Message posted by Peter Merlin on July 24, 2009 at 9:20:37 PST:
Det. 3, AFFTC, is a test wing. That is not in question. Many workers spend the entire work week on site. Because it is a remote post, personnel are supplied with as many amenities as possible. There is a gym, softball field, tennis court, indoor swimming pool, bar/grill, etc. There used to be a movie theatre (might still be, in a new building), and a nine-hole golf course. The Slater Lake reservoir was stocked with fish. Radio-controlled model airplanes used to be flown off the concrete pad at the base of the RCS pylon but it looks like someone has built an R/C airfield west of the Papoose Mountains, far from the test facilities. A second tennis court was replaced with something else, as yet not identified. There is nothing unusual about providing a decent quality of life for the workers. Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) is as much a part of the Groom Lake facility as it is at any other Air Force base. As to the expense of constructing a PT track, you clearly don't understand the arcane nature of government funding. It's not so much a matter of how much money but where the money comes from. Here's an example: After 9/11, NASA was authorized a certain amount of money to spend for upgrading the security infrastructure at all the NASA centers. Each center was give X-millions of dollars (I don't remember the exact amount). At NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, that money was used to construct fences. Remember that Dryden is located deep inside Edwards Air Force Base which is protected by the 95th Security Forces Squadron (at the time augmented by 100 National Guard troops). Dryden already had fences around its flightline and other secure areas. At the same time it was announced that in the afternoons, as a cost saving measure, the Dryden entry control checkpoint would no longer be manned. Workers would have to swipe their badges through a card reader to open the gate. The natural question was, "If we can afford to build fences we don't need, why can't we afford to pay for security guards to remain at their post?" The answer is that the money came from two different funding streams. Someone made the decision to spend the security upgrade funds for new fences. Does this sound inefficient? Insane? Senseless? Perhaps, but that is the nature of government funding.
In Reply to: Re: Track is no mystery posted by Andre' M. Dall'au on July 23, 2009 at 17:01:12 PST:
Replies: