Stupid is as stupid does

Today was a day for watching some videos, and one of them jogged the memory of things gone past. People have this tendency to talk "out their asses", and so do I. I've tried to tone it down a bit, but the tendency is strong.

Anyway, on one of the videos, a guy was telling about how a guy trash-talked Ringo Starr, and the narrator showed him up a bit on it. The trash-talker really didn't know what he was talking about, and he was shown why he didn't know. That's what reminded me of something that I've noticed before. Somebody was talking out their ass, and so it happened in this story. It happens often enough that I wonder if it is a universal thing.

How can I work this into something general that may illustrate a point worth considering? There was something in the news recently that may do the trick. The news item is that Biden's poll numbers are up near 50% in the Rasmussen Poll. That's pretty high for him. But it seems pretty undeserved to me. Why?

What could make people think that Biden deserves this high of a rating? Is it the lower gasoline prices lately? Or the release of the female basketball player? Neither of those indicated any merit on Biden's part. Yet his polls are up. If those are the reasons, then could it be that people are really "talking out their asses" with their opinions about the guy. Well, it is either them doing it, or those (like me) who don't like Biden are wrong. Who is right and who is wrong? Everybody has opinions. But that doesn't make it right. Those dumb-asses could be right, but I don't think so.

The people who opine that Biden is doing well are being manipulated into saying that. That's what makes them wrong. If you really know what you're talking about, the media cannot so easily influence your opinion. The media DOES influence opinions, and that's what makes them troublesome. That, and these people who won't think for themselves. Just because the media hypes these things doesn't make these things true. That is what you should be approving or disapproving of someone for, not what someone says about it that you allow to influence your opinion. The media will go out of their way to protect Biden, and trash their opposition. This has had consequences, and the consequences can be severe.

The release of the basketball player was a poor choice of exchange with the Russians. The "bargain" was no bargain at all, and in fact, was a very bad deal. Even if the basketball player was a stature of Michael Jordan, it still was inappropriate. That's because they should have never released somebody who is an arms merchant, and who is responsible for getting arms to TERRORISTS. This will result in people getting killed. Is the release of ONE basketball player really worth the lives of this that will cause others to be lost? This was a really bad choice. Not to mention that the Russians offered an exchange of a Marine who really did rate our concern far, far more than this athlete.

It is an example of the stupidity that is running so rampant in our society that people REWARD someone like Biden, who will be responsible for a lot of suffering later on. Biden doesn't deserve any credit, and in fact, should be getting raked over the coals for this. He is, in some quarters. But the media, as usual, is covering for Biden. They are playing games with people's lives, and these idiots are cheering it all on. Just because they won't think for themselves.

You'd think that people would wise up by now. But it looks like they never will. Too many people are stuck on stupid.

Starship musings

 

The morning started with some thoughts about the Spacex Starship project. It appears that there is something of a problem with the launch pad. The enormous amount of thrust has caused concrete to come loose and rain down on the complex. Some videos show that repairs are ongoing to the launch pad, and probable upgrades. There has yet to be a full 33 engine static fire. This will delay the eventual launch of the new rocket for awhile. What should be done?

There has been some discussion about the purchase of offshore rigs, and possibly using them as offshore launch pads. Also, some discussion about a flame trench, which would divert the rocket's blast so that the facilities don't get so damaged with each launch. A crazy idea came to mind. Maybe more than one crazy idea. What if a "flame trench" could be built offshore? The rocket's blast could be diverted into tubes below the water line. The water will keep the tubes from getting too hot ( presumably). What's more, some blowback could actually supply some more thrust! This is reminescent of some undersea launches from submarines. The rocket pops up out of the water, and goes airborne. Could something like this work? Is it even being considered? There was an idea from sixties to use a "Sea Dragon" concept rocket, which would take off out at sea. The rocket would have been monstrously big. Even bigger than anything Musk is proposing now. Such a study said it was a feasible idea back in those days.

Or would they just use the offshore facility as a testing facility? But in the same manner discussed above. No need to land rockets that aren't intended to land anyway. Or perhaps a combination. It could be a way station to the main site onshore. Rockets could land out there too, but only first stages. They could be tested out there, and then fly back on their own power to the main facility. They could be positioned to catch the rocket offshore, and then reload it offshore and fly back to the main base. This would allow them to devote more fuel to the payloads. It wouldn't take as much fuel to take a mostly empty first stage back to base, where it could be launched with a full payload. With the fuel savings not having to be used to take the empty stage back to land, they could put more payload onboard the land based launches. Every pound of fuel saved saves at least 20 more for additional payload. This could make it all worthwhile.

Obviously Musk is thinking about something like this, or why acquire their offshore platforms? Evidently, he doesn't want big flame trenches like NASA used for the Saturn V launches in the sixties. He needs some sort of testing facility and an offshore platform might be suitable for that purpose. A short hop to land for the main launch doesn't seem too way out of an idea. He has already perfected the technique with the Falcon 9 of landing out at sea. What would prevent such a scenario? It might be what he has in mind.

This wasn't the really way out idea I thought. It might even be brilliant.

The thing that is way out there may be in putting the rocket under water and launching it. What would happen then? Maybe it would explode. Too much power in too little space, perhaps.

But it isn't that far out of an idea to do it as I've laid it out above. It might even be considered "conservative" to use the offshore facility to land the rocket, while increasing its payload fraction a bit because it didn't need a boost back burn to get the rocket back to base. The main transit to get the payload in orbit doesn't get so penalized by having to save fuel for the boost back burn. It could be a difference maker.

Assorted links December 8th 2022

Artificial intelligence : Good or bad?

Comment: Here's something to worry about. But I've been worried about it for years now. As soon as these people looked like they were going to make self-driving cars, I figured my job was going to be made obsolete. It's a lot worse than that. Human beings may be made obsolete. Something that these developers need very much to be aware of, but probably aren't sufficiently so.



Indian reservation life

Comment: Here's a video that cuts to the chase without bullshit. Too bad our media isn't like this.



Update on Spacex Starship

Comment: I've wasted a lot of time on click bait posts on youtube in an attempt to get this kind of information. Behind the Black blog has a good link here that tells what's going on.

Agw is bunk (again)

Instapundit article link to substack article against Mars colonization

 Note:  Google docs won't accept my uploaded file, so I made a pic and used that.

Update:

Some footwork is now needed

Here's the file:

AGW is bunk ---again

Arguments against Mars colonization

Comment:

This comment isn't about the link's title, it is about something within the article. In particular, it is about "greenhouse gases". It is my opinion that there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

People who write about science OUGHT to know a little about it. If you don't know that there's no way that any gas can act in the manner of a greenhouse. That's because of the nature of gases. Gases expand rapidly. They also contract rapidly. All gases do this.

Once upon a time, I latched on the theory of "global warming" because it seemed plausible. Trouble is, I didn't actually think about the idea being presented. That's why these things get by people. They hear it, the same way I did, and they don't question it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't be fooled by nonsensical arguments like this again.

Basic chemistry tells you what happens to any gas that is heated up. There is a formal equation for the phenomenon, known as the gas law. It is "pv=nrt", which means that pressure times volume equals a constant "r" times the number of molecules ( moles ) of a gas times its temperature. When the variables change, like temperature, the other side of the equation must also change to keep it in balance. Therefore, if temperature goes up, pressure or volume must also go up. This is a mathematical CERTAINTY.

There can be no "greenhouse" unless there is something that prevents the increase of volume. In an actual greenhouse, that would be a SOLID substance, like glass. In a planetary system, gravity can hold gases in place. But there's freedom to move anyway. What you would get is an increase in pressure, and an increase in volume. In a closed system, like a greenhouse, volume cannot change.

Since a planetary system isn't a closed system, there can be no greenhouse effect. Heat up the atmosphere enough, and it will achieve escape velocity. In fact, when the sun expands outward in a few billion years, the Earth's atmosphere will be the first thing to go. Leaving all other things equal, an increase in temperature will lead to an increase in pressure and volume. That would mean the atmosphere would expand in size. Any increase in temperature would be limited by that mechanism.

Global warming theory is bunk. But I repeat myself yet again.