Most powerful laser

Foxnews, July 2012

...a laser test facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif. -- turned on its 192 laser beams for a scant instant the day after the nation celebrated its birth, unleashing a record-setting 1.85-megajoule blast into a target chamber that delivered more than 500 trillion watts of power....In the historic test, NIF's 192 lasers fired within a few trillionths of a second of each other onto a 2-millimeter-diameter target. Beyond its sheer power, the beam-to-beam uniformity was within 1 percent, making NIF not only the highest energy laser of its kind but the most precise and reproducible.

How does that compare with microwave beams being proposed for the use of launching spacecraft?

According to a previous post, the amount of energy needed for the MAB should be less than .01% of this, but it will need to be supplied over a much longer time period.  It takes about 8 minutes or so to reach orbit.  The spacecraft won't need any energy to get back, if I am correct.

How to get an reusable rocket

At the risk of getting a reaction that goes something like this: "If you're so smart, why don't you do this yourself", I offer this proposition for a reusable rocket design.

Rather than using a RP1/LOX type rocket that Musk is planning to use for his reusable rocket second stage, why not use a LH2/LOX rocket instead?  Here are the calculations that would add 40% of mass to each stage and still get the same payload to orbit.

Instead of going to orbit the way he does, you would slow down the first stage and speed up the second.  The second stage, by virtue of having the higher ISP rocket design, will be able to make up the difference and do it with less propellant.  Happily, that gives us margin on both stages for more mass to do the reusable thingy.

Now these calculations are estimates and are subject to error.  However, even with error, it does not refute my basic point.  That is this:  using a higher ISP rocket for the second stage improves the odds of getting a reusable design.

Using the rule of adding 40% to the mass for a reusable rocket, this procedure is capable of delivering that extra mass in two ways: 1) by using less mass in the first stage and 2) by using less mass in the second stage due to higher ISP.  Compare the ISP of the second stage Falcon (column D) with the second stage modified ( Column G).  The difference is over 4k kgs, which is added to the dry mass in order to make it reusable.  The first stage Falcon has 47.9k kg of propellant cut off, and then adds back in 10k kg in dry mass for reusability.  This slows down the first stage velocity, but the higher performance 2nd stage can make up the velocity and still add mass for reusability.

A hydrogen rocket doesn't help that much when lifted off the ground.  It gains the most advantage as a second stage.  The Apollo Era Saturn V did this.

This isn't a mission to the moon though, as the Saturn V fulfilled a different set of parameters.

Note that the entire rocket now weighs 37900 kg less.  The higher ISP lets us economize on the use of propellant.

Update:

A couple ideas occurred to me since I posted this ditty.  One, that you could add propellant back into the first stage, while keeping everything else constant.  That gives the rocket the same mass it has at present.  Two, with the extra mass added in, you could use that for reusability of the first stage.

One problem, though.  There's not enough mass.  A proposition to solve that problem would be to make it an airbreather on the way down.  That would enable the use of more propellant so as to execute a reverse trajectory on the way down.  That may be an oversimplification, so take that under advisement.

As for the second stage, you may have the same problem, with the same proposed solution.

Op-Ed: Humans evolving into bigger idiots? Stanford professor thinks so

digitaljournal via Free Republic

Alternet.org reports:
...Crabtree argues that “human intelligence may have actually peaked before our ancient predecessors ever left Africa...Genetic mutations during the past several millennia are causing a decline in overall human intellectual and emotional fitness...Evolutionary pressure no longer favors intellect, so the problem is getting exponentially worse.”

The Idiocracy has arrived 500 years earlier than expected.

Things really do seem to be doing downhill.

SR-71 "Blackbird" Spyplane, MAB part 5

Part 5 of a series.

Another brainstorm.  You know, the visuals of this thing is a lot like what I'm imagining for the MAB ( Microwave Air-Launched Booster).  The delta wing could be where the two big engines would be for the airbreathing booster, which is powered by microwaves.  The delta wing part itself would also hold the heat exchangers that would convert atmospheric air into superheated reaction mass that would power the aircraft.  The center part would hold the S4B type LH2/LOX powered conventional rocket that would take a payload to orbit.  All components would be reusable.

The SR-71A's mass would be about half the mass of the entire assembly.  It would fly about the same speed, perhaps a bit faster, and would fly at about the same altitude.  It would be air launched from a Stratolaunch type vehicle.  The entire mass of the assembly would be less than that of Stratolauncher, which will launch a Falcon type rocket to orbit.

Wikipedia: SR-71A specs ( Updated )

Update:

Can't find part 4, so it must be a link up above which is forms the basis of this concept.  Part 6 is here.

Next Big Future: Spacex will make Methane rocket for Mars

Next Big Future: Spacex will make Methane rocket for Mars: Flightglobal - SpaceX intends to build a methane/liquid oxygen (Lox) engine, said founder Elon Musk, in a shift away from the highly refined...

Comment:

There are some interesting comments in that section.  Musk has his critics and he has his supporters.

As for me, I think that his ideas could use some refinement.  A reusable rocket could be possible, but not the way he's going.  Very presumptuous of me to say, but there it is.

One expert from the Space Show said that you needed to add 40% to the mass of the rocket in order to make it reusable.  That's a show stopper.  Mass is the big enemy here.  You have to reduce mass.

Interesting read on tax deductions

This wasn't a big issue for me in the recent campaign.  As noted in the following article, Romney mentioned how he could pay for his rate reductions by capping deductions.  For the purposes of this post, I won't rehash the election.  Let's just look at what may be possible today.

1.  Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten years if we cut all rates by 20 percent and eliminate the AMT.  [comment:  Basically, this was Romney's proposal.  ] 
2. Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain.
3. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over ten years.
4. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion.

Since Romney lost, #1 is off the table.  Number 3 and eliminating the AMT would do two things:

1. It would make the tax code "more progressive" since it would affect the wealthy more.  
2. The AMT brings middle income taxpayers into higher tax brackets.  Therefore, eliminating helps middle income taxpayers.

Number 4 would yield less revenue, but nearly as much as Obama is demanding.  Evidently, you can do this by keeping the Bush tax cuts and making them permanent.

Overall, I don't think this is much worth arguing about.  That's because my position is that revamping the tax code isn't going to make much difference in terms of creating jobs and economic growth.  What does matter to me is that the code should not become the ridiculous mess it once was and Obama is threatening to make it yet again.

Raising tax rates as Krugman indicates will only lead to more loopholes.  There's no way that the rich will pay 90% tax rates.  That's not going to happen.  It didn't happen in the past even though the top rate was that high because all kinds of loopholes were added.  Raising rates should be a non-starter.

One more thing I thought about.  You could raise the allowable deduction for charitable donations.  In fact, you could make this very generous so as to allow the upper income people to put their money where their mouth is and actually help people with their money.  That is, to stop the stupid rhetoric of "please tax me".

Update:

Not everybody likes this.  Could it be part of a negotiation?  A negotiation has a starting point.  It isn't necessarily the end point.

Thoughts are transient things, but so are a lot of things

Better make a note of an interesting thought before it gets away.

Just prior to this post, I was reading about Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church.  It is said to be the biggest church in the United States now, or something similar to that.  There's criticism that I've seen a number of times about his ministry.  Osteen replies something to the effect that he wants to be positive.

That reminded me of something.  When I was a kid, my parents took me to Sunday services which included an old time fire and brimstone type sermon.  This turned me off to religion for decades.  Now that I am a bit older, I realize that a youngster is not prepared to deal with such a blistering torrent of truth about human nature.  A kid just doesn't have the experience of the world yet to know that this is really where the human experience is like.  People are not nice sometimes, you know.  Or perhaps, I don't need to tell you.

So, I can relate to those who criticize Osteen.  I can also relate to Osteen.  I can understand why he doesn't go fire and brimstone.  People can't handle it.  They want to believe that everything is goodness and light.  If you lay that fire and brimstone on them, they will get turned off and they will leave.

You can also relate that to the recent election.  Romney didn't go fire and brimstone on Obama.  But Obama did that to Romney.  I figure that Romney felt the way that I think Osteen does----that people really can't handle the truth about this President.  So Romney went bean bag.  He went soft on Obama, while Obama creamed him.  The people wanted to believe that Romney was bad and that Obama is good.  Now, if Romney did go negative on Obama like he should have, it may have backfired.  That's the risk one takes when one tries to tell the truth.  If you tell the truth, it may not be accepted.

What we may have here is a bias against the Republicans and conservatism in general.  Hence, Rush Limbaugh can say "we lost the country".  But the truth cannot be lost.  It can only not be seen.  Truth exists.  You should never withhold truth.  If somebody will not accept what you say, that is a problem with themselves.  It is like my youth.  I had to learn about the truth through experience.  If he laid out the truth and events showed the way he said was the truth, the people would have turned to him for leadership.  An example?  Churchill during World War II.  Churchill warned about Hitler only to be shouted down.  As events showed later, Churchill was right.

The moral:  A leader doesn't lie to his people.

He that has an ear, let him hear.

Do you think Obama is telling us the truth?  If so, why is there a bit of disquiet in the land?

AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie)

via Free Republic

Watch the movie here. It is long--- over 1 1/2 hours.

Some of what I've watched so far reminds me of what Gramscii advocated.  Basically, the things that you see are the things that they advocated.  However, it is presented as "progress".  The term "progressive" has been touted instead of "liberal", as people are being fooled into accepting what they would not accept if it were presented honestly.

Update:

Finished watching the video.  It is nothing that I haven't seen before elsewhere.  But it is in a compact form.  Not everyone will agree with it, but it is thought provoking--- if you dare to do such a thing as to think.

For those of you on the left, that daring part is to acknowledge the truth of what is in the movie.  That is, if the truth even matters to you anymore.  For those of you on the right, it reaffirms most of what you already believe to be true, but those who you mean to instruct may not be interested in hearing about it.

That may be the crux of the problem.

I don't believe that the entire nation or even a majority has been swayed that much by these leftists.  It would only take the insistence of presenting the truth to people that they may finally see it and understand it for what it is.

The proof of that is evident in how the truth is shielded from the public all the time.  The far left fears the truth.  That's their great weakness.

You go for their weakness as they go for yours.

Wal-Mart vs. the Mob

Michelle Malkin via Free Republic

From the comments section (Malkin):

On November 23rd, 2012 at 12:40 pm, AZ Tumbleweed said:

My prescription insurance carrier just notified me that Walmart is no longer a “preferred Pharmacy”… I contacted them and asked if it was because Walmart was non-union, and she said Yes!! I can’t believe she told me the truth, but I think she was shocked that I asked the question.

The unions want this war with Walmart. I guess Walmart can’t buy their way out.

Good lord.  What have the people done to themselves?

We didn't even have to wait 500 years

Brawndo equals Windpower

Spreadsheet calculations for microwave airbreather replacement for first stage

Third post in this series:

Part 1 :  Try lifting on a 747
Part 2:    Use the Stratolaunch concept to lift to 30k feet

Update:

Almost forgot this post.  It is about the nuclear airplane concept from the Cold War, which is being adapted here by eliminating the reactor and beaming the energy via microwave to the aircraft.

This is the "show your work" part of this discussion.  That is, in terms of the rocket equation.

What is being attempted here is to lift an aeroshell based upon the X-33 shape with a separate conventional rocket attached.  It will use a microwave beam as energy to lift to the altitude and velocity that a first stage rocket accomplishes.  Also like the first stage conventional rocket, it will release the second stage to go on to orbit.

This first stage replacement will use Kevin Parkins' doctoral thesis --- it will include a microwave beam that will heat an onboard heat exchanger that will propel the reaction mass for thrust.  The reaction mass will be the atmosphere itself.  ( That part was NOT a part of his thesis--- it is my idea) This will preclude the need for propellant and thus lighten the mass needed to achieve orbit.

The Stratolauncher's purpose is to provide initial velocity and input into the airbreather.  Also to allow for a horizontal launch.

In the spreadsheet, I tried several combinations of isp's and masses in order to calculate the margins for these variables.  I found that the Falcon 9 engines would suffice for orbit, but not necessarily for reusability.  A hydrogen / lox engine, such as a J2X engine, which is postulated here, will be required.

The base stack includes the mass of a s4b rocket plus the J2X.  The capsule will be a Gemini type capsule used in the Apollo program.

As can be seen in the second column titled "ISP", lowering isp from 448 to 437.5 "blows up" the propellant numbers to an unacceptable amount.  The need is to maximize isp so as to make reusability feasible.  The J2X's isp numbers assume a vacuum, which may not be the case.  However, there's plenty of margin for error.

The 26k kg base rocket stack includes capsule, base s4b rocket, plus 40% additional mass for reusability.  The 40% estimate came from my recollection of a discussion on the Space Show.  The name of the guest who gave that estimate eludes me at the moment, and the recollection could be faulty.  But that is what I'm going on.  This estimate provides 7500 kg margin for error on the mass side.  Lowering isp will eat into this margin, but I'm guessing that this number will hold up.

I'm guessing that this part of the analysis can safely conclude that the idea can work.





Update:

Next in series.

About that Fiscal Cliff

John Stossel, Reason

I won't lose sleep over automatic spending cuts. The "fiscal cliff" frightens me less than the bankruptcy cliff.

The "cuts" aren't cuts at all.  They're only reductions in the rate of growth.

The old baseline budgeting trick, indeed.

Worst call Evah?

Might be.  You take 'em as well as you give 'em.  The Texans have been screwed a few times in the past.  Might be payback.

Payback is a bitch.  Hopefully, this doesn't go the other way in the playoffs or Super Bowl.

Thanksgiving Celebrates Our 'Original Sin,' 'Views Virtually Identical To Nazis,' Prof Preaches

Free Republic

According to Jensen, Thanksgiving is “at the heart of U.S. myth-building. “But in the United States, this reluctance to acknowledge our original sin -- the genocide of indigenous people -- is of special importance today,” he explained.

The danger I see is the opposite.  This kind of thinking that Jensen espouses is destroying this country and Europe too.  It is driven by guilt.  Those who are driving it are trying to make people feel guilty.  The guilt is used to manipulate people and to gain power.

Why oblige them?

There are two sides to every story.  Every story of alleged wrongdoing back then would have another side.  But everyone alive then is now dead.  The dead cannot defend themselves. The wronged parties are also dead.  Nothing you can do now can reverse the injustice done back then.

The bottom line is that you don't apologize or feel guilty about being successful.

Besides, even if he is exactly right- that there's abundant proof of wrongdoing, it wasn't done by anyone now alive.  Therefore, the guilt is not going to change that, nor will it lead to justice.  Justice can only occur when those who are guilty are punished for their crimes.  If a person isn't guilty, then punishment for nonexistent guilt is also a crime.

It is also against the Constitution which forbids ex post facto laws and punishment for people who are related by blood (corruption of blood).

It is also wrong to impose some type of group guilt with punishment imposed for simply being who you are.

It is illogical and manipulative.  If there's anything that would help this country more than anything, that would be for people like this to be discredited.  But that doesn't appear to be in the cards.

Correction Nearly Done....Theory and Evidence Provided by Four Charts

kitco commentary,  David Petch

This will make your eyes bug out, or roll:

When gold takes out $1800/ounce, it will create a move that powers well above the $1900/ounce...this is due to the significant amount of price action and time required to correct the top. Gold is expected to top out anywhere between $2500-3074/ounce before the end of August 2013. If $3000/ounce is hit, then a 61.8% retracement of the move from the end of wave [X] is expected, or $2200/ounce. This move down should occur between Q3 and Q4 2014, which will subsequently see gold go to anywhere from $6000-10,000/ounce. In order to balance all global debts by 2020, I calculated a valuation of $30,000/ounce would be required. I do not think the price will get to this level, but one thing I can guarantee....if gold goes above $7000/ounce, gold should be owned over stocks because most countries will be nationalizing mines for financial security.

We may be about to see a huge move in the gold markets, if this is correct.

Look at the fundamentals, one by one:

1. Political:  Barak Obama is still President.  That means no new trend here.  Obama has been good for gold.  No reason to think otherwise now.
2. The Fed is going to keep interest rates at near zero.  A point may have been reached which forces them to keep it at zero, because higher interest rates will cause the deficit to zoom higher.
3. There's no political will to address fundamental budget issues.  That means borrowing will continue in order to fund the deficit, with the Fed providing the necessary purchasing power to buy the bonds that are needed to fund such a deficit.  Taxing the rich will not raise the money needed.  This means the money supply will continue to be diluted.  To put it another way, inflation is bound to come and when it does, it could be devastating.
4. The US is moving towards a weaker defense posture while the bad actors are moving toward a stronger one.  This will eventually mean war, whether the peaceniks like it or not.
5. The US Dollar as a reserve currency could be over if the US loses a war.  That is where we are probably headed.
6. If the dollar takes a big hit, the domestic situation could become dire.  Gold thrives in periods of instability.

Everything points to higher gold prices.  But don't mention this to Paul Krugman.  He doesn't think we are experiencing any inflation, and isn't opposed to that even if we do.

Rush: The Real Story of Thanksgiving

rush limbaugh

Bradford wrote. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years... that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God. ... For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense.'"[emphasis added]

Comment:

In other words, the 1% didn't cause the 99% to suffer.  It is the other way around.

Be careful what you wish for

Because you might get it.

From Instapundit, two links which are about higher taxes.

1. Blue states fear loss of state income tax deduction
2. A proposal for a true Buffett tax.

All of these Democrat big-wigs saying "please tax me" just might get their wish.  That is, if the Republicans are smart enough to put it on the table in the negotiations.

Bill Whittle for President

link to Bill Whittle video on David Horowitz and blip tv, via Instapundit

Whittle says what should be obvious, but apparently isn't to our leadership.

You can go back and say "what if" all that you want, but until you get someone who will actually defend what this country is all about, you'll end up with the likes of Obama.  Whittle, if not a candidate, is a model of how to do this.  Now someone needs to come up front row and center and get it done ( dammit) .

X-33, part 2

Continuation from Part 1

It looks like this is a no-go as is.  That's because the X-33 is too heavy.  Since the idea is to use the microwave booster as an airbreather, the need is to keep the velocity down for an airbreather since excessive velocity will result in cooling problems.  That's to say, theoretically the microwave booster can do it, but the airbreather can't handle it.  You want to keep velocity down somewhere between Mach 3 and Mach 5.5.  Mach 3 is where the Blackbird flew, and Mach 5.5 is where the Skylon will revert to conventional rocket mode.

Calculations for the needed boost velocity from the microwave booster were well above Mach 5.5 for the X-33.  So much for the X-33.

The idea now is to use an S-IVB type rocket on top of the 747, or the catapult used on aircraft carriers.  A 747 airlaunch may not be feasible if the mass gets too high.  It is right there on the edge of feasibility on weight alone.   Besides, this thing already weighs in much more than a Shuttle.

It looks like an S4B ( using this as it's easier to type!) with an uprated J2X engine can actually reach orbit like this without a boost from the microwave.  But it wouldn't be reusable, and this is a goal.  If you didn't mind throwing away the S4B after every launch, you could still use the 747.

The most favorable mass allowance would be for an S4B powered by the microwave boost.  This gives nearly double the mass of the basic empty weight of the stack in order to make it resuable.  But this extra weight is butting up against the weigh limitations of the 747.

Something just occurred to me.  You could use a Stratolaunch concept in order to airlaunch the whole setup, as opposed to a 747.  The Stratolaunch is designed to launch something that weighs almost twice as much as the S4B.  Add this as a third option giving the 747, catapult, or the Stratolauncher.

It's fair to say that if Musk's rocket can get to space on a Stratolauncher, the S4B can do so as well as it is a more powerful rocket and weighs less.  Musk's rocket uses RP1 jet fuel instead of hydrogen.  Its ISP is much lower and therefore must carry much more fuel.  This adds to its mass.

Now back to the microwave booster.  Let's say that you had 500k lbs of mass allowance for the system- per Stratolaunch.  That would leave nearly double the weight of the S4B which could be used to make it reusable.  You would do this through using the microwave booster module attached to it in order to get it to first stage type velocity and altitude.  That should leave enough mass allowance left over from these maneuvers in order to make the S4B recoverable and reusable.

The microwave booster would be an airbreather.  It would carry no fuel.  It would get its thrust from heating the air to superheated temperatures and then expelling it as thrust.  The goal would be to reach a velocity of between Mach 3 and Mach 5.5 and an altitude of 100k feet.  The Stratolaunch would release it along with the S4B still attached at lower altitudes where the microwave booster would take over to get the rest of the altitude and velocity.  The airbreather module would be reusable itself and return to base like a glider.

Question:  Now that we have more mass, is the X-33 airframe now a feasible option?  Possible, but you need it to be bigger and heavier than the original design.  Otherwise, it would still need too much of a boost from the microwave.  Stick with the S4B.

You could use an X-33 type airframe for the microwave booster that could carry the S4B inside of it.  You could place the S4B inside of it and leave the inside part of the X-33 empty.  The S4B would take the space of the fuel tanks inside of the X-33.  The rest of the X-33 could be similar- except that it must be an airbreather.

Operationally, the S4B would come out and then you would have to plug that big hole.  Maybe with an inflatable device or a cover of some kind.

.aerospaceweb.org

Wikipedia size comparisons of large aircraft v. Stratolaunch

Update:

Part 3 of the series.

Is the USA in a pre-revolutionary mode?

Reposted from here

Ann Barnhardt said:

ObamaCare is not being repealed. The only way to get rid of it is either a junta or a civil war and establishing a Second American Republic.

Perhaps it would be useful to go back to first principles. Number one is the founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.

The Constitution does provide for a means to make significant changes to the government or to even break up the Union. With respect to the Civil War Era, a constitutional convention could have legally accomplished what they tried to do by military force. Going back and repeating that error will likely lead to the same results or worse. If the government is truly oppressive and must be changed, the people still have the right to vote to alter and abolish it. If that is suppressed, and if it is clearly the will of the people to alter and abolish the current system, then we have a revolutionary situation on our hands. At the moment, that does not appear to be the case to me. [ Update: Note: With the reelection of Obama, we just got a lot closer to that.]

However, there was a poll recently which said that we don't have a government that has the consent of the governed. The government tends to ignore what the people want. Those in government are not honoring their oath of office. The respective political parties are showing more loyalty to themselves than to the Constitution for which they have given an oath to support and defend. This is betrayal to their oath and to the Constitution, and to the people. This is inconsistent with principles- among them is the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. Therefore, we may be heading in a revolutionary direction.

The Declaration provides the justification for rebellion should the Constitutional option fail.

Once having decided to rebel, you had better find an organization that can pull it off.

A civil war is not the rule of law. To propose that is to go down a slippery slope towards the rule of men.

You still have a lawful, legal option to deal with this situation as it stands now. That should be attempted first. If that doesn't work, then it means that the rule of law has broken down. Then it is a matter of fighting or surrendering to what is in fact an unlawful authority. Ann Barnhardt is on shaky ground. But the very ground under our feet is shifting.

Everybody knows it.

Update:

With respect to Roberts decision, I think it would have been consistent with the Constitution if the law was actually written as a tax. But is it a tax? Clearly, it wasn't written to be interpreted as a tax. Those who passed this law deny that it is a tax. So how is it a tax?

If it were written as a tax, there would be no argument. But the Court has rewritten the law so that it would be in conformance with the Constitution. That's the problem.

Judge Robert Bork wrote a book in the nineties which, among many things, dealt with how to overturn bad Court decisions. He suggested an amendment that would allow Congress to set aside bad decisions like this one. I note that he suggested supermajorities in Congress could overturn Court decisions. That seems to be too high of a bar to overcome.

But such an amendment, if passed, would not repeal this law. That's because Congress is divided. The House would repeal it, most likely. But the Senate would not.

There is also the possibility of removal from office. But that would be counter productive. A liberal would be appointed in his place.

The only thing left, aside from open rebellion, is the ballot box. If you lose there, you are out of options.

What do you do when the Court exceeds its authority? What do you do when a President exceeds his authority? What do you do when the Congress exceeds its authority?

What do you do if the people don't care if the government is out of control?

Seems like you are running out of options.

That's the issue that may have to be decided extra legally. This is what can happen if you don't play by the rules. The losers see a rigged game and decide not to play this game anymore.

Update:

The term in the title "pre revolution" is discussed here in terms of the American Revolution as a timeline. We are not at the Patrick Henry moment. We may be closer to "No Taxation without Representation" than the Declaration of Independence. There was a revolution over taxes, and this was the kickoff.

Lift an X-33 like the Shuttle using a 747

Updated: First of a series.  Part 2 here.

Mash up of the specs of an SIV-B rocket, plus the X-33 ( VentureStar SSTO), plus the Shuttle.  The Shuttle gave me the idea of putting the X-33 on top of a 747 and air launching the X-33 to orbit.  Feasible?

The 747 can manage the weight, I believe, but would it be airworthy?  Secondly, would the additional altitude be enough to allow it to get to orbit without additional weight?

A jet power requirement for the microwave powered x-33 aeroshell to orbit is also provided. Another question is what if you were to incorporate this idea into the final design ( somehow)?

Rather than use a catapult to get airborne, instead put the X-33 type larger shell which has the real X-33 inside it or on top of it.   The X-33 larger shell would be an airbreather with no fuel tank.  It would  utilize superheated atmosphere provided by microwave energy from the ground for thrust.

Operationally, the 747 releases the X-33 larger shell, which in turn lifts the still attached X-33 to a higher altitude and velocity.  From there, the larger shell releases the X-33, which then flies to orbit.

Probably too complicated and too much mass, though.

Why lift the X-33 at all?  Wasn't it supposed to be SSTO?  Well, the idea is to get maximum efficiency out of a hydrogen/oxygen engine.  At lower altitudes, you lose a lot of ISP.  It is much more efficient at a vaccuum or near vacuum.  That saves mass and therefore makes it easier to get to orbit with a smaller vehicle.  But the 747 doesn't fly high enough or fast enough, so that's why you add the second ( larger X-33 shell).  You make that an airbreather in order to avoid carrying any fuel.  The energy would be provided from the ground.

The boost would hopefully get it up to an altitude and velocity equal to a first stage conventional rocket.

sources: Parkins thesis, Wikipedia X-33, Shuttle, Boeing 747

I don't bow to the majority

I flip them off.

That's why I'm not popular.  But I like being me.  I see you, but I don't wanna be you.

Massie: Understanding the bitter black mindset

WND editorial

quote:

Whether or not people are offended by the truth should be the least of the concerns. That is why I have been advocating for years the need for unapologetic, fearless conservatives to broadcast programming on urban airwaves.[ emphasis added]

Comment:

The strong horse weak horse phenomenon.  The willingness to use force is interpreted as strength.  Fear of the threat is interpreted as weakness.  The aggressor will win.  Timidity in the face of aggression will always fail.

No guts, no glory.

Nice guys finist last.  Etc. Etc.

It gets repetitious to keep stating what should be obvious, but there it is.

Rick Ackerman: The Looters Are in Control

Zero Hedge via Free Republic

Or "Give me free shit, or give me death."

• The big banks will mask their insolvency with free money from the Feds.
• Foreign nations are no longer purchasing U.S. government bonds.
• Capital export controls will be enacted. You will not be able to get your money out of the country. 
• Regulations will stop the advent of fracking and the boom in oil and natural gas will come to an abrupt halt.
• finally, Israel has recognized that Mr. Obama will offer no succor. Before the end of January, they will raid Iran. Gasoline will reach $7 per gallon, and voila, solar and wind energy will be competitive. No matter that your thermostat is set at 40 degrees, if you can get fuel or power.

In short, if everybody steals from everybody, nobody has anything.  However, our government, in all its great wisdom, has managed to convince the majority that everybody stealing from everybody will make you rich.

We are going to see how that works, morons.

Waging A Scorched Earth Political War Over the Fiscal Cliff | Alan Charles Itzkoff

Waging A Scorched Earth Political War Over the Fiscal Cliff | Alan Charles Itzkoff

Rather than just surrendering, Boehner and House Republicans should start playing hard ball with the Democrats force them to make some unpalatable political choices for a change. 

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

Herb Cohen: Negotiate This

Should the Republicans hire this guy?  Goodness knows, they need to do something.

Hostess pensioners lost their pensions, employees lost their jobs

a union of ding dongs--- knowledge is power blog

So rather than accept a 2% drop in their pensions to help keep the business afloat, these union workers now find themselves without jobs or pensions,

Is this dumb or what?  What credibility does the union have when they lose everything?

The big losers here are the unions.  Kudos for the company for going bankrupt and depriving the union of  its power.  The union and the company went eyeball to eyeball and the company didn't blink.  Good for them!

Now only if the Republicans can get this message, we may be onto a solution for our Obama problem.

How The Louisiana Purchase Happened! Dick Morris TV: History Video!

How The Louisiana Purchase Happened! Dick Morris TV: History Video!

Morris says that a slave revolt in Haiti made the USA, as we now know it, possible.

GOP Signals Fold on Tax Hikes

Rush Limbaugh

McConnell, we've got the sound bite, ready now to talk about revenues as long as there's talk of spending cuts, but you and I know that there won't be any of those because Obama doesn't have to cut any spending.

Comment:

It is like a death watch.  We are all standing around waiting for the GOP to croak itself by agreeing to tax rate increases.  This is something that the Democrats wouldn't do themselves when they had the power, now the Republicans have convinced themselves that they have to do it or get blamed for going over the fiscal cliff.

Go over the damned cliff and don't increase the debt.  What have you to lose?  You are going to lose anyway because of "demographics".  If not that, then pissing off the very people who support you.  This is a no win situation.  When there's a no win situation, just fall back on doing the right thing.

That's probably asking too much.

Update:

I recall something that I read once which discussed power.  It was in the book You Can Negotiate Anything, by Herb Cohen.  He mentioned the role of power in negotiations.  What he said about power stuck in my mind.  It went something like this:  Power is the ability to get things done...  If you think you have it, you have it---even if you don't.  If you think you don't have it, you don't have it--- even if you do.  The thing to do is to assume that you have the power you need and act as if you do and believe that you do.

The problem here is that the Republicans act as if they don't have any power and so they don't.

The Constitution gives the power of the purse to the House of Representatives.  If the GOP won't use that power which they do have, they lose all credibility.  So, even though they have the power, they don't.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have no power of the purse.  But they act as if they do.  They will be successful, unless something changes.

'Gifts': 2016 Frontrunners Already Caving to Media

breitbart

For days now, Romney's been blistered by the media for telling a truth about a political tactic that the media itself declared as smart politics in real-time as Obama practiced it. 

Comment:

The same thing happened with Benghazi.  Romney tells the truth about it, and the media goes nuts.  The mistake Romney made was to go dark about it afterward.  In addition, he shouldn't have backtracked at all about the 47% comment.  It is exactly what the problem is.  It is the very definition of the problem.  Without the ability nor the courage to state the truth, there is no way forward.

It is rather discouraging to see those who might run in 2016 trying to act like Democrats.  How will they have any credibility when the walls start caving in?

1987 Time Capsule Predictions ( for 2012 )

writersofthefuture via Free Republic

Comment:

A little discouraging to see so many writers think that we'd be on the Moon and Mars by now.

What about the next 25 years?

It could well be the case that humanity won't be any closer to that, or anything else dreamed of, such as world peace.  China might get to the Moon, though.  They seem to pushing in that direction.

There are plenty of things that could happen that would end that opportunity.  Particularly for those of us who live in the West.  The West could be on the way out in the next 25 years.  Nothing seems to be checking that trend.

The US will cease to be a free country.  The West will be defenseless without the US.

If the West crumbles, China may lose interest in space.  It is possible that they will duplicate the feat of Apollo and land on the Moon, but it will take more than just national pride to go further.  A bit of triumphalism after the fall of the West may not be enjoyed for long.

If space colonization doesn't take place after all, we might share the fate of the dinosaurs.  It's only a matter of time before some large extinction event occurs on this planet.  It has happened before.  It is only a matter of time.

Some of the writers seemed to be concerned about overpopulation.  It hasn't been as bad as thought.  Nature has a way of taking care of that.  One extinction event could deal with that problem in a hurry.

Some of the writers seemed concerned about AIDS.  Not so much anymore.

The concerns of the moment seem to come and go.  Fear of nuclear war has faded, but may come back as more countries go nuclear.  Israel's Iron Dome may become the norm rather than the exception.  Terrorists may attempt to sneak a nuclear device into a country.  They may even succeed in detonating one.  If that happens, international trade could suffer terribly.  The global system that depends upon trade may ultimately be destroyed this way.

Too many people extrapolate from the past into the future.  The last 200 years has been an anomaly.  Progress is the exception, not the rule.

Humanity's future may not be in the stars.  Our faults are not in the stars either, for they lie within us.  That may turn out to be the main reason that we still haven't gotten there, and why it seems that we will never get there.

Infinite ISP for a first stage launch system

Speculation alert:  This is an idea.

During the Cold War, there was a program to use a nuclear reactor to power an airplane. The benefits of such a design were meant to keep the plane flying indefinitely using the energy from the reactor in order to heat the atmosphere so as to produce thrust in order to keep the plane airborne.

It was thought to be an impractical idea and scrapped. There is another possibility that would not require the nuclear reactor to be onboard, but rather to supply energy to the plane's engines so as to keep it airborne. That is, to use Kevin Parkins' design of microwave energy for a horizontal liftoff and horizontal lander launch vehicle that would use atmospheric air as reaction mass in a first stage rocket plane.

There are some practical considerations to implementing this design. One thing is how to get the energy to the heat exchangers? I figured that the thing may need a boost from a catapult that are used on aircraft carriers. This catapult may need to be much larger though as it will be pushing something much bigger and heavier. Anyway, the catapult would fling the spacecraft forward at a speed close to what it would need to remain airborne while furnishing energy to the heat exchanger which produces the rest of the thrust needed to remain airborne after the catapult releases the spacecraft.

Such a design would not need to carry fuel as the atmosphere will supply that. Its payload would be similar to a Falcon 9 second stage with a capsule attached. I'm guesstimating, because I don't know, that this would be about 100k lbs of mass. The airframe that is carrying this payload would probably look a little like the shuttle.

It would have the heat exchanger located underneath with the payload perched on top of it. I'm guessing its mass would be less than the Falcon 9 first stage, since it doesn't have to carry fuel onboard. Its mass would entail the heat exchangers and plumbing and airframe to make it all work.

The ISP of this first stage would be infinity because there is no fuel. The reaction mass would be the atmosphere itself. It would liftoff to an alititude and achieve an airspeed equivalent to a Falcon 9 first stage and then release its payload which would then proceed to orbit.

Elon Musk intends his second stage to be reusable. Therefore, the entire system could be reusable.

The first stage would have flyback capability. It would not have to get outside the range of the beamed microwave energy source. It would use a corkscrew trajectory to gain altitude, then a short sprint after getting sufficient altitude that would be enough velocity so that the second stage can take over.

Update:

In order to answer the question about mass of the second stage Falcon 9, I merely took the ratio of the  entire rocket and its thrust.  Given the thrust of the second stage, I calculated the mass using the same ratio.  That number is actually less than 100k pounds.  It is about 70k.

A fully loaded Super Hornet that operates off aircraft carriers weighs in at about 66k lbs.  So, the final mass of the rocket plus airframe shouldn't be all that much more than a Super Hornet.

There are other possibilities for obtaining the necessary lift to enable a horizontal liftoff.

You could send the spacecraft down a ski jump type arrangement with the engines providing the rest of the velocity.  Once it got airborne, the microwave beam would take over.

Update:

Scaled Composites' White Knight Two can carry 37k lbs to 50k feet.   Now, what if you replaced the Falcon 9 second stage with a LH/LOX type rocket with a higher ISP?  That'll reduce the weight.  Now, the Falcon 9 is going to weigh in at more 70k that I had above.  I'm thinking 140k.  If you use LH2 instead of RP1 rocket fuel, the weight can be brought down to slightly north of 100k pounds depending upon how much delta v you needed to get to orbit.

This is all pure speculation, of course.  You would need a version of White Knight that can go supersonic and carry about 3 times as much weight.  Is this even possible?  The service ceiling for the White Knight as is, is about 70k feet.  You need another 30k feet plus about Mach 2 in acceleration, or a bigger rocket.

The design of the carrier plane would have to be much different, of course.