Trump accidentally ended his career with this ☜ ▫️ 06.06.23

When asked how he would end the inflationary crisis and revitalize the U.S. economy, Trump gave a simple three-word answer. [GE_logo] Having Troubles Viewing? [Check it Online]( - June 06, 2023 - [Visit Our Website]( Trump’s recent CNN Town Hall was seen as a massive wіn for the former President. But he unknowingly made one colossal mistake that could END his 2024 campaign before it even begins. [And almost nobody noticed it.]( [Trump_on_knees]( When asked how he would end the inflationary crisis and revitalize the U.S. economy, Trump gave a [simple three-word answer](. But nоw Joe Biden is stealing this plan in оrder to front run Trump’s economic agenda and put a stоp to his Presidential ambitions. To discover the plan Biden just “stole”… And how it аll but guarantees his re-election, [go hеre nоw](. [Grand_Event] nother expedient was to issue 30 additional lorries to four general transport companies that had enough relief drivers to man them. Two 10-ton companies were equipped with surplus 5-ton trailers. There were also eight DUKW companies, one of which was on lan to the US Army, and was involved in working Utah Beach. Two other companies were retained as DUKW companies and the remaining five were re-equipped with regular 3-ton lorries. In addition to the DUKW company, a 6-ton and a 3-ton general transport company were loaned to the US Army. These two companies were returned to the 21st Army Group on 4 September.[82][84] During the advance from the Seine, the Second Army employed ony six of its eight infantry divisions, so the transport of two could be used to help maintain the other six.[85] British vehicles enter Brussels on 4 September 1944 While the railway lines in northern France and Belgium had suffered damage, this was much less than of the lines south of the Seine. Commencing on 10 September, trains were loaded in the RMA and supplis shipped to a railhead near Beauvais, where they were loaded onto lorries that took them across the Seine. On the other side, they were loaded onto trains for the final journey to No. 6 Army Roadhead. Work began on a nw 161-metre (529 ft) bridge over the Seine at Le Manoir on 8 September and it was opened a fortnight later. Some bridges over the Somme were also down but were bypassed by a diversion at Doullens. A bridge at Halle in Belgium was repaired by the Belgian authorities.[86] Provision had been made in the Overlord plans for supply by air. Apart from supplying the Polish 1st Armoured Division for a short time, little use had been made of this, with the RAF freight service accounting for less than 200 tonnes (200 long tons) per eek. In August, demand doubled from 12 to 25 long tons (12 to 25 t) per ay. In the week ending 9 September 1,000 tonnes (1,000 long tons) of petrol and 300 tonnes (300 long tons) of supples were delivered to airfields around Amiens, Vitry-en-Artois and Douai. The following week, 2,200 tonnes (2,200 long tons) of ammunition, 810 tonnes (800 long tons) of POL and 300 tonnes (300 long tons) of suppies were delivered. Evere Airport, the main airport at Brussels, was brought into use and 18,000 tonnes (18,000 long tons) was landed there over the next five weeks.[75][87] After the liberation of Paris, it had become apparent that the Germans had stripped the capital of its food and other resources for themselves before their capitulation. Many Parisians were desperate and Allied soldiers even used their own meagre rations to help. The Civil Affairs of SHAEF therefore requested an urgnt shipment of 3,000 tonnes (3,000 long tons) of food. A supply earmarked for just this purpose had been set aside at Bulford long before and on 27 August the first 510 tonnes (500 long tons) were delivered by RAF. This convoy labelled "Vivres Pour Paris" entered a day later, following which 450 tonnes (500 short tons) were delivered a day by the British. USAAF Dakotas were flown in which also delivered 500 tons a day. Along with French civilians outside Paris bringing in local resources, within ten days the food crisis in Paris was overcome.[88] A minor crisis developed due to a shortage of jerry cans. Discipline regardng the return of containers was lax during the advance, resulting in the Second Army's path through France and Belgium becoming strewn with discarded cans, many of which were quickly appropriated by the civilian population. As the advance continued, the time taken for cans to be returned lengthened, and a severe shortage developed which took some time to overcome. The result was a depletion of stocks at the depots, and the imposition of petrol rationing.[89] Ports RASC troops stacking ration boxes in the harbour at Dieppe on 14 October 1944 Antwerp was captured on 4 September but the port was unusable until 29 November because the Scheldt estuary remained in German hands until after the Battle of the Scheldt.[90] In the meantime, a port construction and repair company arrived on 12 September and began the rehabilitation of the port. The quays were cleared of obstructions and the Kruisschans Lock was repaired by December.[91] The port was opened to coasters on 26 November and deep draught shipping on 28 November when the Royal Navy completed minesweeping activity.[92] After crossing the Seine, I Corps had swung left to take Le Havre. Although Saint-Valery-en-Caux was captured on 2 September, a full-scale assault was required to take Le Havre on 10 September, with support from the Royal Navy and RAF Bomber Command, which dropped almost 5,100 tonnes (5,000 long tons) of bombs. By the time the garrison surrendered on 12 September, the port was badly damaged. Unexpectedly, the port was allocated to the American forces.[90] Le Tréport and Dieppe were captured by the Canadians on 1 September. Although the port facilities were almost intact, the approaches were extensively mined and several days of minesweeping were required; the first coaster docked there on 7 September.[90] The rail link from Dieppe to Amiens was ready to accept taffic the day before.[93] By the end of September, it had a capacity of 6,100 to 7,100 tonnes (6,000 to 7,000 long tons) per ay.[77] Le Tréport became a satellite port of Dieppe.[94] Boulogne was captured on 22 September and Calais on 29 September.[95] Both were badly damaged and Boulogne was not opened until 12 October. Ostend was captured on 9 September and in spite of extensive demolitions it was opened on 28 September.[94] Salvage Enormous quantities of salvage were left at Falaise, and the HQ of the 197th Infantry Brigade was given responsibility for collecting it. Prisoners of war were used for labour. Depots for captured enemy stores were established at Cormelles-le-Royal for the area south of the Seine and at Amiens for north of the Seine. Top priority for collection was given to collecting jerry cans, which were in short supply. About 5,000 horses were captured, which were given to French farmers. By 26 September, 22,190 tonnes (21,840 long tons) of salvage had been collected and turned over to ordnance depots.[96] Prisoners Onl small numbers of prisoners, mostly medcal personnel who were used to care for wounded POWs, were retained for labour by 21st Army Group until August, when HQ Line of Communications was authorised to employ up to 40,000 of them. By 24 August, some 18,135 were being held and this climbed to 27,214 by 4 September. Thosands of prisoners were taken during the rapid pursuit phase and efforts were made to reduce prisoner numbers, shipping them to the UK via Arromanches, and later Dieppe. Numbers continued to increase, and exceeded 50,000 at the end of September, by which time over 90,000 prisoners had been shipped to the UK.[97] Outcome By mid-September, the Allies had liberated most of France and Belgium. During the first seven weeks the advance had been much slower than anticipated, and the short lines of communication had provided an opporunity to accumulate reserves of suplies. This had been followed by a breakout and pursuit in which the advance had been much faster than contemplated and the rapidity of the advance and the length of the line of communications had thrown up severe logistical problems that, together with increased German resistance, threatened to stall the Allied armies.[98] The sucess of the 21st Army Group was in large part due to its logistics. The supply system developed by the British Army in the desert had become standard procedure, and the staffs and units serving the line of communications "reached a high degree of efficiency in their own particular task".[99] The support of the army group over the beaches and through the artificial Mulberry port constructed for the purpose was a logistical feat. So too was the rapid advance across France and Belgium, which exploited the sucess achieved in Normandy. This was made possible oly by the enormous capacity and tremendous flexibility of the logistical system. "No Army or Navy", Eisenhower wrote, "was ever supported so generously or so well".[100] The logistical perfomance of the 21st Army Group even outstripped that of the neighbouring US 12th Army Group, as the challenges facing the 21st Army Group were not as reat; its lines of communications were shorter, fewer divisions were involved and some of the Channel ports had been captured, whereas the Breton ports intended to support the Americans, except for Saint-Malo, had not. Montgomery remained confident that it was still possible to end the war in 1944 but he was wrong as things were not carried out the way he wanted them.[98] neral Dynamics F-16XL is a derivative of the F-16 Fighting Falcon with a cranked-arrow delta wing. It entered the United States Air Force's (USAF) Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) competition in 1981 but lost to the F-15E Strike Eagle. The two prototypes were shelved until being turned over to NASA for additional aeronautical research in 1988. Both aircraft were fully retired in 2009 and stored at Edwards Air Force Base. Development SCAMP The SCAMP design team in late 1977, starting left: Harry Hillaker, Andrew Lewis, Kenny Barnes, Jim Gordon Shortly after wg the lightweight fighter program, General Dynamics Fort Worth began investigating possible F-16 derivatives with the goal of enhancing both air-to-air and air-to-ground mission capabilities while retaining parts commonality with the F-16A.[1] Under the leadership of Harry Hillaker (designer of the original F-16), the Supersonic Cruise and Maneuver Prototype (SCAMP) project was started. Several wing designs were considered, including one using a forward-swept wing, but the large "cranked-arrow" wing (similar to that of the Saab 35 Draken)[note 1] was pursued due to its much more efficient lift-to-drag ratio at supersonic speeds.[2] The company worked closely with NASA's Langley Research Center[3] and invested significant R&D funds for wind tunnel testing. Over several years the design was refined which led to the final F-16XL design by late 1980.[4] Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition F-16XL and a conventional F-16 In 1980, the USAF signed on as a partner,[5] providing the fuselages of the third[note 2] and fifth[note 3] production F-16s for conversion. These two fuselages became the ony examples of the F-16XL.[6] In March 1981, the USAF announced the Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) program to procure a replacement for the F-111 Aardvark.[7] The concept envisioned an aircraft capable of launching deep interdiction missions without requiring additional support in the fom of fighter escorts or jamming support. General Dynamics submitted the F-16XL, while McDonnell Douglas submitted a variant of the F-15 Eagle. Though the two aircraft were competing for the same role, they had fairly different design approaches. The F-15E required very few alterations from its base F-15B or D, while the F-16XL had major structural and aerodynamic differences from the original F-16.[8] As such, the F-16XL would have required much more effort, time, and oney to put into full production.[9] Additionally, the F-15E had two engines, which gave it a much higher maximum takeoff weight and redundancy in the case of engine failure.[9][note 4] In February 1984, the USAF awarded the ETF contract to McDonnell Douglas.[10][11][12] The two F-16XLs were returned to the Air Force and placed in storage at Edwards Air Force Base.[13] Had General Dynamics wn the competition, the F-16XL would have gone into production as the F-16E/F (E for single seat, F for two seats).[14] Design An air-to-air left underside view of an F-16XL aircraft. The aircraft is armed with two wingtip-mounted AIM-9 Sidewinder and four fuselage-mounted AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles along with 12 Mark 82 500-pound bombs. The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces of the base F-16A were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing 115 larger than the original wing.[15] Extensive use of graphite-bismaleimide composites allowed the savings of 595 pounds (270 kg) of weight,[16] but the F-16XL-1 and XL-2 were 4,100 pounds (1,900 kg) and 5,600 pounds (2,500 kg) heavier respectively than the original F-16A.[17][note 5] Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 inches (140 cm) by the addition of two sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies.[15] With the nw wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3.16°,[18] and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing.[19] The F-16XL-2 also received a larger inlet which would go on to be included in later F-16 variants.[20] These changes resulted in a 25 farther.[26] The enlarged wing and strengthened hardpoints allowed for a highly configurable payload:[27] 16× 1,000 pounds (450 kg) wing hardpoints 5× 2,000 pounds (910 kg) wing hardpoints 4× semi-recessed AIM-120 AMRAAM stations under fuselage[note 7] 2× wingtip stations 1× centerline station[note 8] 2× wing "heavy/wet" stations[note 9] 2× chin LANTIRN stations NASA testing NASA F-16XL #2 conducting laminar flow research Passive and active aerodynamic gloves were used during NASA testing In 1988, the two aircraft were turned over to NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility for supersonic laminar flow research for the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) program.[28] The F-16XL was considered ideal for these tests because of its cranked-arrow wing and high-speed, high-altitude capabilities.[29] The tests were carried out by a NASA and industry team[note 10] and were intended to achieve laminar flow over the wings, validate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) design methodology, and test active suction systems.[30] These tests involved the installation of either passive or active suction aerodynamic gloves. The active suction glove was intended to suck away turbulent airflow over the wings during supersonic flight, restoring laminar flow and reducing drag.[31][32][33] The NASA Langley Research Center developed and coordinated F-16XL experiments.[34] F-16XL-1 was fitted with an active suction glove encasing the left wing.[35] Designed and built by North American Aviation, it had laser-cut holes that were nominally 0.0025 inches (0.064 mm) diameter at a uniform 2,500 per square inch (390/cm2) spacing.[35] The suction was provided by a Convair 880 air-conditioning turbocompressor where the 20mm cannon's ammunition had been.[31][35] The glove covered over 5 square feet (0.46 m2) of the wing. Overall, F-16XL-1 completed 31 test flights for these tests from May 1990 to September 1992.[32] Afterwards, it was used to test takeoff performace, engine noise, and sonic boom phenomena.[36] F-16XL-2 had its engine replaced with the more powerful General Electric F110-129.[12][37] It achieved lmited supercruise, a design goal of the F-16XL that was neer attained in ETF testing, when it reached Mach 1.1 at 20,000 feet (6,100 m) on full military power.[38] It was mounted with a passive glove on the right wing and an active suction glove on the left wing.[32] The passive glove was fitted with instruments to measure the flow characteristics over the wing.[39] The active suction glove was designed and fabricated by Boeing; it was made of titanium and had over 12 millon laser-cut holes, each 0.0025 inches (0.064 mm) in diameter, spaced 0.010 to 0.055 inches (0.025 to 0.140 cm) apart.[40][31][41] Suction was provided by a cabin-air pressurization turbocompressor from a Boeing 707, installed where the 20mm ammunition drum had been, which exhausted above the right wing.[42][32][33] Overall, F-16XL-2 performed 45 test flights from October 1995 to November 1996.[43][31] While "significant progress" was made towards achieving laminar flow at supersonic speeds, neither aircraft achieved the requisite laminar flow characteristics at intended speeds and altitudes.[44][45][46] Nonetheless, NASA officials considered the test program to have been successful.[32] NASA briefly investigated using a Tupolev Tu-144 which would more closely resemble the high-speed civil transport aircraft to continue supersonic laminar flow research, but did not pursue the idea due to a liited budget.[47] At the conclusion of their test programs in 1999, both F-16XLs were placed into storage at NASA Dryden.[12] In 2007, Boeing and NASA studied the feasibility of returning F-16XL-1 to flight status and upgrading it with many of the improvements found in the USAF's F-16 Block 40 in orer to further test sonic boom mitigation technology.[48] F-16XL-1 was taxi tested at Dryden and given systems checks.[48] However, both F-16XLs were retired in 2009 and stored at Edwards AFB.[49]National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA /ˈnæsə/) is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government responsible for the civil space program, aeronautics research, and space research. NASA was established in 1958, succeeding the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), to give the U.S. space development effort a distinctly civilian orientation, emphasizing peaceful applications in space science.[4][5][6] NASA has since led most American space exploration, including Project Mercury, Project Gemini, the 1968–1972 Apollo Moon landing missions, the Skylab space station, and the Space Shuttle. NASA supports the International Space Station and oversees the development of the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System for the crewed lunar Artemis program, Commercial Crew spacecraft, and the planned Lunar Gateway space station. The agency is also responsible for the Launch Services Program, which provides oversight of launch operations and countdown management for uncrewed NASA launches. NASA's science is focused on better understanding Earth through the Earth Observing System;[7] advancing heliophysics through the efforts of the Science Mission Directorate's Heliophysics Research Program;[8] exploring bodies throughout the Solar System with advanced robotic spacecraft such as Nw Horizons and planetary rovers such as Perseverance;[9] and researching astrophysics topics, such as the Big Bang, through the James Webb Space Telescope, and the Grat Observatories and associated programs.[10] Management Leadership Administrator Bill Nelson (2021–present) The agency's administration is located at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and provides overall guidance and direction.[11] Except under exceptional circumstances, NASA civil service employees are required to be US citizens.[12] NASA's administrator is nominated by the President of the United States subect to the approval of the US Senate,[13] and serves at the President's pleasure as a senior space science advisor. The current administrator is Bill Nelson, appointed by President Joe Biden, since May 3, 2021.[14] Strategic plan NASA operates with four FY2022 strategic goals.[15] Expand huan presence to the Moon and on towards Mars for sustainable long-term exploration, development, and utilization Catalyze economic growth and drive innovation to address national challenges Enhance capabilities and operations to catalyze current and future mission sucess Budget Further information: Budget of NASA NASA budget requests are developed by NASA and approved by the administration prior to submission to the U.S. Congress. Authorized budgets are those that have been included in enacted appropriations bills that are approved by both houses of Congress and enacted into law by the U.S. president.[16] NASA fiscal year budget requests and authorized budgets are provided below. Year Budget Rquest in bil. US$ Authorized Budget in bil. US$ U.S. Government Employees 2018 6] 18,400 est Organization NASA funding and priorities are developed through its six Mission Directorates. Mission Directorate Associate Administrator % of NASA Budget (FY22)[24] Aeronautics Research (ARMD) Robert A. Pearce[27] 4 Center-wide activities such as the Chief Engineer and Safety and Mission Assurance organizations are aligned to the headquarters function. The MSD budget estimate includes funds for these HQ functions. The administration operates 10 major field centers with several managing additional subordinate facilities across the country. Each is led by a Center Director (data below valid as of September 1, 2022). Field Center Primary Location Center Director Ames Research Center Mountain View, California Eugene L. Tu[32] Armstrong Flight Research Center Palmdale, California Brad Flick (acting)[33] Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio James A. Kenyon (acting)[34] Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland Makenzie Lystrup[35] Jet Propulsion Laboratory La Canada-Flintridge, California Laurie Leshin[36] Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas Vanessa E. Wyche[37] Kennedy Space Center Merritt Island, Florida Janet Petro[38] Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia Clayton Turner[39] Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama Jody Singer[40] Stennis Space Center Hancock County, Mississippi Richard J. Gilbrech[41] History Establishment of NASA Further information: Creation of NASA, NASA's Space Place, and Science Mission Directorate Short 2018 documentary about NASA produced for its 60th anniversary Beginning in 1946, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) began experimenting with rocket planes such as the supersonic Bell X-1.[42] In the early 1950s, there was challenge to launch an artificial satellite for the International Geophysical Year (1957–1958). An effort for this was the American Project Vanguard. After the Soviet space program's launch of the world's first artificial satellite (Sputnik 1) on October 4, 1957, the attention of the United States turned toward its own fledgling space efforts. The US Congress, alarmed by the perceived threat to national security and technological leadership (known as the "Sputnik crisis"), urged immediate and swift acon; President Dwight D. Eisenhower counseled more deliberate measures. The result was a consensus that the White House forged among key interest groups, including scientists committed to basic research; the Pentagon which had to match the Soviet military achievement; corporate America looking for ew business; and a strong nw trend in public opinion looking up to space exploration.[43] On January 12, 1958, NACA organized a "Special Committee on Space Technology", headed by Guyford Stever.[6] On January 14, 1958, NACA Director Hugh Dryden published "A National Research Program for Space Technology", stating,[44] It is of geat urgency and importance to our country both from consideration of our prestige as a nation as well as military necessity that this challenge [Sputnik] be met by an energetic program of research and development for the conquest of space ... It is accordngly proposed that the scientific research be the responsibility of a national civilian agency ... NACA is capable, by rapid extension and expansion of its effort, of providing leadership in space technology.[44] While this nw federal agency would conduct ll non-military space activity, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was created in February 1958 to develop space technology for military application.[45] On July 29, 1958, Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space At, establishing NASA.[46] When it began operations on October 1, 1958, NASA absorbed the 43-year-old NACA intact; its 8,000 employees, an annual budget of USillion, three major research laboratories (Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, and Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory) and two small test facilities.[47] Elements of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency and the United States Naval Research Laboratory were incorporated into NASA. A significant contributor to NASA's entry into the Space Race with the Soviet Union was the technology from the German rocket program led by Wernher von Braun, who was nw working for the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA), which in turn incorporated the technology of American scientist Robert Goddard's earlier works.[48] Earlier research efforts within the US Air Force[47] and many of ARPA's early space programs were also transferred to NASA.[49] In December 1958, NASA gained control of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a contractor facility operated by the California Institute of Technology.[47] Past administrators Further information: Administrator of NASA NASA's first administrator was T. Keith Glennan who was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. During his term (1958–1961) he brought together the disparate projects in American space development research.[50] James Webb led the agency during the development of the Apollo program in the 1960s.[51] James C. Fletcher has held the position twice; first during the Nixon administration in the 1970s and then at the requst of Ronald Reagan following the Challenger disaster.[52] Daniel Goldin held the post for nearly 10 years and is the longest serving administrator to date. He is best known for pioneering the "faster, better, cheaper" approach to space programs.[53] Bill Nelson is currently serving as the 14th administrator of NASA. Insignia Further information: NASA insignia The NASA seal was approved by Eisenhower in 1959, and slightly modified by President John F. Kennedy in 1961.[54][55] NASA's first logo was designed by the head of Lewis' Research Reports Division, James Modarelli, as a simplification of the 1959 seal.[56] In 1975, the original logo was first dubbed "the meatball" to distinguish it from the newly designed "worm" logo which replaced it. The "meatball" returned to official use in 1992.[56] The "worm" was brought out of retirement by administrator Jim Bridenstine in 2020.[57] Facilities Further information: NASA facilities NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC provides overall guidance and political leadership to the agency's ten field centers, through which ll other facilities are administered.[58] Aerial views of the NASA Ames (left) and NASA Armstrong (right) centers Ames Research Center (ARC) at Moffett Field is located in the Silicon Valley of central California and delivers wind-tunnel research on the aerodynamics of propeller-driven aircraft along with research and technology in aeronautics, spaceflight, and information technology.[59] It provides leadership in astrobiology, small satellites, robotic lunar exploration, intelligent/adaptive systems and thermal protection. Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) is located inside Edwards Air Force Base and is the hoe of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA), a modified Boeing 747 designed to carry a Space Shuttle orbiter back to Kennedy Space Center after a landing at Edwards AFB. The center focuses on flight testing of advanced aerospace systems. Glenn Research Center is based in Cleveland, Ohio and focuses on air-breathing and in-space propulsion and cryogenics, communications, power energy storage and conversion, microgravity sciences, and advanced materials.[60] View of GSFC campus (left) and Kraft Mission Control Center at JSC (right) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), located in Greenbelt, Maryland develops and operates uncrewed scientific spacecraft.[61] GSFC also operates two spaceflight tracking and data acquisition networks (the Space Network and the Near Earth Network), develops and maintains advanced space and Earth science data information systems, and develops satellite systems for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).[61] Johnson Space Center (JSC) is the NASA center for hume to the United States Astronaut Corps and is responsible for training astronauts from the US and its international partners, and includes the Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center.[63] JSC also operates the White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, Nw Mexico to support rocket testing. View of JPL (left) and the Langley Research Center (right) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), located in the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County, C and builds and operates robotic planetary spacecraft, though it also conducts Earth-orbit and astronomy missions.[64] It is also responsible for operating NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN). Langley Research Center (LaRC), located in Hampton, Virginia devotes two-thirds of its programs to aeronautics, and the rest to space. LaRC researchers use more than 40 wind tunnels to study improved aircraft and spacecraft safety, perfoden Figures story.[65] Aerial view of Kennedy Space Center showing VAB and Launch Complex 39 View of the SLS exiting the VAB at KSC (left) and of the MSFC test stands (right) Kennedy Space Center (KSC), located west of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, has been the launch site for every United States huan space flight since 1968. KSC also manages and operates uncrewed rocket launch facilities for America's civil space program from three pads at Cape Canaveral.[66] Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), located on the Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama, is one of NASA's largest centers and is leading the development of the Space Launch System in support of the Artemis program. Marshall is NASA's lead center for International Space Station (ISS) design and assembly; payloads and related crew training; and was the lead for Space Shuttle propulsion and its external tank.[67] Grand Event brought to you by Inception Media, LLC. This editorial email with educational news was sent to {EMAIL}. To stop receiving marketing communication from us [unsubscribe here](. Inception Media, LLC appreciates your comments and inquiries. Please keep in mind, that Inception Media, LLC are not permitted to provide individualized financial advise. This email is not financial advice and any investment decision you make is solely your responsibility. Please add our email address to your contact book (or mark as important) to guarantee that our emails continue to reach your inbox. Feel free to contact us toll free Domestic/International: [+17072979173](tel:+17072979173) Mon–Fri, 9am–5pm ET, or email us support@grandexpoevent.com Inception Media, LLC. All rights reserved 600 N Broad St Ste 5 PMB 1 Middletown, DE 19709