

rng = np.random.default_rng(1701)

data = {
  100: {'timestamp': pd.date_range('2021-01-01', periods=10, freq='D'),
        'data': np.random.randint(0, 100, 10)},
  200: {'timestamp': pd.date_range('2021-01-01', periods=10, freq='D'),
        'data': np.random.randint(0, 100, 10)},
  300: {'timestamp': pd.date_range('2021-01-01', periods=10, freq='D'),
        'data': np.random.randint(0, 100, 10)},
}

df = pd.concat({k: pd.DataFrame(d) for k, d in data.items()})
df = df.reset_index(0).rename({'level_0': 'id'}, axis=1)
alt.Chart(df).mark_line().encode(
    x='timestamp:T',
    y='data:Q',
    color='id:N',
)


I just got my copy of Vegan on $4 a day and so far I've been impressed with the recipes I've read. I'll mark this one as one to try. Thanks!
Thanks for your comment Jen! I am going to follow your blog because I also have Auto Immune Disease- Hashimoto's Thyroiditis. A Vegan diet has helped me to control my symptoms a lot, and my thyroid is not completely shot so I'm not on medications. I'm hoping by eating this way I can preserve what function is there and never need the meds.
It looks wonderful... I enjoy reading your blog, so I have an award for you on my blog! Have a great week!


text:
This package extends [Bulb](https://github.com/nullobject/bulb) to provide
signals for working with the keyboard and mouse input devices.

## Installation

```sh
> npm install bulb bulb-input
```

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Once again, we've teamed up with the Judicial Council of California to offer an advanced training event for Farsi interpreters on August 26-27, 2017!
We've expanded and enhanced the curriculum to offer challenging exercises in all three modes of interpretation to prepare attendees for the most challenging interpreting situations. Benefit from a customized curriculum developed by Agustín de la Mora, a nationally recognized interpreting trainer, and an expert Farsi-language interpreter and SME.
Need more info? Contact us below.


Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty, who starred as Bonnie and Clyde in the 1967 film, announced the wrong best picture winner at last year's Oscars.
The pair wrongly announced "La La Land" instead of "Moonlight" in one of the biggest mistakes in Oscars history.
On Sunday, they will get a chance at redemption when they once again present the best picture Oscar.
Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty were involved in one of the biggest mistakes in Oscars history last year when they announced the wrong film as the best picture winner due to the wrong enveloped being given to them.
But on Sunday, at the end of this year's Oscars ceremony, it sounds like they will get a chance at redemption. Dunaway and Beatty will once again announce the Oscars top prize, according to TMZ.
Glenn Weiss, the director of last year's Oscars telecast, is also returning this year. He told Business Insider that last year he thought Beatty and Dunaway were just doing a comedic bit at first – until he was notified a minute and a half after the "La La Land" announcement that there was a mistake.
Last year's gaffe was mainly the mistake of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm that the Oscars puts in charge of counting ballots and managing the envelopes.
A PwC partner gave Dunaway and Beatty the wrong envelope after tweeting backstage. The envelope was a duplicate copy of the best actress envelope, which had revealed Emma Stone for "La La Land" as the winner moments before.
With this envelope in hand, Dunaway and Beatty read "La La Land" as the night's big winner rather than "Moonlight," the actual winner.
PwC will also be back for this year's Oscars, but with some changes to hopefully ensure something like last year doesn't happen again.


Singer-songwriter Roy Kim's soothing vocals and lyrics touch the hearts of his fans, but his life as a performer almost never happened. In 2012, the same year that Kim won Mnet's music audition program "Superstar K," he was accepted into Georgetown University and has been juggling his singing career and student life ever since.
Many may have assumed that balancing the two while flying back and forth between Korea and the United States would be incredibly difficult, but so far, Kim has been acing it. He has been excelling both in the classroom and on the music charts with his recent hits, "Only then" and "The Hardest Part," which both peaked at No. 1 this year.
In an interview with Ilgan Sports, an affiliate of the Korea JoongAng Daily, Kim talked about his life as a musician and what he hopes for his future career. The following are edited excerpts.
Q. Your recent songs, "Only then" and "The Hardest Part" both did really well on the charts. How do you feel about that?
A. I always feel a little burdened. To be honest, when "Only then" was out, I wasn't in a situation where I could hope for a good outcome. It was the first time I had a song out while not being able to perform in Korea. I liked the song and I wanted to have it out at that time, so I did it for my fans, and the agency agreed to release it.
I was really surprised that the song did so well. To be honest, after a certain amount of time as a singer, you start thinking that you have a pretty good idea of how the charts work - and you think that subconsciously. But this was a situation where all of that totally came down. Now, I have no idea what I'm supposed to do to become No. 1. I'm grateful for that, but it also comes as a burden.
You were featured on JTBC's show "Begin Again 2." Why did you choose that show?
First off, I really enjoyed the first season of the show. And frankly, there aren't many shows where I can be on. To be more precise, there aren't shows that let me sing the songs I want to sing. "Begin Again 2" told me that they were going to film me singing what I wanted to sing, so there was no reason for me to say no. I also got to be on the same show as some [singers and actors] that I really like, which gave me more reason [to say yes].
Some say that "Only then" opened up a new chapter for your music. Would you agree?
I think it would be too much to say that. But I do think that people have started to take more notice of the lyrics and melodies that I write. So I'm really grateful for the song. Before "Only then," I had not really done a proper ballad before. I had done songs for soundtracks but never for my album. I wouldn't say that "Only then" is a pure Korean ballad, to be precise.
You have written a lot of songs. Which ones are the most popular?
I have written about 30 to 40 songs. The most popular ones would be the ones that made the most money, which would be "Bom bom bom" (2013) and "Only then." But I think "Only then" is a song that I matured with, music-wise. Matured might not be the word for it, but it's a song that I directed for the first time without a vocal guide, I made all the sounds, and the instruments were put in there by me and the person who rearranged the song. And since it turned out well, it's all the more meaningful.
Where do you get inspiration from when you're writing your songs?
Me. I have to be impressed with myself when I'm writing [lyrics] or melodies. When I think, "I think this is a really good piece, even though I wrote it. The melody's so good," then I get keep going with that until the end. I write lyrics based on my everyday life. It can be on the stage, or it can be in between conversations like these.
What does "Superstar K" mean to you?
It's the beginning. I never had the idea of becoming a singer. It's a program that gave [me as] a child the confidence that I could do it and showed me the possibilities, and made music possible for me.
As long as I have people who want to listen to my music and wait for me to make music, then I'll keep going with it.
I want to be a singer that people say "I hear he's really good at live performances" or "His music is really good" about. Live performances are the most important, and I think it will be really rewarding if I can console people through my shows. Records are important, but the emotions you get across with live performances are also important. I want to become a singer who can comfort people.
You have a concert coming up in December. What should your fans expect?
For the first time, I'm preparing to perform alongside an orchestra. That's why it's going to be called "ROchestra." It was on my bucket list to hold a concert with a live orchestra. It costs a lot and takes a lot of time to practice, but I'm going to do it. I'm looking forward to it.
I hope to become a proud father for a son and daughter. And when the time comes at the end of my life, when I close my eyes and I think, "My son and daughter have grown up so well. I've done a good job," then I will think that I lived a good life. I want to get married. Maybe not right now, but before I'm 40.
가수 로이킴에게 부족한 것은 뭘까. 이 질문의 답을 찾고자 취중토크를 요청했다.
로이킴은 집안·성격·머리·외모 어느 것 하나 빠지지 않고 여러 가지 완벽한 조건을 갖춘 '엄마 친구의 아들'을 줄여서 부르는 '엄친아'라는 단어가 데뷔 때부터 지금까지 여전히 가장 잘 어울리는 가수다. 2012년 Mnet '슈퍼스타K'에서 우승하며 이듬해 가수로 데뷔했다. 우승과 동시에 미국 조지타운대에 합격하며 학업과 일을 병행한 지도 벌써 6년째. 한국과 미국을 오가며 학업과 음악을 모두 한다는 것이 과연 가능할까 물음표가 달렸으나 로이킴은 보란 듯이 두 가지 모두 잘해 오고 있다. 학기를 마치고 방학 때 한국에 오면 올 A 성적표를 받은 것이 종종 화제가 됐고, 졸업까지 한 학기를 남겨 둔 시점에서 여전히 학점 관리는 꽤 잘하고 있다. 최근 마친 학기 역시 가장 최하점이 A-다.
6년간의 음악 활동을 성적으로 매긴다면 A라고 할 순 없지만, 누군가는 꽤 부러워할 만한 성적표를 받아 왔다. 올 들어서 평균 점수를 꽤 많이 올리기도 했다. '그때 헤어지면 돼'에 이어 '우리 그만하자'까지 줄줄이 음원 차트 1위를 찍었다.
얄미울(?) 정도로 허점을 찾기 힘든 로이킴을 취중토크 인터뷰 자리에 앉혔다. 취중토크는 두 번째다. 4년 만이다. 주종은 맥주를 택했다. 맥주 1병을 가득 담은 맥주잔을 비워 냄과 동시에 얼굴이 약간 불거졌다. 2시간 동안 진행된 인터뷰에서 그는 꽤 솔직했다. 하지만 진솔하게 답할수록 빈틈을 더욱 찾기 힘들었다. 소신이 뚜렷했고, 험담을 싫어했고, 선한 영향력을 주는 방법에 대한 고민이 깊었다.
-'그때 헤어지면 돼'에 이어 '우리 그만하자'까지 최근에 발표한 음악이 다 음원차트에서 1위를 하고 좋은 성적을 거두고 있어요.
"그래서 부담감이 항상 있어요. 사실 '그때 헤어지면 돼'를 낼 때는 음원 성적에 대한 기대를 할 수 있는 상황이 아니었어요. 한국에서 활동을 할 수 있을 시기가 아닐 때 노래를 낸 건 처음이었거든요. 홍보도 따로 못하는 상황이었고요. 이 노래가 좋고 그 시기에 내고 싶었고, 회사도 동의해서 팬 서비스 차원에서 낸거였어요. 한국에서 내는 앨범과 달리 이 곡 한 곡만 따로 편곡자와 연락해서 1년 동안 작업한 곡이었죠. 근데 이게 잘 되서 너무 놀랐죠. 사실 가수로 살아온 시간이 어느 정도 지나면 그냥 음원 성적에 대해서 흐름을 어느 정도 파악하고 있다고 착각할 수도 있고 무의식적으로 그렇게 생각할 수도 있잖아요. 그런데 그게 완전히 무너진, 없어진 상황이 된거죠. 이젠 정말 어떻게 해야 1등을 할 수 있는지 모르겠어요. 감사하고 고마운 마음이 물론 있지만 동시에 부담도 있는거죠. 이젠 또 어떻게 음악을 해야 사람들이 좋아할까에 대한 고민이 더 깊어졌죠. 곡이 좋다고 다 잘 되는 것도 아니고 곡이 안 좋다고 안되는 것도 아니고, 그래서 이젠 그냥 (음악을) 하려고요. 그냥. 이게(음원 성적이 좋은 게) 평생 갈 것 같진 않아요. 앞으로 계속 음악을 하다보면 전작이 더 잘 될 때도 있고 또 그 전전작이 잘 될 때도 있을텐데 개의치 않으려고요. 그냥 제가 잘 할 수 있는 음악을 계속 내고 또 지켜봐야죠."
-JTBC '비긴어게인2'에 출연했죠. 출연한 이유와 프로그램을 통해 얻은 게 무엇인지 궁금해요.
"일단 시즌1을 재밌게 봤어요. 사실 요즘 방송엔 제가 설 수 있는 자리가 많이 없어요. 더 정확히 말하면 제가 부르고 싶은 노래를 부르는 걸 담아주는 방송이 많지 않죠. '비긴어게인2'는 제가 하고 싶은 음악을 부르는 모습을 영화처럼 예쁘게 담아주신다고 하니 거절할 이유가 없었어요. 그 점이 무조건 좋았고 그래서 한다고 했죠. 또 평소 좋아하는 선배님들과 함께한다고 하니 더 거절할 이유가 없었죠."
- '그때 헤어지면 돼'를 기점으로 로이킴 표 발라드의 포문이 열린 것 같아요.
"제대로 된 포문을 열어 줬다고 표현하기엔 좀 거창한 것 같고. 그냥 내가 쓴 가사와 멜로디에 사람들이 조금 더 집중해 주기 시작한 곡인 것 같아요. 그래서 감사한 곡이죠. '그때 헤어지면 돼' 전까지는 발라드를 제대로 한 적이 없었어요. 물론 OST로는 했지만 내 앨범에서 한 적은 없었죠. 발라드에 가까운 노래를 했지만 정통 발라드는 아니었다고 생각해요. '그때 헤어지면 돼'도 한국형 정통 발라드라고 생각하지 않지만 굳이 나누자면 그렇다는 거죠. 근데 '그때 헤어지면 돼' 이후로 발라더로 불리기 시작했죠. 발라더가 된 지 얼마 안 됐어요."
- 자작곡을 계속 내고 있어요. 자작곡 중 가장 효자곡은 무엇인가요.
"자작곡은 30~40곡 정도 되는데요. 효자곡이라. 수익으로 따지면 잘된 것들이겠죠. '봄봄봄' '그때 헤어지면 돼'겠네요. 음악적으로 내가 좀 성장했다고 느끼는 고마운 곡은 '그때 헤어지면 돼'예요. 성장이라는 의미가 좀 그렇긴 하지만 이 곡은 처음으로 보컬 디렉터 없이 디렉팅도 직접 다 해 보고 소리도 직접 다 잡아 보고, 악기가 들어가는 것도 편곡자와 나만 이야기해서 만든 곡이거든요. 근데 그게 잘돼서 의미가 있죠."
- 곡을 쓸 때 어디서 자극과 영감을 많이 받나요.
"나요. 글을 쓰거나 멜로디를 쓸 때 나한테 감탄해야 해요. 처음 곡이나 글을 썼을 때 '이건 내가 썼지만 좋은 글인 것 같다. 좋은 멜로디인 것 같다'는 게 있어야 그걸 계속 가지고 가서 곡으로 완성되는 것 같아요. 글(가사)의 주제는 일상적인 것에서 찾아요. 무대 위에서 찾을 수도 있고, 그냥 이렇게 대화하는 과정에서 찾을 수도 있고요."
- '슈퍼스타K'에 나가지 않았다면 어땠을까 가정해 본 적이 있나요.
"있죠. 최근엔 좀 안 했지만 막 데뷔했을 때만 해도 자주 했던 생각이죠."
- 출연하지 않았다면 가수가 되지 않았을까요.
"못 했을 것 같아요. 기획사 오디션을 보러 갈 생각조차 못 해 봤고 음악은 그냥 좋아해서 듣는 거고 가수는 그냥 TV에서 보는 다른 세상 사람이라고만 생각했거든요. 가수가 되고 싶다고 생각조차 못 했어요. '슈퍼스타K'는 그냥 나가도 금방 떨어질 것으로 생각하고 나갔는데 그렇지 않아서 놀랐죠. '슈퍼스타K'를 한 지 벌써 6년이나 흘렀네요."
"시작이죠. 가수는 인생의 옵션에 끼워 두지 않고 살았거든요. 그런 어린아이한테 너도 할 수 있다는 자신감을 불어넣어 주고, 또 가능성을 보여 준, 음악을 할 수 있게 해 준 프로그램이죠."
- 가수가 평생 직업이 될 거라고 생각하나요.
"누군가는 내 음악을 기다려 주고, 또 내가 음악을 만들어 주길 바라는 사람이 있는 한 계속 음악을 할 것 같아요. 가수는 일단 계속할 것 같은데 다른 것도 해 볼 수 있을 것 같아요. 누군가를 가르치는 일도 해 보고 싶어요. 사회학과인데 좀 더 공부하고 싶어요. 어떻게 하면 좋은 영향을 사회에 줄 수 있는지 공부하고, 그것에 대한 강의도 해 보고 싶어요. 하고 싶은 건 사실 더 많아요."
- 6년 차예요. 어떤 가수가 되기 위해 노력하나요.
"'라이브를 잘한다던데?' 혹은 '노래가 좋다던데'라는 말을 듣는 기대감을 주는 가수가 되고 싶어요. 라이브로 공연하는 게 제일 중요하고, 이것을 통해 위로나 감정을 전달할 수 있다면 가수로서 정말 보람차고 뜻깊은 일이 될 거라고 생각해요. 음원으로 듣는 음악도 중요하지만 라이브로 노래를 들을 때 감정이 어떻게 전달되는지도 중요하니까요. 누군가에게 위안이 되고 힐링이 될 수 있는 음악을 하는 가수가 되고 싶어요."
- 12월 연말 콘서트를 준비하고 있죠.
"이번에 처음으로 오케스트라와 함께 공연해요. 그래서 공연명이 '로케스트라'예요. 오케스트라 밴드와 콘서트를 하는 게 버킷 리스트예요. 금전적인 것도 많이 들어가고 합주 시간도 훨씬 많이 들어가서 준비 기간이 길지만 이번에 해 보려고요. 좋을 것 같아요."
"아들과 딸이 보기에 멋있는 아빠가 되면 좋겠어요. 그리고 나중에 눈감는 순간에 '아들 딸이 잘 컸구나. 잘 키웠다'라는 생각이 들면 진짜 인생을 잘 살았다고 느낄 수 있을 것 같아요. 결혼은 꼭 하고 싶어요. 아직 좀 징그러운데 언젠가 하고 싶어요. 40대가 되기 전에."