Time to go back to the salt mine. I don't really mind working, you know. But there's not going to be much time for this.
Anyway, the audience numbers were good as long as I post. Once it slows down, the numbers will drop. Oh well. I can't be in two places at the same time. Technology hasn't advanced that far yet. Maybe quantum mechanics will allow for it someday.
I noticed a great deal of interest in one of my posts dating back to September. It was about the X37-C. It is like a mini-shuttle that can be transported to space and back again. It is currently being used for some military project that remains secret. There's an idea to make it big enough to carry passengers to and from space.
My idea was to put it inside of a Skylon type airframe that would be attached to the Stratolauncher vehicle being developed. It would have to be scaled down a bit so that it would fit under there. The Skylon type craft would then be dropped and would proceed to power up and fly the type of trajectory planned for the Skylon. Once in space, it would release the X37-C and then return to base. All parts of the system would be reusable with a fast turnaround.
With such a system, you can could small amounts of cargo or passengers. With a lot of flights taking place over a course of time, a large supply could be accumulated for deep space missions--let's say to Mars for example. Or mining a 20 trillion dollar rock. Another activity? Build a moonbase that would enable even deeper space missions, like colonizing space and so forth.
With the Skylon projected to fly up to 200 times, that would mean it would carry 4 million pounds of cargo over its lifetime, assuming 20k pounds capacity. That's a 1/3 reduction in the planned capacity of the Skylon as now configured. At 500 bucks a pound, it could generate $2,000,000,000 in revenues. Development costs for the Skylon are said to be 12 billion British pounds or something like that. A fleet of these things may make a cost target like that work. Let's say 20 of these things could generate $40 billion in revenues over their projected lifetimes.
Perhaps that's really not enough, so prices may need to be higher than that. That's looks to be the down side of downsizing the thing. Not enough revenues.
The important thing is to get people in space. Perhaps a better way to get fuel up there could be found. Looks like a million and a half dollars per passenger, if seven are carried each time. Maybe the market for this isn't big enough to support those type of prices. Who knows?
If seven are carried on each flight, and each bird flies 200 times, that's 1400 people over the lifetime of the bird. Multiplied over a fleet of 20 birds, thats 28k people who would want to spend 1 million and a half bucks to visit space. Is there a market that would support this? I'm not sure.
Perhaps an economic system could be found that could support the venture. Tourism, exploration, manufacturing, and mining might be put into the mix of possible activities to support the traffic.
But that is speculative at this point. Don't know if the flying concept would even work.
There's not much time to write much more on the ideas as my time is now limited.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
ParaPundit: Europe: The Death Of The Social Compact And Periphery Gutting
ParaPundit: Europe: The Death Of The Social Compact And Periphery Gutting
quote:
comment:
Yes, that appears to be the case. But what happens to a society that has more than half of its people unemployable? Do we really want such a society?
And another thing: the author is all for a higher minimum wage. A higher minimum wage will cause these trends to accelerate. Is that really a good idea?
Yet one more thing before I publish this rascal....
A New York Times article provides the basis of the story. It shows the full Alinsky as applied to poor old Europe. Europe becoming more like America? The horror of it all.
quote:
demand for less skilled labor is in sharp decline in all industrialized countries. The Europeans can either let wages fall or let employment of less skilled labor decline faster than it already is. Between automation and competition from abroad the old social compact does not stand a chance for low skilled workers except in occupations that can't be moved abroad. At the same time, demand for workers with more valuable skills (notably engineering) is on the rise.
comment:
Yes, that appears to be the case. But what happens to a society that has more than half of its people unemployable? Do we really want such a society?
And another thing: the author is all for a higher minimum wage. A higher minimum wage will cause these trends to accelerate. Is that really a good idea?
Yet one more thing before I publish this rascal....
A New York Times article provides the basis of the story. It shows the full Alinsky as applied to poor old Europe. Europe becoming more like America? The horror of it all.
Next Big Future: Tesla Motors' $40,000 mass market electric car set...
Next Big Future: Tesla Motors' $40,000 mass market electric car set...: Tesla Motors plans to unveil an electric car in early 2015 that could sell in the $40,000 range, a mainstream offering that will be key to t...
Yes, Elon Musk is a clever man. But there is a basic flaw in battery powered cars and that is their weight.
He can't defy physics.
Update:
I'd like to take the opportunity to state once again that fuel cells are the way to go. It seems to me that Aronsson's ideas should work. That would be a fuel cell combined with an ammonia cracker mounted inside a very light weight car like the Urbee 2. You see, the Urbee would only require a small amount of ammonia to get a lot of mileage. You could dilute the ammonia and then dewater it and crack it for the hydrogen. It would be cheap, cheap, cheap. Especially if you make the ammonia with a LFTR. Keep in mind that the LFTR can simultaneously make electricity, ammonia, and desalinated sea water. Cheap, cheap, cheap.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Yes, Elon Musk is a clever man. But there is a basic flaw in battery powered cars and that is their weight.
He can't defy physics.
Update:
I'd like to take the opportunity to state once again that fuel cells are the way to go. It seems to me that Aronsson's ideas should work. That would be a fuel cell combined with an ammonia cracker mounted inside a very light weight car like the Urbee 2. You see, the Urbee would only require a small amount of ammonia to get a lot of mileage. You could dilute the ammonia and then dewater it and crack it for the hydrogen. It would be cheap, cheap, cheap. Especially if you make the ammonia with a LFTR. Keep in mind that the LFTR can simultaneously make electricity, ammonia, and desalinated sea water. Cheap, cheap, cheap.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Refueling depots
At first blush, it would seem that lifting fuel out of the Earth's deep gravity well wouldn't offer any advantages.
However, if you had a reusable spacecraft, like a Falcon 9 Reusable, it could start to make sense. That would imply, however, that costs could be brought down sufficiently.
According to the Wikipedia article, the cost target for a Skylon is somewhere between 400 to 500 bucks per pound. As for Spacex, Elon Musk once said that he believed he could get costs down to 500 bucks a pound.
Now, if you were to use one or the other, for a relatively small price, you could get a substantial amount of fuel positioned in LEO for less than 100 million bucks. Perhaps with some intelligent planning, you could do a lunar landing mission and return with that much fuel.
Take the Apollo missions. The S4B rocket wet massed at about 250k pounds. This rocket could deliver 100k pounds to a lunar trajectory that had all the mass needed for the landing and return. Thus, to deliver 230k pounds at 500 bucks per pound, the cost of fuel for the similar mission would be $115,000,000. Make everything reusable, and the numbers get lower ( because of lower mass requirements).
If everything were to be made reusable, the fuel costs would become the primary costs of the mission. That would mean regular visits to the moon for a little over 100 million per pop. Not bad. Especially since every Shuttle launch was said to be about a billion bucks.
Not only that, but a trip to Deimos wouldn't require much more in fuel than a lunar landing trip. Maybe even less. Since Deimos may have a lot of water and carbon, there is the possibility of making a fuel depot there for subsequent Mars landings.
Reusable launching craft could enable fuel depots. It would seem to make a lot of sense to do this, so you have to wonder what the delay is all about.
However, if you had a reusable spacecraft, like a Falcon 9 Reusable, it could start to make sense. That would imply, however, that costs could be brought down sufficiently.
According to the Wikipedia article, the cost target for a Skylon is somewhere between 400 to 500 bucks per pound. As for Spacex, Elon Musk once said that he believed he could get costs down to 500 bucks a pound.
Now, if you were to use one or the other, for a relatively small price, you could get a substantial amount of fuel positioned in LEO for less than 100 million bucks. Perhaps with some intelligent planning, you could do a lunar landing mission and return with that much fuel.
Take the Apollo missions. The S4B rocket wet massed at about 250k pounds. This rocket could deliver 100k pounds to a lunar trajectory that had all the mass needed for the landing and return. Thus, to deliver 230k pounds at 500 bucks per pound, the cost of fuel for the similar mission would be $115,000,000. Make everything reusable, and the numbers get lower ( because of lower mass requirements).
If everything were to be made reusable, the fuel costs would become the primary costs of the mission. That would mean regular visits to the moon for a little over 100 million per pop. Not bad. Especially since every Shuttle launch was said to be about a billion bucks.
Not only that, but a trip to Deimos wouldn't require much more in fuel than a lunar landing trip. Maybe even less. Since Deimos may have a lot of water and carbon, there is the possibility of making a fuel depot there for subsequent Mars landings.
Reusable launching craft could enable fuel depots. It would seem to make a lot of sense to do this, so you have to wonder what the delay is all about.
Strategic depth and the budget deal
Not too long ago, I read something on the net that described the term called "strategic depth". This was in relation to military depth in territory. For example, a large country like Russia, has strategic depth. It can make use of its immense territory in order to defeat an enemy. In contrast, a small country like Israel, has little strategic depth. It cannot afford to retreat very far.
I noted that the Japanese were seeking strategic depth after Pearl Harbor. If they succeeded, they would have had the entire Pacific under their control and then they would have been very hard to defeat.
The US had strategic depth in the Pacific too. The Japanese tried to challenge that with little success.
As the planner of the Pearl Harbor raid knew, the US had strategic depth in its industrial base and its immense size. The warlords in Imperial Japan overlooked this, no doubt.
An interesting concept is this strategic depth. Could it apply in other situations besides just military? What about politics and government?
Taking government first, we have strategic depth in terms of liberty. We have a Bill of Rights, a Constitution with checks and balances. We have a federal system with power shared amongst a great many centers. It is the principle of pluralism, where one group cannot become so powerful that it can tyrannize the rest. That strategic depth is getting eroded, though, and it is a bit of a worry.
The Constitution is so designed that compromise is necessary. There's not much chance that a single individual or group can get everything they want. The thing that may be eroding these checks and balances may be in our politics today. This came to my attention yesterday.
From who? None other than the toe sucker himself, Dick Morris. He pointed out that running the government with continuing resolutions is really a bad idea because the president can then spend the money as he sees fit. Congress in such situations, is abdicating its role in our system when they do this. They need to pass bills, as the much maligned budget deal just passed. When these bills are passed, Congress can specify in detail, how the money shall be spent. This has a restraining influence upon a wayward president, such as the one I think that we may have now.
So, I've changed my thinking. This opposition to the other wing of the GOP is actually damaging our strategic depth. We need to get together on this and other things because one wing cannot survive without the other. It may be distasteful to make some of these compromises, but they are necessary. The result of continuing as we have been could be a catastrophe. We cannot afford to further empower a wayward president and his supporters.
At least Dickie boy got this one right. He's still wrong about the JFK assassination.
I noted that the Japanese were seeking strategic depth after Pearl Harbor. If they succeeded, they would have had the entire Pacific under their control and then they would have been very hard to defeat.
The US had strategic depth in the Pacific too. The Japanese tried to challenge that with little success.
As the planner of the Pearl Harbor raid knew, the US had strategic depth in its industrial base and its immense size. The warlords in Imperial Japan overlooked this, no doubt.
An interesting concept is this strategic depth. Could it apply in other situations besides just military? What about politics and government?
Taking government first, we have strategic depth in terms of liberty. We have a Bill of Rights, a Constitution with checks and balances. We have a federal system with power shared amongst a great many centers. It is the principle of pluralism, where one group cannot become so powerful that it can tyrannize the rest. That strategic depth is getting eroded, though, and it is a bit of a worry.
The Constitution is so designed that compromise is necessary. There's not much chance that a single individual or group can get everything they want. The thing that may be eroding these checks and balances may be in our politics today. This came to my attention yesterday.
From who? None other than the toe sucker himself, Dick Morris. He pointed out that running the government with continuing resolutions is really a bad idea because the president can then spend the money as he sees fit. Congress in such situations, is abdicating its role in our system when they do this. They need to pass bills, as the much maligned budget deal just passed. When these bills are passed, Congress can specify in detail, how the money shall be spent. This has a restraining influence upon a wayward president, such as the one I think that we may have now.
So, I've changed my thinking. This opposition to the other wing of the GOP is actually damaging our strategic depth. We need to get together on this and other things because one wing cannot survive without the other. It may be distasteful to make some of these compromises, but they are necessary. The result of continuing as we have been could be a catastrophe. We cannot afford to further empower a wayward president and his supporters.
At least Dickie boy got this one right. He's still wrong about the JFK assassination.
On indecisiveness
When it comes to space, we have dropped the ball. We start off with a Saturn V that went to the moon. Dropped that, even though it proved its worth during Apollo. Started over with a brand new system--the Shuttle. After 30 years, we've dropped that. Now we are going with a Shuttle-derived system, even though it is still way too expensive. Not before we dropped it first, though. Supposedly, NASA is studying nuclear thermal rockets. We had one over 40 years ago. What's there to study?
At some point, you need to make decisions that will stick. This backwards and forwards, stopping and starting ain't getting much done. At some point, you've got to make a move, or get off the pot. Studying on the throne is only going to leave you broken hearted.
Whatever NASA does has to fit into a presidential cycle. Trouble is, these presidents don't seem to understand that a new president wants to put his own imprint on the space program. So, what has Obama done to put his own imprint on the space program?
Nothing. Come to think of it, that is one way of being decisive. Don't do jack squat. Punish the country for thinking it has some right to think of itself as exceptional. Let's just run down the whole operation and declare defeat and give up, already.
Indecisiveness is not a good trait in a leader. Nor in the leadership of a nation. We had better make up our minds which way its going to be, because time is running out.
I don't know exactly what NASA should do. But we ought to at least have the capability of putting men into orbit. It's a national disgrace that we have to pay the Russians for a ride up there.
Update:
It seems that I've been talking out my ass again. Looks like there will be a test of the Orion module on top of a Delta IV sometime in the next year. Things are not quite as bad as they seem.
SLS may get dumped, though. It is a big money hog, and funds are tight. The above mentioned configuration can service the ISS, as well as other configurations that are also in the works.
If SLS gets canceled, they should probably strongly consider doing some sort of in orbit refueling in order to avoid having to use large boosters like the SLS. This would be a better use of the money.
If NASA is truly considering a nuclear thermal engine, perhaps they could consider using this for a LOXLEO capability.
At some point, you need to make decisions that will stick. This backwards and forwards, stopping and starting ain't getting much done. At some point, you've got to make a move, or get off the pot. Studying on the throne is only going to leave you broken hearted.
Whatever NASA does has to fit into a presidential cycle. Trouble is, these presidents don't seem to understand that a new president wants to put his own imprint on the space program. So, what has Obama done to put his own imprint on the space program?
Nothing. Come to think of it, that is one way of being decisive. Don't do jack squat. Punish the country for thinking it has some right to think of itself as exceptional. Let's just run down the whole operation and declare defeat and give up, already.
Indecisiveness is not a good trait in a leader. Nor in the leadership of a nation. We had better make up our minds which way its going to be, because time is running out.
I don't know exactly what NASA should do. But we ought to at least have the capability of putting men into orbit. It's a national disgrace that we have to pay the Russians for a ride up there.
Update:
It seems that I've been talking out my ass again. Looks like there will be a test of the Orion module on top of a Delta IV sometime in the next year. Things are not quite as bad as they seem.
SLS may get dumped, though. It is a big money hog, and funds are tight. The above mentioned configuration can service the ISS, as well as other configurations that are also in the works.
If SLS gets canceled, they should probably strongly consider doing some sort of in orbit refueling in order to avoid having to use large boosters like the SLS. This would be a better use of the money.
If NASA is truly considering a nuclear thermal engine, perhaps they could consider using this for a LOXLEO capability.
On getting the full Alinsky
I've probably related my experience with Barbara O'Brien over at the Mahablog already more than once. Okay, at the risk of excessive repetition, here I go again. Once upon a time, I got the brilliant idea that I may be able to dialogue a bit with someone on the other side. It seemed to work okay until I mentioned that I was conservative. That must have been her crazy button. After that, I started getting the full Alinsky. Rudeness and insults. Finally, I got kicked off the blog commenting privileges just for having a mild ( in my opinion ) disagreement.
So, the full Alinsky is what anybody gets if they don't agree with those on the left. You will be harangued and insulted and bullied until you conform. That's what I mean by the full Alinsky. Hey, I can see how that can be effective. It worked on Patty Hearst. It's the battered wife syndrome. The Stockholm Syndrome. After enough abuse, a person will break down and start agreeing with their captors. She must have figured I was more trouble than I was worth, so she kicked me out.
In a larger sense, I think the full Alinsky is what the whole country is getting. Particularly the political conservatives who get slandered and abused at every turn. Some of them crack under the pressure, and that's how we end up with some conservatives that go bad when they "grow".
You know, this full Alinsky stuff works on the entire country. It shifts the politics to the left, and it has been a great success. You probably are witnessing the full Alinsky on a national scale when you see a movie like Oliver Stone's JFK. That movie is textbook Alinsky applied on the national scale. It insults the hell out of conservatism and accuses the right of assassination of the president. The only problem there is that is a great big lie. Yet it works and works and works. More than half the people in this country believe it was a conspiracy. How many of those subconsciously believe that it was a right wing conspiracy? Probably a good many of those probably think a right winger did it even though the right wing had little to gain from assassinating the president.
The full Alinsky has also been applied on a national level with respect to our history. We are constantly hearing from our educators all about our sins. This is a type of abuse, as far as I am concerned. These poor kids are leaving school convinced that they are horrible human beings. No wonder this country is so screwed up.
You see, if you don't agree with the left, you are EEEEEVVILLLL. The left needs demonization of those they disagree with, even if they have to create imaginary demons. Such as the imaginary right wing demons who were claimed to be responsible for JFK's death.
It probably explains why we can't do the big things anymore, like the Moon shot of the sixties. Even if we have the technology to do it, the left won't let us succeed at it because that might make us feel proud, and they can't have any of that.
We can't solve "global warming" but we can sure get punished for being so wasteful of energy. You see, the left is really good at punishing people. They are so good at it.
We are becoming rather hostile to each other. But that is the full Alinsky too. Leftists need everybody to hate each other. Divide and conquer, you see.
So, the right has managed to allow itself to get baited into doing some things that they shouldn't have done.
An example? I think Bush canceled the X-33 because Clinton canceled the Super Collider in Texas. Instead of getting two first class projects and accomplishments, we get nothing. Besides that Obama canceled Constellation. What happens in the next GOP presidency ( if there ever is one )?
It's probably not a good idea to return hatred with hatred. The left accuses the right of hatred, but the right had better watch that crazy button and don't let them make you do something you'll regret later. The the left wins with its hatred because they will have succeeded in making you hate them as much as they hate you ( as a conservative).
So, the full Alinsky is what anybody gets if they don't agree with those on the left. You will be harangued and insulted and bullied until you conform. That's what I mean by the full Alinsky. Hey, I can see how that can be effective. It worked on Patty Hearst. It's the battered wife syndrome. The Stockholm Syndrome. After enough abuse, a person will break down and start agreeing with their captors. She must have figured I was more trouble than I was worth, so she kicked me out.
In a larger sense, I think the full Alinsky is what the whole country is getting. Particularly the political conservatives who get slandered and abused at every turn. Some of them crack under the pressure, and that's how we end up with some conservatives that go bad when they "grow".
You know, this full Alinsky stuff works on the entire country. It shifts the politics to the left, and it has been a great success. You probably are witnessing the full Alinsky on a national scale when you see a movie like Oliver Stone's JFK. That movie is textbook Alinsky applied on the national scale. It insults the hell out of conservatism and accuses the right of assassination of the president. The only problem there is that is a great big lie. Yet it works and works and works. More than half the people in this country believe it was a conspiracy. How many of those subconsciously believe that it was a right wing conspiracy? Probably a good many of those probably think a right winger did it even though the right wing had little to gain from assassinating the president.
The full Alinsky has also been applied on a national level with respect to our history. We are constantly hearing from our educators all about our sins. This is a type of abuse, as far as I am concerned. These poor kids are leaving school convinced that they are horrible human beings. No wonder this country is so screwed up.
You see, if you don't agree with the left, you are EEEEEVVILLLL. The left needs demonization of those they disagree with, even if they have to create imaginary demons. Such as the imaginary right wing demons who were claimed to be responsible for JFK's death.
It probably explains why we can't do the big things anymore, like the Moon shot of the sixties. Even if we have the technology to do it, the left won't let us succeed at it because that might make us feel proud, and they can't have any of that.
We can't solve "global warming" but we can sure get punished for being so wasteful of energy. You see, the left is really good at punishing people. They are so good at it.
We are becoming rather hostile to each other. But that is the full Alinsky too. Leftists need everybody to hate each other. Divide and conquer, you see.
So, the right has managed to allow itself to get baited into doing some things that they shouldn't have done.
An example? I think Bush canceled the X-33 because Clinton canceled the Super Collider in Texas. Instead of getting two first class projects and accomplishments, we get nothing. Besides that Obama canceled Constellation. What happens in the next GOP presidency ( if there ever is one )?
It's probably not a good idea to return hatred with hatred. The left accuses the right of hatred, but the right had better watch that crazy button and don't let them make you do something you'll regret later. The the left wins with its hatred because they will have succeeded in making you hate them as much as they hate you ( as a conservative).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)