DOCSLIB.ORG

COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update, July 29

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update, July 29 As of July 27, 2020 COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update Criteria for Lifting Travel Restrictions Step 1: Meet State/Country Opening Up America Gating Criteria (14 Day Declining Trend in Symptoms & Cases; No Stay At Home Order)* Step 2: Meet Installation Criteria (No Travel Restrictions, HPCON below Charlie, Essential Services Available, Quality Assurance in place for Movers) Step 3: CMO, the Sec of a Mil Department, or a CCDR approve lifting travel restrictions for an installation Step 1 and Step 2 criteria must be met before travel restrictions can be lifted for an installation by the Chief Management Officer, the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander. If installation conditions are subsequently not met, the approval authority decides if travel restrictions should be reinstated. * Data obtained from Center for Diseases Control, Health and Human Services, and State Health Departments Unrestricted travel is allowed for Service members or civilian between installations that have met the criteria of the Secretary of Defense memo on the conditions‐based, phased approach to personnel movement and travel dated May 22, 2020. If either installation does not meet the criteria, an exemption or waiver would be required. Travel Restrictions LIFTED at 94 of 231 Installations (41%) (Met: Step 1, Step 2, & Step 3) Of the 94 installations with lifted travel restrictions this week, 4 reinstated travel restrictions while 6 lifted restrictions. 1 of 7 As of July 27, 2020 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Army USA - MD No ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT Army USA - AL No BAUMHOLDER H.D.SMITH BRCKS Army Germany No CAMP CASEY TONGDUCHON Army South Korea Yes CAMP HENRY Army South Korea Yes CAMP HUMPHREYS Army South Korea Yes CAMP ZAMA TOKYO Army Japan No CARLISLE BARRACKS Army USA - PA No DETROIT ARSENAL Army USA - MI No FORT BELVOIR Army USA - VA No FORT BENNING Army USA - GA No FORT BLISS Army USA - TX No FORT BRAGG Army USA - NC No FORT CAMPBELL Army USA - KY Yes FORT CARSON Army USA - CO Yes FORT CUSTER TRNG CTR Army USA - MI No FORT DES MOINES Army USA - IA No FORT DETRICK Army USA - MD No FORT DRUM Army USA - NY No FORT GEORGE G. MEADE Army USA - MD Yes FORT GORDON Army USA - GA No FORT HAMILTON Army USA - NY Yes FORT HOOD Army USA - TX No FORT HUACHUCA Army USA - AZ No FORT IRWIN Army USA - CA No FORT JACKSON Army USA - SC No FORT KNOX Army USA - KY Yes FORT LEAVENWORTH Army USA - KS No FORT LEE Army USA - VA No FORT LEONARD WOOD Army USA - MO No FORT MCCOY Army USA - WI No FORT POLK Army USA - LA No FORT RILEY Army USA - KS Yes FORT RUCKER Army USA - AL No FORT SILL Army USA - OK Yes FORT STEWART Army USA - GA No FORT WILLIAM H. HARRISON Army USA - MT No GRAFENWOHR GERMANY Army Germany Yes HOHENFELS GERMANY Army Germany Yes JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD Army USA - WA Yes JOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL Army USA - DC Yes KAISERSLAUTERN Army Germany Yes LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT Army USA - PA No LEXINGTON BLUE GRASS DEPOT Army USA - KY No LOS ALAMITOS AFRC Army USA - CA No 2 of 7 As of July 27, 2020 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted MCALESTER ARMY AMMO PLANT Army USA - OK No PICATINNY ARSENAL Army USA - NJ No PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY Army USA - CA No RED RIVER DEPOT Army USA - TX No REDSTONE ARSENAL Army USA - AL No ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL Army USA - IL No SAN JUAN FORT BUCHANAN Army Puerto Rico No SCHOFIELD BARRACKS Army USA - HI No SIERRA ARMY DEPOT Army USA - CA No STUTTGART GERMANY Army Germany Yes TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT Army USA - PA Yes US ARMY GARRISON ALASKA Army USA - AK Yes US ARMY GARRISON HAWAII Army USA - HI No US ARMY GARRISON MIAMI Army USA - FL No USA NATICK RSCH & DEV CTR Army USA - MA No VICENZA ITALY Army Italy Yes VILSECK Army Germany Yes WATERVLIET ARSENAL Army USA - NY No WEST POINT MILRES Army USA - NY Yes WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE Army USA - NM No WIESBADEN GERMANY Army Germany Yes YONGSAN KOREA Army South Korea Yes YUMA PROVING GROUND Army USA - AZ No DFAS CLEVELAND CENTER CMO USA - OH No DFAS COLUMBUS CENTER CMO USA - OH No DFAS HEADQUARTERS CMO USA - IN No PENTAGON BUILDING SITE CMO USA - VA Yes ANNAPOLIS NS(INCL USNA) Navy USA - MD Yes CBC GULFPORT MS Navy USA - MS No CHINA LAKE NAVWEAPCEN Navy USA - CA No COMFLEACT OKINAWA JA Navy Japan No CORONADO NAV AMPHIB BASE Navy USA - CA No CORPUS CHRISTI NAS Navy USA - TX No CRANE NAVWEAPSUPPCEN Navy USA - IN No FALLON NAS Navy USA - NV Yes FLEET ACTIVITIES CHINHAE KS Navy South Korea Yes FLEET ACTIVITIES SASEBO Navy Japan No INDIAN HEAD NAV ORD STA Navy USA - MD Yes JACKSONVILLE NAS Navy USA - FL No JBPHH PEARL HARBOR HAWAII Navy USA - HI No JOINT BASE ANACOSTIA-BOLLING Navy USA - DC Yes KEY WEST NAS Navy USA - FL No KINGS BAY NAVSUBBASE Navy USA - GA No LEMOORE NAS Navy USA - CA No LITTLE CREEK NAV AMPHIB BASE Navy USA - VA No 3 of 7 As of July 27, 2020 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted MAYPORT NAVSTA Navy USA - FL No MERIDIAN NAS Navy USA - MS No NAF ATSUGI JA Navy Japan No NAF MISAWA JA Navy Japan No NAS JRB FT WORTH TX Navy USA - TX No NAS KINGSVILLE TX Navy USA - TX No NAS SIGONELLA SICILY Navy Italy Yes NAVAL BASE KITSAP-BREMERTON Navy USA - WA Yes NAVAL STATION EVERETT Navy USA - WA Yes NAVAL STATION GREAT LAKES Navy USA - IL No NAVAL STATION GUAM Navy Guam No NAVAL STATION NEWPORT Navy USA - RI Yes NAVAL STATION ROTA SPAIN Navy Spain Yes NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY MID-SOU Navy USA - TN No NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY MONTEREY Navy USA - CA No CA NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY WASH Navy USA - DC Yes NAVAL SUPPORT ACTY PANAMA CITY Navy USA - FL No NAVAL TRAINING CTR ORLANDO Navy USA - FL No NAVBASE POINT LOMA Navy USA - CA No NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA Navy USA - CA No NAVBASE VENTURA CTY Navy USA - CA No NAVMAG INDIAN ISLAND Navy USA - WA Yes NAVSTA GUANTANAMO BAY Navy Cuba No NAVSUPPACT BETHESDA MD Navy USA - MD Yes NAVSUPPACT HAMPTON ROADS VA Navy USA - VA No NAVSUPPACT MECHANICSBURG PA Navy USA - PA No NAVSUPPACT NAPLES IT Navy Italy Yes NAVSUPPFAC BEAUFORT SC Navy USA - SC No NEW LONDON NAVSUBBASE Navy USA - CT Yes NEW ORLEANS NAS JRB Navy USA - LA No NORFOLK NAV SHIPYD Navy USA - VA No NORFOLK NAVAL BASE Navy USA - VA No NSA ANDERSEN Navy Guam No NSA BAHRAIN Navy Bahrain No NSA SARATOGA SPRINGS NY Navy USA - NY Yes NSD YOKOSUKA JAPAN Navy Japan No NSY PORTSMOUTH Navy USA - NH Yes NWS EARLE NJ Navy USA - NJ No OCEANA NAS Navy USA - VA No PATUXENT RIVER NAS Navy USA - MD Yes PENSACOLA NAS Navy USA - FL No SEAL BEACH NAVWEAPSTA Navy USA - CA No WHIDBEY ISLAND NAS Navy USA - WA Yes WHITING FIELD NAS Navy USA - FL No 4 of 7 As of July 27, 2020 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted YORKTOWN NAVWEAPSTA Navy USA - VA No ALTUS AFB USAF USA - OK Yes AVIANO AB USAF Italy Yes BARKSDALE AFB USAF USA - LA Yes BEALE AFB USAF USA - CA No BUCKLEY AFB USAF USA - CO Yes CANNON AFB USAF USA - NM No COLUMBUS AFB USAF USA - MS No DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB USAF USA - AZ No DOBBINS ARB USAF USA - GA Yes DOVER AFB USAF USA - DE Yes DYESS AFB USAF USA - TX No EDWARDS AFB USAF USA - CA Yes EGLIN AFB USAF USA - FL No EIELSON AFB USAF USA - AK Yes ELLSWORTH AFB USAF USA - SD Yes F E WARREN AFB USAF USA - WY Yes FAIRCHILD AFB USAF USA - WA Yes GOODFELLOW AFB USAF USA - TX Yes GRAND FORKS AFB USAF USA - ND Yes GRISSOM AFB USAF USA - IN Yes HANSCOM AFB USAF USA - MA No HILL AFB USAF USA - UT Yes HOLLOMAN AFB USAF USA - NM Yes HOMESTEAD AFB USAF USA - FL No HURLBURT FIELD USAF USA - FL No INCIRLIK AB SITE 1 USAF Turkey Yes JB ANDREWS USAF USA - MD Yes JB CHARLESTON USAF USA - SC No JB ELMENDORF RICHARDSON USAF USA - AK Yes JB LANGLEY-EUSTIS USAF USA - VA No JB MCGUIRE DIX LAKEHURST USAF USA - NJ No JB SAN ANTONIO USAF USA - TX No KADENA AB USAF Japan No KEESLER AFB USAF USA - MS No KIRTLAND AFB USAF USA - NM No KUNSAN AB USAF South Korea Yes LAUGHLIN AFB USAF USA - TX No LITTLE ROCK AFB USAF USA - AR Yes LOS ANGELES AFB USAF USA - CA No LUKE AFB USAF USA - AZ No MACDILL AFB USAF USA - FL No MALMSTROM AFB USAF USA - MT No MARCH AFB USAF USA - CA No MAXWELL AFB (INCL. GUNTER) USAF USA - AL No 5 of 7 As of July 27, 2020 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted MCCONNELL AFB USAF USA - KS Yes MINN ST PAUL ARS USAF USA - MN No MINOT AFB USAF USA - ND Yes MISAWA AB USAF Japan No MOODY AFB USAF USA - GA No MOUNTAIN HOME AFB USAF USA - ID No NELLIS AFB USAF USA - NV No NIAGARA FALLS ARS USAF USA - NY Yes OFFUTT AFB USAF USA - NE Yes OSAN AIR BASE USAF South Korea Yes PATRICK AFB USAF USA - FL No PETERSON AFB USAF USA - CO Yes PITTSBURGH ANG USAF USA - PA Yes PITTSBURGH ARS USAF USA - PA Yes RAF LAKENHEATH USAF United Kingdom Yes RAF MILDENHALL USAF United Kingdom Yes RAMSTEIN FRG USAF Germany No ROBINS AFB USAF USA - GA No SCHRIEVER AFB USAF USA - CO Yes SCOTT AFB USAF USA - IL Yes SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB USAF USA - NC No SHAW AFB USAF USA - SC No SHEPPARD AFB USAF USA - TX Yes SPANGDAHLEM AB USAF Germany Yes TINKER AFB USAF USA - OK Yes TRAVIS AFB USAF USA - CA No TYNDALL AFB USAF USA - FL No USAF ACADEMY USAF USA - CO Yes VANCE AFB USAF USA - OK Yes VANDENBERG AFB USAF USA - CA No WESTOVER ARB AFB USAF USA - MA Yes WHITEMAN AFB USAF USA - MO Yes WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB USAF USA - OH No YOKOTA AB USAF Japan No YOUNGSTOWN JOINT AIR RESERVE USAF USA - OH Yes STATION CHERRY POINT MCAS USMC USA - NC Yes MAKIMINATO OKINAWA CP BUTLER USMC Japan No MARINE BARRACKS WASH D.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USARMY/NASA Redstone Arsenal, Superfund Site Profile
    USARMY/NASA REDSTONE ARSENAL | Superfund Site Profile | Superfund Site Information | US EPA Español 中中: 中中中 中中: 中中中 Tiếng Việt 中中中 United States Environmental Protection Agency Learn the Issues Science & Technology Laws & Regulations About EPA EPA Superfund Program: USARMY/NASA REDSTONE ARSENAL, HUNTSVILLE, AL Contact Us Share EPA’s Superfund Program: Making a Visible Difference Where is this site? The U.S. Army at Redstone Arsenal (RSA) is an active installation that Stay Updated Regional News encompasses 38,300 acres of land southwest of Huntsville, Alabama. Public Participation Since opening in the early 1940s, development within RSA has largely Opportunities: There are no meetings or revolved around the historical need to produce, and later dispose of, comment periods scheduled at conventional and chemical munitions. From 1942 to 1945, DA this time. operations were used to manufacture raw materials for toxic agents and incendiary materials, and to assemble, store, and ship the final Site Reports and products. Onsite waste disposal activities included the disposal of Documents construction debris, drums, and chemical munitions, and open burning No published Administrative of combustible materials. After the war, the RSA became a center for Record documents currently the receipt, storage, and demilitarization of Allied and German available. No published Special chemical agents. In 1949, RSA’s mission changed to research and Collection documents development of rocketry and guided missile systems. In 1960, civilian currently available. rocketry and missile activities were transferred to National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) The George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) which is located in the central portion of the Site Facts installation (1,841 acres).
    [Show full text]
  • 53Rd IAA HISTORY of ASTRONAUTICS SYMPOSIUM (E4) “Can You Believe They Put a Man on the Moon?” the Apollo Program
    70th International Astronautical Congress 2019 Paper ID: 48885 oral 53rd IAA HISTORY OF ASTRONAUTICS SYMPOSIUM (E4) \Can you believe they put a man on the moon?" The Apollo Program. (3) Author: Mr. John Goodman Odyssey Space Research, United States, [email protected] DORIS CHANDLER AND THE SATURN V GUIDANCE DEBATE Abstract Doris Chandler was a NASA engineer who led the team of men who developed the on-board guidance algorithm used by the Saturn launch vehicles. She received a B.S. in Mathematics from Tulane University with a Phi Beta Kappa Key and joined the Aeroballistics Laboratory at the Redstone Arsenal in 1953. As a NASA employee at the Marshall Space Flight Center in the 1960s, she served in three management positions: Deputy Chief of the Guidance Theory Section, Chief of the Guidance Application Section, and Chief of the Applied Guidance and Flight Mechanics Branch. In the early 1960s, Doris Chandler's team developed one of two competing mathematical concepts for Saturn guidance. The advent of flyable digital computers permitted the development of software- based guidance algorithms. Reference trajectory guidance methods employing analog computing, used for ballistic missiles in the 1950s, were not suitable for new space launch vehicles like the Saturn V. The Polynomial Guidance Mode (PGM), championed by Peenem¨undeveteran Rudolf Hoelker, used guidance polynomials derived from curve fits of nominal and dispersed optimal trajectories computed using the calculus of variations. PGM required extensive pre-flight computation but resulted in simple on-board software. Doris Chandler's team developed the Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) based on an idea of Peenem¨unde veteran Helmut Horn that involved Lawden's linear tangent steering law.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions for More Information on This Publication, Visit
    C O R P O R A T I O N ALAN J. VICK, SEAN M. ZEIGLER, JULIA BRACKUP, JOHN SPEED MEYERS Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4368 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0500-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The growing cruise and ballistic missile threat to U.S. Air Force bases in Europe has led Headquarters U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
    New version/vector logo/and vector type New version/bitmap logo/and outline type Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Reversed White Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy Management Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Program (FEMP) facilitates the Federal Government’s implementation of sound, cost-effective energy management and investment practices to enhance the nation’s energy security and environmental stewardship. PIX 17618 NASA’S MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER SAVES WATER WITH HIGH-EFFICIENCY TOILET AND URINAL PROGRAM Best Management Practice Case Study #6 — Toilets and Urinals Established in 1960, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has a longstanding, successful sustainability program that focuses on energy and water efficiency as well as environmental protection. MSFC’s key operations include propulsion and transportation systems for the space shuttle and Ares rockets. MSFC also provides advanced engineering and operations for International Space Station systems. Located in Huntsville, Alabama, adjacent to Redstone Arsenal, MSFC has more than 4.5 million square feet of building space occupied by 7,000 personnel.
    [Show full text]
  • General John E. Hyten
    General John E. Hyten Gen. John E. Hyten is Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), one of nine Unified Commands under the Department of Defense. USSTRATCOM is responsible for the global command and control of U.S. strategic forces to meet decisive national security objectives, providing a broad range of strategic capabilities and options for the President and Secretary of Defense. General Hyten attended Harvard University on an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship, graduated in 1981 with a bachelor's degree in engineering and applied sciences and was commissioned a second lieutenant. General Hyten's career includes assignments in a variety of space acquisition and operations positions. He served in senior engineering positions on both Air Force and Army anti-satellite weapon system programs. The general's staff assignments include tours with the Air Force Secretariat, the Air Staff, the Joint Staff and the Commander's Action Group at Headquarters Air Force Space Command as Director. He served as mission director in Cheyenne Mountain and was the last active-duty commander of the 6th Space Operations Squadron at Offutt AFB, Nebraska. In 2006, he deployed to Southwest Asia as Director of Space Forces for operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. General Hyten commanded the 595th Space Group and the 50th Space Wing at Schriever AFB, Colo. Prior to assuming command of Air Force Space Command, he served as the Vice Commander, Air Force Space Command. EDUCATION 1981 Bachelor's degree in engineering and applied sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 1985 Master of Business Administration degree, Auburn University, Montgomery, Ala.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update, April 14
    As of April 12, 2021 COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update Criteria for Lifting Travel Restrictions Step 1: Meet Installation Criteria (No Travel Restrictions, HPCON below Charlie, Essential Services Available, Quality Assurance in place for Movers) Step 2: Director of Administration and Management (DA&M), the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander approve lifting travel restrictions for an installation Step 1 criteria must be met before travel restrictions can be lifted for an installation by the DA&M, the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander. If installation conditions are subsequently not met, the approval authority decides if travel restrictions should be reinstated. Unrestricted travel is allowed for Service members or civilians between installations that have met the criteria of the Secretary of Defense memorandum on the conditions- based approach to personnel movement and travel dated March 15, 2021. If either installation does not meet the criteria, an exemption or waiver would be required. Travel Restrictions LIFTED at 147 of 230 Installations (64%) (Met: Step 1 & Step 2) Of the 147 installations with lifted travel restrictions this week, 0 reinstated travel restrictions while 2 lifted restrictions. 1 of 8 As of April 12, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Army USA - MD Yes ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT Army USA - AL No BAUMHOLDER H.D.SMITH BRCKS Army Germany Yes CAMP CASEY TONGDUCHON Army South Korea Yes CAMP DODGE Army USA - IA Yes CAMP HENRY Army South Korea Yes CAMP HUMPHREYS Army South Korea Yes CAMP ZAMA TOKYO Army Japan No CARLISLE BARRACKS Army USA - PA No DETROIT ARSENAL Army USA - MI No FORT BELVOIR Army USA - VA Yes FORT BENNING Army USA - GA No FORT BLISS Army USA - TX No FORT BRAGG Army USA - NC Yes FORT CAMPBELL Army USA - KY Yes FORT CARSON Army USA - CO Yes FORT CUSTER TRNG CTR Army USA - MI Yes FORT DETRICK Army USA - MD Yes FORT DRUM Army USA - NY Yes FORT GEORGE G.
    [Show full text]
  • West Gate on Schedule Photo by Steve Brady Entrance Will Re-Open in November, Relieve Load on North and East Gates
    COMMANDER’S CORNER: KEY WING EVENTS SUMMARY – PAGE 3 Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Thursday, September 20, 2007 Vol. 51 No. 25 West Gate on schedule Photo by Steve Brady Entrance will re-open in November, relieve load on North and East gates By Corey Dahl move it over to the right lane, and then the Space Observer gate was down to one lane coming onto Sitting in traffic at the North and East base,” Mr. Williams said. “We’re not going to gates might seem frustrating now, but, in a have that problem anymore. It’s going to be couple of months, it will all be a distant so much better.” memory. The new gatehouse will feature an over- Contractors are working six days a week hanging cover to protect gate guards and putting the finishing touches on the $12.7 anyone performing augmentee duty from million West Gate renovation project, which the weather. is nearly 80 percent complete. Barring any And the new visitor’s center, which will fall snowstorms, the gate is on track to re- more than double in size, will help open Nov. 4, said Roger Williams, military streamline the process for getting guests construction inspector with the 21st Civil on base. Engineer Squadron. Until everything opens, though, Peterson “It’s definitely on schedule,” he said. employees and residents will have to con- “Unless we have really bad weather in tinue to bear with delays at the North and October, there’s no reason we won’t open East gates. on time.” Mr. Williams said CE is working on Construction continues in earnest at the West Gate; the re-opening ceremony is slated for Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update, August 25, 2021
    As of August 23, 2021 COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update Criteria for Lifting Travel Restrictions Step 1: Meet Installation Criteria (No Travel Restrictions, HPCON below Charlie, Essential Services Available, Quality Assurance in place for Movers) Step 2: Director of Administration and Management (DA&M), the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander approve lifting travel restrictions for an installation Step 1 criteria must be met before travel restrictions can be lifted for an installation by the DA&M, the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander. If installation conditions are subsequently not met, the approval authority decides if travel restrictions should be reinstated. Unrestricted travel is allowed for Service members or civilians between installations that have met the criteria of the Secretary of Defense memorandum on the conditions- based approach to personnel movement and travel dated March 15, 2021. If either installation does not meet the criteria, an exemption or waiver would be required. Travel Restrictions LIFTED at 190 of 230 Installations (83%) (Met: Step 1 & Step 2) Of the 190 installations with lifted travel restrictions this week, 4 reinstated travel restrictions while 0 lifted restrictions. 1 of 8 As of August 23, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Army USA - MD Yes ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT Army USA - AL Yes BAUMHOLDER H.D.SMITH BRCKS Army Germany Yes CAMP CASEY TONGDUCHON Army South Korea Yes CAMP DODGE Army USA - IA Yes CAMP HENRY Army South Korea Yes CAMP HUMPHREYS Army South Korea Yes CAMP ZAMA TOKYO Army Japan Yes CARLISLE BARRACKS Army USA - PA Yes DETROIT ARSENAL Army USA - MI Yes FORT BELVOIR Army USA - VA Yes FORT BENNING Army USA - GA Yes FORT BLISS Army USA - TX Yes FORT BRAGG Army USA - NC Yes FORT CAMPBELL Army USA - KY Yes FORT CARSON Army USA - CO Yes FORT CUSTER TRNG CTR Army USA - MI Yes FORT DETRICK Army USA - MD Yes FORT DRUM Army USA - NY Yes FORT GEORGE G.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 an Anthology of the Distinguished Achievements in Science and Technique. Part 50: Rocket-Space Technology Designer Wernher
    Electrical Engineering. Great Events. Famous Names UDC 629.7:930.1 doi: 10.20998/2074-272X.2019.4.01 M.I. Baranov AN ANTHOLOGY OF THE DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVEMENTS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNIQUE. PART 50: ROCKET-SPACE TECHNOLOGY DESIGNER WERNHER VON BRAUN AND HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN MISSILE DESIGN Purpose. Preparation of short scientifically-historical essay about one of founders of world rocket production, distinguished German-American designer of modern space-rocket technique Wernher von Braun. Methodology. Known scientific methods of collection, analysis and analytical treatment of scientific and technical information, touching becoming and development in the world of space-rocket technique and resulted in scientific monographs, journals and internet-reports. Results. A short scientifically-historical essay is presented about the distinguished German-American designer of space-rocket technique Wernher von Braun, becoming one of founders of world rocket production. Basic scientific and technical achievements of talented and purposeful scientist Doctor of Physics Wernher von Braun in area of modern rocket production, getting over on persistent initiative of the American special services after the defeat of Germany in World War II in the USA (1945) for continuation of the work in area of missile technology (he was the main designer of the German battle ballistic rocket V-2 of midrange with a liquid rocket engine (LRE), created in 1944), carrying military-strategic character by that time. It is shown that Wernher von Braun is the founder of the space program of the USA and leader of developments of the American pilot-controlled spaceships of series «Apollo» within the framework of the Lunar program of the USA.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Military Space Operation in Facts and Figures
    2009 Space Almanac The US military space operation in facts and figures. Compiled by Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, and the staff of Air Force Magazine This almanac was compiled by Air Force Magazine, with assistance and information from Celinda Marsh, OMB, Science and Space Branch; researcher Joseph J. Burger; researcher Jeremy Singer; and US Strate- gic Command and Air Force Space Command Public Affairs Offices. Figures that appear in this section will not always agree because of different cutoff dates, rounding, or dif- ferent methods of reporting. The information is intended to illustrate trends in space activity. 52 AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2009 0.05G 60,000 miles Geosynchronous Earth orbit 22,300 miles Hard vacuum 1,000 miles Medium Earth orbit begins 300 miles 0.95G 100 miles Low Earth orbit begins 60 miles Astronaut wings awarded 50 miles Limit for ramjet engines 28 miles Limit for turbojet engines 20 miles Stratosphere begins 10 miles Artist’s conception by Erik Simonsen Illustration not to scale AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2009 53 US Military Missions in Space Space Support Space Force Enhancement Space Control Space Force Application Deploy, launch, and sustain mili- Provide satellite command and Ensure freedom of action in space Provide capabilities for the ap- tary and intelligence systems control communications, posi- for the US and its allies and, plication of combat operations in space. tioning, navigation, and timing; when directed, deny an adversary in, through, and from space to environmental monitoring; mis- freedom of action in space. influence the course and outcome sile warning; and intelligence- of conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Field Artillery Rockets, Missiles, and The
    A BRIEF HISTORY OF FIELD ARTILLERY ROCKETS, MISSILES, AND THE THREAT Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 heralded the beginning of the atomic age, often called the nuclear age. Initially, the American defense establishment made strategic atomic weapons and airpower its number one priority to deter aggression and relegated the ground forces to a distant second. The Soviet acquisition of the atomic bomb in 1949, the fall of China to the communists in 1949, and the Korean War of the early 1950s, however, energized the Army to develop tactical atomic field artillery rockets and guided missiles to augment a conventional atomic cannon and to complement strategic atomic weapons. After the Korean War and through the 1980s, the Soviet-Warsaw Pact threat motivated the Army and the Field Artillery to continue modernizing and expanding their tactical nuclear weapons arsenal. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact in the 1990s, the need for tactical nuclear weapons disappeared. This emboldened the President of the United States, George H.W. Bush, to eliminate country’s tactical nuclear weapons and forced Army and the Field Artillery to rely upon long-range conventional rockets and missiles to counter international threats to national security. FIRST GENERATION OF NUCLEAR ROCKETS AND MISSILES Following World War Two, the American military community concluded that an air-delivered atomic bomb (a fission bomb in which the atom nucleus was split to generate energy) represented the ultimate weapon. President Harry Truman and the American defense community relied upon the threat of the atomic bomb as the nation’s first line of defense to deter and even halt an invasion of West Europe by the numerically superior Soviet army.
    [Show full text]
  • (FY) 2019 Budget Estimates Military Construction Family Housing
    Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Estimates Military Construction Family Housing Defense-Wide Justification Data Submitted to Congress February 2018 FY 2019 Budget Estimates Military Construction, Defense-Wide Table of Contents Page No. State List ii Budget Appendix vii Special Program Considerations viii Agency/Activity Summary x Agencies – Inside And Outside U.S. Defense Health Agency 1 Defense Logistics Agency 19 DoD Dependents Education Activity 73 Missile Defense Agency 99 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 109 National Security Agency 121 U.S. Special Operations Command 134 Washington Headquarters Services 203 Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program 214 Secretary of Defense Contingency Construction 215 Unspecified Minor Construction 217 Planning and Design 219 FYDP 221 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)/European 229 Deterrence Initiative Preparation of the Defense-Wide budget, excluding revolving funds, cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $1,150,000 in FY 2018. i FY 2019 Base Military Construction, Defense-Wide ($ in Thousands) New/ Authorization Approp. Current Page State/Installation/Project Request Request Mission No. Alaska Defense Logistics Agency Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Operations Facility Replacement 14,000 14,000 C 22 Missile Defense Agency Clear Air Force Station Long Range Discrimination Radar System Complex Phase 2 174,000 174,000 N 101 Fort Greely Missile Field #1 Expansion 8,000 8,000 C 106 Arkansas Defense Logistics Agency Little Rock Air Force Base
    [Show full text]