Assorted links

technofog- More vaccinated COVID deaths than unvaccinated

Question: Why call it a "vaccine"? It clearly hasn't passed the legal definition of a vaccine. It's neither safe nor effective.



Link #2:

Evidence that J6th was a set up

Observation: This is playing out like the Russian collusion scam. I detected the scam right at the beginning, but it took a long time before it is recognized as the truth. These scams should hurt the Democrats, but that didn't happen.

How do you win when you cannot take advantage of these situations?

A modern oddity

When it comes to these people running things these days, something occurred to me. They just don't give a crap about what we the people think. Evidently, they think we're a problem, but they still need our votes. At least for now. Given their poor performance at their duties, one may think that they are doing it all on purpose. If so, then maybe they really hate all of us.

Remember when a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if she hated Trump? She denied it. She even made a big deal out of it. But how is it that the way she acts doesn't match what she says? There's no difference in saying that she hated Donald Trump and the way she acts. Her words don't match her deeds.

Some old timers may remember in the aftermath of 911, these people would ask "why do they hate us"? Funny thing that. They wonder why the terrorists hate us, but they never would ask why these same people in charge hate their own people.

So they will run for office, and they expect you to support them. That's true even though they abuse the people constantly. They do nothing right---they don't educate the children, they don't protect us against criminals, and they won't defend the nation against terrorists. Yet, WE are the problem.

When you complain, you are a terrorist. If you criticize, you are a bigot. But nobody ever asks them why they hate their own people. But one time someone did, and it struck a nerve.

Just seems odd to me, that's all.

They have a lot to hide

 

Ruling class plans to destroy Twitter

No longer banned on Twitter---Vaccines are miracle grow for tumors

If this reaches the light of day, which is a pretty big "if", there's bound to be a reaction amongst the zombie hordes.

You'd a thunk that the revelation that Hunter Biden's computer story wasn't Russian disinformation would have shook some cobwebs loose, but nope. Perhaps the fact that the injection should never have been mandated, and if such mandates caused a helluva lot of people to suffer--would that wake people up?

They've got to shut Twitter down, or maybe the zombie horde will turn on them. It won't be pretty.

Cth: battle within gop

 

The core battle within GOP

Interesting read.

Artemis pics

Orion going behind moon

And emerges from dark side of the moon.
 

Little blue dot

SLS launch, the Artemis program, heat shield test

Time to post space stuff again

The link allows me to segue into some speculations of my own. I've done that a lot during the history of this here blog, so why not again? As for the what the link discusses, it doesn't mesh with Musk's stated plan of establishing a colony on Mars. Such a colony seems out of reach. What could make it more feasible?

It seems that a moon-base strategy offers some advantages. It has a shallow gravity well, and a source for materials would be an enabling capability. Why not utilize these? Those who argue that "we've been there and done that", are not thinking long term. It's not about "planting flags and looking cool". It is about using new technology to produce things of value. It makes space travel and colonization a real possibility. A moon base would be an excellent jumping off spot for locations beyond Earth. New resources could be made available. This could become a new industry.

The new technology is the prime area of speculation. How to accomplish all this? SpaceX has its Starship, but can it do all of this? Let's speculate a bit on what else might be useful for development in terms of space travel. One of the hazards of a long trip would be the long period of weightlessness. What can be done about that?

What if you could develop a new spacecraft that could launch from the moon? The Starship could do this, but could it go on long voyages? Perhaps with some modifications, but what if you were to develop something that could better deal with the effects of weightlessness? It seems that the Starship isn't quite up to the task, in my opinion. A trip to Mars would take months. Something that could simulate gravity would be helpful. Without that, the space travelers will be in pretty rough shape by the time they get to Mars. Once there, they would have to work hard to keep everything together. Mars is a harsh mistress.

What about a saucer-type configuration? A saucer could be spun up for artificial gravity. Size would matter. Some folks don't react well to the spinning. Let's limit the spin to 1 RPM. To get fairly close to Earth's gravity would require a diameter of 1800 meters. That would be a whopping 5850 feet. It would seem to be too big to launch. However, smaller object would require more spin, or less artificial gravity. Those technical specifications seem too ambitious for a surface launch. If you were to increase rpm to 2, then it could be much smaller. A 650 foot in diameter saucer spun up at 2 rpm could give you nearly 90% of Earth gravity.

What about construction in space?

If you were to construct something in space, you'd be doing something mostly new. Space stations have been built before. But this would be on a scale unimagined before. Such a thing built from Earth would have to launch from a deep gravity well. What about the moon? Could it be launched in pieces, and then fitted together?

The most realistic possibility would be a station built in pieces, and launched from the moon. It would be 200 meters in diameter, and it would spun up to 2 rpm. Such a station would give 90% Earth gravity, and would remove that hurdle. You could possibly get hundreds of people on board such a mammoth object. It would be about 2000 feet in circumference. That would be an order of magnitude bigger than the Starship.

What if it were a torus shape. Each piece of the torus could be launched from the moon, and fitted together. Such would require quite the infrastructure on the moon's surface to support such a venture.

If this is too impractical, then something else must be devised. A trip to Mars is a long time without gravity. The human body doesn't react well to zero gravity.

Of course, this implies that Elon Musk's idea of putting a million people on Mars is quite unrealistic. Another possibility is to use robots to build the infrastructure on Mars, and to care for a lot of very shaky astronauts who will be in bad shape once they get to Mars. After a long rehab, they may be able to do some work.

A more realistic scenario for Musk would be to use his Starships to develop infrastructure on the moon that would build his next generation spaceship. That ship would be constructed in pieces and flown to space to be fitted together in a huge space ark that could transport hundreds if not thousands of people per launch. Could it land on Mars? Perhaps not. A Starship could be used as a tug, and a lander.

The Starship can't do it all. More is needed. Musk has a bigger Starship 2.0 in mind. Such a ship could hold 1000 people, or so I've read. Let's assume the landing ship is 300 feet tall. Put two of them, end to end, and that is nearly 200 meters in length. It won't generate near Earth like artifical gravity, but it could reach Mars gravity or above. That may be possible. If Musk is thinking it, he might end up doing that.