A couple of links to chew on:
1)The GOP's limp reaction to the commies is the reason that this is happening:
VDH on the upcoming midterms
It is quite clear that the Commies are flooding the border with immigrants in order to win elections. This is the Great Replacement you may have heard about. Instead of firming up the election integrity, the GOP punts because some of them do not like Trump. But what's that in comparison to the future of the country?
and 2) Clyburn is on TeeVee now for wanting 13 Supreme Court justices--in other words he wants to pack the Supreme Court.
The "King Maker" certainly made Biden president. Then they stole the 2020 election, while making opposition to them almost an illegal act. We came about as close to a coup as we'll get right there. And I'm not talking about January 6th. The entire election was a fraud, and the the GOP was not willing to do a damned thing about it.
Some of them were removed, but that's not nearly good enough. Whether or not the GOP can get by this election is truly in doubt, even though the Democrats have gone all in on communism.
That's what VDH is talking about. Where is the voting public on this? According to Rasmussen, Trump's approval is at 42%. Now, either this is a lie, or America is in a terrible state right now.
We have a totalitarian leaning press that refusing to print the news accurately, or otherwise more of the public would be alarmed---and they SURE AS HELL SHOULD BE.
With what the Democrats Commies are doing right now amounts to a coup detat of the lawful authority of the government. The GOP's reaction is virtually to do nothing.
Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is running a brilliant second term, with a smashing victory in Iran and Venezuela, Crime way, way down, manufacturing returning to American shores,illegal immigration stopped plus mass deportations; but somehow this President is UNPOPULAR??? What the f**k?!
Unless there's a popular revolt against the wokism on the way, we could be in trouble here. What to do in order to get people interested enough to save their country? It's only your country, people. Lose this, and everything, and I DO mean, EVERYTHING comes into play. But I repeat myself.
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.
Sunday, August 30, 2026
What MAGA is up against
Building advice from an old pro
Prev Next
So, number one was over again today. He's spreading out dirt on the property from the drainage ditch back this way. He wants to build. There's room for it, as this lot is large. In its original configuration, there wasn't enough useful land, but now there is.
We don't talk that much, but after today, I'd say that was a BIG MISTAKE. He has a tremendous stock of useful knowledge. He built the house he's living in, and it's a nice house with a great view. Incidentally, the view is what he manufactured HIMSELF. He did it by doing exactly what he's been doing lately.
The point of this post is that it was dumb of me not to seek knowledge from him as well as another of my older brothers. They BOTH know a lot of stuff that I don't know, and the knowledge of such could've been quite useful.
Just the same, I am confident that I'm on the right track. Not everything he has done in the past has come up roses. He admits it too. It's not necessarily a bad idea that I had with off-grid stuff, but there's some pitfalls. That's what concerns me the most at this point.
Originally posted 12.2.17, updated on,
5.30.18:
At the rate I am going, this will take years and years. After reading the below, and reading some stuff online, I am not getting any closer to a system that I like.
I want something simple that I can construct myself. Alone, if necessary.
That would seem to be something like I have already done. But, if I do that, I run the risk of failure, unless I do a few things differently.
To break this down to a manageable size, I figured on doing it in 8x8 foot sections. In order to expand to something larger, just add another 8x8 section. If I had 3 of them, end to end, that would given me an 8x24 foot cabin. It doesn't seem so hard then, I should hope.
I like the footer idea, but I want to try a modification upon the idea. The modification idea would be to drill using an auger bit on an electric drill. Frame out a square area around the holes. Drop a rebar down the hole, and attach the rebar to wire screen inside the frame. Pour out the concrete, giving a footer pad. Then build on top of that.
The tricky thing is the details of how it all fits together. Also, need to keep it simple. I figure using a 2x4x8 board as a measuring stick between the posts. The center of the 4x4 post will be drilled so that the rebar will bit into it. Measure out using the 2x4 from each post to where the next post will be.
It is very tricky to get these dimensions right so that there isn't any cutting necessary. That entails using a method of setting the footers so that the center rebar isn't necessarily 8 feet apart. Have to remember that a roof has to go on top. The roof needs to cover everything, and what I see is also available in 8 foot sections. If it is too big, the roof won't cover it all. There is wiggle room to the sides, but not to the length of the thing.
Perhaps I could practice it around here so that I can feel confident that it will work as I envision.
The foundation has to be right, or the rest won't work, or not fit right without a lot of cutting.
I'd like to use sliding doors, because I made a few of these before. There would be one on each side, so that each new addition will have another entry point. Screen doors on the outside of these, so as to allow the doors to be open, while screening off the bugs.
Shiny metal on the roof, if I can find it. Always looking to keep things cooled down as much as possible.
Considered glass, but this plan doesn't include any. Sliding panels for any side to side additions may be considered later.
That is all for now.
12.4.17:
Even though I have ruled out Quonsets, a final decision on what to do has not been made. Now, I get to cogitate further on the possibilities.
The newest point of indecision is whether or not to build the structure mentioned originally on this post, or to just build a carport like structure that will allow me to park the trailer under it.
It will need to be bigger than 10x20 feet. Maybe 10x30 or 10x40. It will need to be expandable on the sides so that it will have a sufficient overhang. The sun cannot be allowed to touch the walls of the living quarters. That is what I don't like about putting walls up.
Ten feet is more width than the trailer has, but isn't enough for an overhang. It will have to be extended at least 3 feet on each side. Since the trailer is 8 feet wide, that means it must be 14 feet counting the overhang.
Two feet on each side would be enough. That brings it up to 14 feet total. I would guess that the overhang would have to be reinforced in order to be structurally sound.
The eight feet in height needs to be changed to about eleven. What that entails is another question.
More study is needed.
Before I end this post, I noticed a concrete breaking tool more powerful than a jackhammer. A way to save labor is something I may want to consider.
Not to mention that it may also be useful in digging a hole for holding tank. Perhaps I shouldn't give up on a holding tank as opposed to a septic tank. If I can still get the incinerating toilet, that is.
All of this could add up to savings, which in my financial position, could be attractive.
The original post follows:
One of my older brothers has built many a house. So, why not listen to his advice on what to build out there? So, I went over his place earlier this week, and we talked it over.
I bounced some ideas off him, and he knocked 'em down. One idea that he approved was to use concrete footers for foundations. This would require an 18" deep hole be dug out, which will in turn require a jackhammer to loosen up the soil in there, so that a hole can be dug. Six of these footers would support a 10x20 foot structure in lieu of a concrete foundation. A concrete foundation was his first choice, but not mine. He did say that this idea should be sufficient for a structure that could last 25 years. Good 'nuff fer me.
How big were the footers? I think two foot square. A cylindrical pier can be poured on top of it. The pier will support a 4x4 pillar on to which will be built everything else. That means the floor and the roof.
The materials may go for less than 3k. It is conceivable that I could build the thing myself.
Anyway, it is a plan that could work. However, it may need some refinements.
The bottom line is that the Quonsets are out.
This post will go into the Construction sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and read individually or in series from beginning to end.
So, number one was over again today. He's spreading out dirt on the property from the drainage ditch back this way. He wants to build. There's room for it, as this lot is large. In its original configuration, there wasn't enough useful land, but now there is.
We don't talk that much, but after today, I'd say that was a BIG MISTAKE. He has a tremendous stock of useful knowledge. He built the house he's living in, and it's a nice house with a great view. Incidentally, the view is what he manufactured HIMSELF. He did it by doing exactly what he's been doing lately.
The point of this post is that it was dumb of me not to seek knowledge from him as well as another of my older brothers. They BOTH know a lot of stuff that I don't know, and the knowledge of such could've been quite useful.
Just the same, I am confident that I'm on the right track. Not everything he has done in the past has come up roses. He admits it too. It's not necessarily a bad idea that I had with off-grid stuff, but there's some pitfalls. That's what concerns me the most at this point.
Originally posted 12.2.17, updated on,
5.30.18:
At the rate I am going, this will take years and years. After reading the below, and reading some stuff online, I am not getting any closer to a system that I like.
I want something simple that I can construct myself. Alone, if necessary.
That would seem to be something like I have already done. But, if I do that, I run the risk of failure, unless I do a few things differently.
To break this down to a manageable size, I figured on doing it in 8x8 foot sections. In order to expand to something larger, just add another 8x8 section. If I had 3 of them, end to end, that would given me an 8x24 foot cabin. It doesn't seem so hard then, I should hope.
I like the footer idea, but I want to try a modification upon the idea. The modification idea would be to drill using an auger bit on an electric drill. Frame out a square area around the holes. Drop a rebar down the hole, and attach the rebar to wire screen inside the frame. Pour out the concrete, giving a footer pad. Then build on top of that.
The tricky thing is the details of how it all fits together. Also, need to keep it simple. I figure using a 2x4x8 board as a measuring stick between the posts. The center of the 4x4 post will be drilled so that the rebar will bit into it. Measure out using the 2x4 from each post to where the next post will be.
It is very tricky to get these dimensions right so that there isn't any cutting necessary. That entails using a method of setting the footers so that the center rebar isn't necessarily 8 feet apart. Have to remember that a roof has to go on top. The roof needs to cover everything, and what I see is also available in 8 foot sections. If it is too big, the roof won't cover it all. There is wiggle room to the sides, but not to the length of the thing.
Perhaps I could practice it around here so that I can feel confident that it will work as I envision.
The foundation has to be right, or the rest won't work, or not fit right without a lot of cutting.
I'd like to use sliding doors, because I made a few of these before. There would be one on each side, so that each new addition will have another entry point. Screen doors on the outside of these, so as to allow the doors to be open, while screening off the bugs.
Shiny metal on the roof, if I can find it. Always looking to keep things cooled down as much as possible.
Considered glass, but this plan doesn't include any. Sliding panels for any side to side additions may be considered later.
That is all for now.
12.4.17:
Even though I have ruled out Quonsets, a final decision on what to do has not been made. Now, I get to cogitate further on the possibilities.
The newest point of indecision is whether or not to build the structure mentioned originally on this post, or to just build a carport like structure that will allow me to park the trailer under it.
It will need to be bigger than 10x20 feet. Maybe 10x30 or 10x40. It will need to be expandable on the sides so that it will have a sufficient overhang. The sun cannot be allowed to touch the walls of the living quarters. That is what I don't like about putting walls up.
Ten feet is more width than the trailer has, but isn't enough for an overhang. It will have to be extended at least 3 feet on each side. Since the trailer is 8 feet wide, that means it must be 14 feet counting the overhang.
Two feet on each side would be enough. That brings it up to 14 feet total. I would guess that the overhang would have to be reinforced in order to be structurally sound.
The eight feet in height needs to be changed to about eleven. What that entails is another question.
More study is needed.
Before I end this post, I noticed a concrete breaking tool more powerful than a jackhammer. A way to save labor is something I may want to consider.
Not to mention that it may also be useful in digging a hole for holding tank. Perhaps I shouldn't give up on a holding tank as opposed to a septic tank. If I can still get the incinerating toilet, that is.
All of this could add up to savings, which in my financial position, could be attractive.
The original post follows:
One of my older brothers has built many a house. So, why not listen to his advice on what to build out there? So, I went over his place earlier this week, and we talked it over.
I bounced some ideas off him, and he knocked 'em down. One idea that he approved was to use concrete footers for foundations. This would require an 18" deep hole be dug out, which will in turn require a jackhammer to loosen up the soil in there, so that a hole can be dug. Six of these footers would support a 10x20 foot structure in lieu of a concrete foundation. A concrete foundation was his first choice, but not mine. He did say that this idea should be sufficient for a structure that could last 25 years. Good 'nuff fer me.
How big were the footers? I think two foot square. A cylindrical pier can be poured on top of it. The pier will support a 4x4 pillar on to which will be built everything else. That means the floor and the roof.
The materials may go for less than 3k. It is conceivable that I could build the thing myself.
Anyway, it is a plan that could work. However, it may need some refinements.
The bottom line is that the Quonsets are out.
A space station manufacturer's dream
8/30/26:
3/19/25:
A recent post on Aldrin Cyclers would provide an opportunity for a bit of comparison between the concepts. There's a pdf file associated with the concept, which Marcus House mentioned on his video about the cyclers. A point of concern cropped up. That's the high delta-v required for the Mars side. If it takes so much delta-v to get back from Mars, then it calls into question the usefulness of the concept.
The system will require re-fueling stations on each side of the journey back and forth between the cyclers and the travelers' locations. If you are going to need re-fueling stations anyway, then why use a cycler at all?
Instead you can use the concept that I've been fleshing out with these posts. It only takes a small delta-v to get back and forth between a Deimos station and a Earth-Moon LaGrange point. Re-fueling and cargo exchanges could occur at these locations on their journeys back and forth between Earth and Mars.
Therefore, I'm souring a bit on the Aldrin Cycler concept. It doesn't offer enough of a benefit to justify the cost. You'll need the re-fueling stations in any event, and you could build space stations at the re-fueling stations that would enable a crew to recover from their long journey. Spin it up to an Earth Gravity and harden it with shielding. You can do most of the same things as with the cycler, and it would probably be no more challenging to get the facilities built out than with the cyclers.
11/14/24:
An idea here is to utilize Jeff Greason's strategy of "island hopping" as a colonization strategy. (Mentioned on an earlier update of 4/17/24, which is also highlighted in red text--scroll down to it, please.)
The idea is to shuttle back and forth between High Earth orbit and the Lunar orbit planned for use in the Artemis program. You could launch from the surface of the moon more massive cargoes than from the Earth. Then you could transfer the cargo to High Earth Orbit in order to refuel Starships which are going outbound.
The high orbits would be analogous to the "islands" mentioned by Greason in his talk on youtube. It would mean much less fuel would be needed in order to transfer the cargo from space "islands", as opposed to launching them from Earth. You could use these islands as fueling stations. Refueling means deeper space missions, and of course, ultimately a colonizaton effort could be staged from these "islands".
6/5/24:
One way to deal with the challenges of long term spaceflight is to hibernate ( if that's possible).
The idea is to reduce the amount of resources, but it could also be useful for psychological purposes. "Cabin fever" can result from being cooped up inside of a rocket ship for several months or even years. Going into hibernation could not only reduce consumption of resources, but it could also deal with a lot of time.
I was also thinking that a person could enter a highly protected area that would necessitate not moving around much. It would be like a lead "coffin". A highly dense material could be used to block gamma rays, and help prevent radiation exposure. The key would be to not move around. The most efficient use of highly dense materials would involve keeping a person immobile, as mobility would require much more material for protection.
As can be seen in some of the updates, I continue to research this space station concept. The current iteration involves a 68 meter in diameter torus along the lines of the VERA stations that I began with. At this size, the amount of artificial gravity is minimized to the least amount that would be needed for adjustment.
As for making it a "coffin", one might use different materials. One cannot consume lead. However lead is very effective at stopping gamma rays. You'd need a lot more of everything else.
Perhaps you can make the station out of gingerbread, but I am kidding around. The tweet below discusses human hibernation for space travel.
end update of 6/2/24 post
6/2/24:
It's all rather boring, but better than reading this gawdawful news. Something to divert my time for a moment so I can forget stuff that I'd rather not think about right now. Anyway, a Delta-V map that shows how little delta v is needed for Mars transfer and Mars capture orbit once you get far enough away from Earth ( but not quite far enough away to escape). Delta-V in kilometers per sec (kms).
If you were to park some stations there, and fly back and forth between Earth without committing to Mars, you can stage your trip out there. Perhaps at EML-4 or EML-5 would be more handy. Get far enough out there, and it doesn't take much to send you onward to Mars. However, once you're committed, it's going to be a long trip.
A fully re-fueled Statship may be capable of a delta-v of 7.75 kms. That's with a full load. Tugging a big space station may slow that down a bit.
In your space station, you'd need to rotate it a certain speed in order to obtain some artificial gravity. Above are some possible sizes by radius, and how many rpm needed for the approximation to one Earth gravity. Rounded to two decimal points. Sizes in meters.
You may want to guestimate about which size and speed you'd figure is best. Speeds above 2 RPM are probably not desirable. Indeed, the slower the better, but that means a much bigger station. The bigger it is, the less feasible it would be to build it out. Note: chart show half rpm, it should be two. 6/3/24: Note: Now corrected. 6/4/24: A few more adjustments.
end update of 5/29/24 post
5/29/24:
Ooops! Looks like somebody "busted" the idea that began this little brainstorm of mine. This idea of mine began with this space station as the center of a Mars colonization effort and other such things. No effort was made on this blog to critically analyze it or anything like that. I was somewhat skeptical, but eventually I accepted it ( as a manner of argument ) all as legit. Maybe it isn't.
Seems like many years ago, I came across something similar. I merely assumed that it was a legit thing then too. The tech needed to make it a reality didn't exist.
SpaceX may be changing all that. With Starship's ability to lift large amounts of cargo per launch, and do it at reasonable prices, it would seem to open up the possibiity of something like a space manufacturer to build out such space stations. If it turns out that this guy is not such a person, but an imposter, then it is an embarrassing error. But it doesn't negate the possibility of such stations being possible to be made. Perhaps not by this guy, but somebody could.
end update of 5/28/24 post:
5/28/24:
An idea came to me recently, so I guess I'll write it up. Why not?
If one were to park a space station in high Earth orbit, it wouldn't take much delta-v to get into a Hohlman transfer to Mars. And not much more F delta-v from there gets you into high Mars orbit. So here's the idea: Make a couple hundred of these Vera stations that can hold a thousand passengers apiece, and park them into high Earth orbit. Another hundred could get placed into high Mars orbit. Every time a launch window opens, a hundred stations are sent back to high Earth orbit, and a hundred stations are sent to high Mars orbit.
A few starships could go out to the high orbital locations and bring the passengers enroute to Mars, or back from Mars. The new nuclear pulse type rocket engine could provide the transport of the Vera stations. The Starships could be positioned near each planet in order to serve the stations. In other words, you don't need the extra mass, so why bring it along? Plus the Starships need a lot of fuel. The 5000 ISP nuclear rockets won't need much fuel at all.
If you want to, you could attach the 100 Vera stations into one mega station with 100k passengers. Their mass could protect against cosmic radiation. Spin them up for artificial gravity. The passengers should be fairly safe in such an arrangement.
I worked out the mass requirements for the delta-v, assuming 1000 tons of mass for the station, including supplies. A modest delta-v didn't require all that much fuel---25 tons. This gave a mass fraction of 97.5%. It's usually 97.5% for the fuel alone if the nuclear option is not used. So that should show the advantage of such an approach.
What used to seem pretty fanciful, now seems to be within the realm of possibilities. Not that it would happen anyway, but it is fun to think about it.
end update of 5/19/24 post
5/19/24:
It may well be wise to be modest in one's own speculations. There could be many, many complications in the way of such a project.
But speculation doesn't hurt anything. On the other hand, a little knowledge could be a dangerous thing. So, do you like danger?
I've been checking into something here with regard to calculating delta-v for trips to asteroids. There are a few things to think about. A delta-v may not be a show stopper. Another show stopper could be with the launch windows. Or it could be that and some other thing. After all, it is rocket science.
At the moment, a trip to a near-Earth type asteroid may involve no more difficulty than landing on the moon. Maybe it could be less. However, setting up a station on any asteroid may involve some complications. It is, after all, rocket science.
If the complication is launch window availability, then it may pay to have a lot of asteroids on a visit list. Then you can fly off to the one that is closest at hand. Sounds simple, but there could be more complications. There always seems to be. That is all.
end update of 5/17/24 post:
5/17/24:
Instead of making an O'Neill cylinder out of 433 Eros, make hundreds, or thousands of space stations out of it.
It can take the materials in situ: mine them, fabricate them, and assemble them in place. Then launch them to other asteroids, to do the same.
Each potentially hazardous asteroid can become a resource. It can also pay for itself if it finds enough gold, silver, and platinum while mining for base metals.
Each new station can be tasked with finding new opportunities. Multiple objectives could be attained with minimal effort. It could be done with robots, like these.
Somebody could become quite rich.
end update of 4/17/24 post:
4/17/24:
Perhaps this could be built as a cycler. Launch once and it will stay there forever. Instead of flying to a planet, you'd fly to and from this cycler.
These could be Jeff Greason's "islands" for the island hopping strategy for Mars colonization. You'd be making your own islands.
end update of the 6/22/23 post
Update of post made on -- 6-22-23
There are several ideas for a new space station. Of all of the ones that have been seen here, the Space Gateway is the one in which holds the most capability. It is also the biggest. There would be enormous amount of space that could house a lot of people. It would also take the most money, because of the extraordinary amount of material that would have to be launched up to orbit.
But the same could be said for Elon Musk's plans. A smaller number of Starships, plus a new spaceship could be better than the current plan. It wouldn't take much to make the Gateway station into a space ship. The only things needed would be some engines. If the Starship provided the engines, then it could be towed to its destinations.
One of the Gateway stations mentioned appears to able to house 1000 people. Ten of these, towed by Starships, could transport 10,000 people per flight window to Mars. A hundred trips could transport a million. A million is what Musk plans to send to Mars. But each window is two years, so that would take over two centuries. Therefore, more stations would be needed. Ten times as many should get the job done.
In situ resourcing could cut the launch costs for each station. It would be better to launch from the Moon or Mars than from the Earth. Consequently, the ability to make the materials necessary in order to construct such stations, needs to go off-world. But the Gateway presentation said as much already.
The stations could be like Islands in the sky. Each Island could be a waystation, or hub, for transporting people and materials back and forth to destinations.
There are many possible destinations between Earth and Mars. The LaGrange points come to mind.
Who and how it would be funded is the key. Space mining, manufacturing, and tourism are possibilities. Whole new industries could be born.
here's the original post...
Not to be too negative, but this guy is getting way, way out front of the game. Big thinking means big bucks. Where's the money going to come from in order to get these space stations off the ground? True, I didn't watch the whole thing (not as of this writing), but gee whiz. This guy thinks BIG.
On the positive side, I think this is the right way to think about going to far away places, like Mars. Put an engine cluster on the space stations he's talking about, and bingo... You could transport many people this way to an off world location like Mars.
An alternative? (video taken down)
Perhaps a post already exists on the idea, so at the risk of repeating myself ( and reinventing the wheel, I'll post again.)
The Moon's resources could be mined in place, and then fashioned into spaceship in its own right. It wouldn't have to be aerodyamic, as the Moon has no atmosphere. Then it could be launched using a novel system that wouldn't work on Earth.
John Hunter of Qucklaunch once proposed a gas-gun to put resources into Earth orbit. Let's speculate a bit. Could such a gun concept be employed somehow on the Moon? I did ask him once upon a time, and he said that the temperature needed for Lunar escape velocity would be room temperature!
Hunter's gas gun had small payload. But could this be scaled up?
If you were to put together such a launch system, you wouldn't need propellant for escaping the lunar gravitation. Perhaps you could aim it at Mars, and let her rip!
That would leave the problem of what to do when you got there.
The G-forces would be an issue for manned flights. Maybe too much of one.
The possibilities are endless once the Starship can deliver enormous mass to space. Anything may be possible.
3/19/25:
A recent post on Aldrin Cyclers would provide an opportunity for a bit of comparison between the concepts. There's a pdf file associated with the concept, which Marcus House mentioned on his video about the cyclers. A point of concern cropped up. That's the high delta-v required for the Mars side. If it takes so much delta-v to get back from Mars, then it calls into question the usefulness of the concept.
The system will require re-fueling stations on each side of the journey back and forth between the cyclers and the travelers' locations. If you are going to need re-fueling stations anyway, then why use a cycler at all?
Instead you can use the concept that I've been fleshing out with these posts. It only takes a small delta-v to get back and forth between a Deimos station and a Earth-Moon LaGrange point. Re-fueling and cargo exchanges could occur at these locations on their journeys back and forth between Earth and Mars.
Therefore, I'm souring a bit on the Aldrin Cycler concept. It doesn't offer enough of a benefit to justify the cost. You'll need the re-fueling stations in any event, and you could build space stations at the re-fueling stations that would enable a crew to recover from their long journey. Spin it up to an Earth Gravity and harden it with shielding. You can do most of the same things as with the cycler, and it would probably be no more challenging to get the facilities built out than with the cyclers.
11/14/24:
An idea here is to utilize Jeff Greason's strategy of "island hopping" as a colonization strategy. (Mentioned on an earlier update of 4/17/24, which is also highlighted in red text--scroll down to it, please.)
The idea is to shuttle back and forth between High Earth orbit and the Lunar orbit planned for use in the Artemis program. You could launch from the surface of the moon more massive cargoes than from the Earth. Then you could transfer the cargo to High Earth Orbit in order to refuel Starships which are going outbound.
The high orbits would be analogous to the "islands" mentioned by Greason in his talk on youtube. It would mean much less fuel would be needed in order to transfer the cargo from space "islands", as opposed to launching them from Earth. You could use these islands as fueling stations. Refueling means deeper space missions, and of course, ultimately a colonizaton effort could be staged from these "islands".
6/5/24:
One way to deal with the challenges of long term spaceflight is to hibernate ( if that's possible).
The idea is to reduce the amount of resources, but it could also be useful for psychological purposes. "Cabin fever" can result from being cooped up inside of a rocket ship for several months or even years. Going into hibernation could not only reduce consumption of resources, but it could also deal with a lot of time.
I was also thinking that a person could enter a highly protected area that would necessitate not moving around much. It would be like a lead "coffin". A highly dense material could be used to block gamma rays, and help prevent radiation exposure. The key would be to not move around. The most efficient use of highly dense materials would involve keeping a person immobile, as mobility would require much more material for protection.
As can be seen in some of the updates, I continue to research this space station concept. The current iteration involves a 68 meter in diameter torus along the lines of the VERA stations that I began with. At this size, the amount of artificial gravity is minimized to the least amount that would be needed for adjustment.
As for making it a "coffin", one might use different materials. One cannot consume lead. However lead is very effective at stopping gamma rays. You'd need a lot more of everything else.
Perhaps you can make the station out of gingerbread, but I am kidding around. The tweet below discusses human hibernation for space travel.
Hibernating astronauts-science or fiction? https://t.co/U0xremAIM5
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 5, 2024
end update of 6/2/24 post
6/2/24:
It's all rather boring, but better than reading this gawdawful news. Something to divert my time for a moment so I can forget stuff that I'd rather not think about right now. Anyway, a Delta-V map that shows how little delta v is needed for Mars transfer and Mars capture orbit once you get far enough away from Earth ( but not quite far enough away to escape). Delta-V in kilometers per sec (kms).
If you were to park some stations there, and fly back and forth between Earth without committing to Mars, you can stage your trip out there. Perhaps at EML-4 or EML-5 would be more handy. Get far enough out there, and it doesn't take much to send you onward to Mars. However, once you're committed, it's going to be a long trip.
A fully re-fueled Statship may be capable of a delta-v of 7.75 kms. That's with a full load. Tugging a big space station may slow that down a bit.
 |
| Delta-V map: Earth capture orbit to Mars capture orbit |
 |
| Artificial gravity calculations |
In your space station, you'd need to rotate it a certain speed in order to obtain some artificial gravity. Above are some possible sizes by radius, and how many rpm needed for the approximation to one Earth gravity. Rounded to two decimal points. Sizes in meters.
You may want to guestimate about which size and speed you'd figure is best. Speeds above 2 RPM are probably not desirable. Indeed, the slower the better, but that means a much bigger station. The bigger it is, the less feasible it would be to build it out. Note: chart show half rpm, it should be two. 6/3/24: Note: Now corrected. 6/4/24: A few more adjustments.
end update of 5/29/24 post
5/29/24:
Ooops! Looks like somebody "busted" the idea that began this little brainstorm of mine. This idea of mine began with this space station as the center of a Mars colonization effort and other such things. No effort was made on this blog to critically analyze it or anything like that. I was somewhat skeptical, but eventually I accepted it ( as a manner of argument ) all as legit. Maybe it isn't.
Seems like many years ago, I came across something similar. I merely assumed that it was a legit thing then too. The tech needed to make it a reality didn't exist.
SpaceX may be changing all that. With Starship's ability to lift large amounts of cargo per launch, and do it at reasonable prices, it would seem to open up the possibiity of something like a space manufacturer to build out such space stations. If it turns out that this guy is not such a person, but an imposter, then it is an embarrassing error. But it doesn't negate the possibility of such stations being possible to be made. Perhaps not by this guy, but somebody could.
end update of 5/28/24 post:
5/28/24:
An idea came to me recently, so I guess I'll write it up. Why not?
If one were to park a space station in high Earth orbit, it wouldn't take much delta-v to get into a Hohlman transfer to Mars. And not much more F delta-v from there gets you into high Mars orbit. So here's the idea: Make a couple hundred of these Vera stations that can hold a thousand passengers apiece, and park them into high Earth orbit. Another hundred could get placed into high Mars orbit. Every time a launch window opens, a hundred stations are sent back to high Earth orbit, and a hundred stations are sent to high Mars orbit.
A few starships could go out to the high orbital locations and bring the passengers enroute to Mars, or back from Mars. The new nuclear pulse type rocket engine could provide the transport of the Vera stations. The Starships could be positioned near each planet in order to serve the stations. In other words, you don't need the extra mass, so why bring it along? Plus the Starships need a lot of fuel. The 5000 ISP nuclear rockets won't need much fuel at all.
If you want to, you could attach the 100 Vera stations into one mega station with 100k passengers. Their mass could protect against cosmic radiation. Spin them up for artificial gravity. The passengers should be fairly safe in such an arrangement.
I worked out the mass requirements for the delta-v, assuming 1000 tons of mass for the station, including supplies. A modest delta-v didn't require all that much fuel---25 tons. This gave a mass fraction of 97.5%. It's usually 97.5% for the fuel alone if the nuclear option is not used. So that should show the advantage of such an approach.
What used to seem pretty fanciful, now seems to be within the realm of possibilities. Not that it would happen anyway, but it is fun to think about it.
end update of 5/19/24 post
5/19/24:
It may well be wise to be modest in one's own speculations. There could be many, many complications in the way of such a project.
But speculation doesn't hurt anything. On the other hand, a little knowledge could be a dangerous thing. So, do you like danger?
I've been checking into something here with regard to calculating delta-v for trips to asteroids. There are a few things to think about. A delta-v may not be a show stopper. Another show stopper could be with the launch windows. Or it could be that and some other thing. After all, it is rocket science.
At the moment, a trip to a near-Earth type asteroid may involve no more difficulty than landing on the moon. Maybe it could be less. However, setting up a station on any asteroid may involve some complications. It is, after all, rocket science.
If the complication is launch window availability, then it may pay to have a lot of asteroids on a visit list. Then you can fly off to the one that is closest at hand. Sounds simple, but there could be more complications. There always seems to be. That is all.
end update of 5/17/24 post:
5/17/24:
Instead of making an O'Neill cylinder out of 433 Eros, make hundreds, or thousands of space stations out of it.
It can take the materials in situ: mine them, fabricate them, and assemble them in place. Then launch them to other asteroids, to do the same.
Each potentially hazardous asteroid can become a resource. It can also pay for itself if it finds enough gold, silver, and platinum while mining for base metals.
Each new station can be tasked with finding new opportunities. Multiple objectives could be attained with minimal effort. It could be done with robots, like these.
Somebody could become quite rich.
end update of 4/17/24 post:
4/17/24:
Perhaps this could be built as a cycler. Launch once and it will stay there forever. Instead of flying to a planet, you'd fly to and from this cycler.
These could be Jeff Greason's "islands" for the island hopping strategy for Mars colonization. You'd be making your own islands.
end update of the 6/22/23 post
Update of post made on -- 6-22-23
There are several ideas for a new space station. Of all of the ones that have been seen here, the Space Gateway is the one in which holds the most capability. It is also the biggest. There would be enormous amount of space that could house a lot of people. It would also take the most money, because of the extraordinary amount of material that would have to be launched up to orbit.
But the same could be said for Elon Musk's plans. A smaller number of Starships, plus a new spaceship could be better than the current plan. It wouldn't take much to make the Gateway station into a space ship. The only things needed would be some engines. If the Starship provided the engines, then it could be towed to its destinations.
One of the Gateway stations mentioned appears to able to house 1000 people. Ten of these, towed by Starships, could transport 10,000 people per flight window to Mars. A hundred trips could transport a million. A million is what Musk plans to send to Mars. But each window is two years, so that would take over two centuries. Therefore, more stations would be needed. Ten times as many should get the job done.
In situ resourcing could cut the launch costs for each station. It would be better to launch from the Moon or Mars than from the Earth. Consequently, the ability to make the materials necessary in order to construct such stations, needs to go off-world. But the Gateway presentation said as much already.
The stations could be like Islands in the sky. Each Island could be a waystation, or hub, for transporting people and materials back and forth to destinations.
There are many possible destinations between Earth and Mars. The LaGrange points come to mind.
Who and how it would be funded is the key. Space mining, manufacturing, and tourism are possibilities. Whole new industries could be born.
here's the original post...
Not to be too negative, but this guy is getting way, way out front of the game. Big thinking means big bucks. Where's the money going to come from in order to get these space stations off the ground? True, I didn't watch the whole thing (not as of this writing), but gee whiz. This guy thinks BIG.
On the positive side, I think this is the right way to think about going to far away places, like Mars. Put an engine cluster on the space stations he's talking about, and bingo... You could transport many people this way to an off world location like Mars.
An alternative? (video taken down)
Saturday, August 29, 2026
Do Trump's critics get it, or not?
If they did, they would find it hard to oppose Trump. But since they don't support Trump, then why not?
Trump's critics hate America, so when Trump does something good for America, they really hate it. The Venezuela deal is really good for America. It secures a source of the kind of oil that America processes (think refineries), but doesn't produce much of---heavy sour crude.
Probably is a lot easier to get a lot of sour crude, than to produce new refineries that can process light "sweet" crude. Maybe you don't get that here, but what we DO get is more in the line of the sweet than the sour. Therefore, America can produce the oil, buts its refineries cannot process it.
That can change with Venezuela's sour crude.
Trump's critics hate America, so when Trump does something good for America, they really hate it. The Venezuela deal is really good for America. It secures a source of the kind of oil that America processes (think refineries), but doesn't produce much of---heavy sour crude.
Probably is a lot easier to get a lot of sour crude, than to produce new refineries that can process light "sweet" crude. Maybe you don't get that here, but what we DO get is more in the line of the sweet than the sour. Therefore, America can produce the oil, buts its refineries cannot process it.
That can change with Venezuela's sour crude.
Dolly Parton airport (you got to get a load of this)
At Instapundit, no less. If you're hands start shaking, could it be the Ludovico treatment????
Friday, August 28, 2026
Gravestone doji
8/28/26:
This stuff never worked for me in my trading. Never. The only thing that seem like a lead-pipe cinch to be meaningful is a head-and-shoulders chart.
The Dow Jones showed one back in 2008, not long before the crash. I traded it, and made money off of it. Other than this, can't say that I've had any luck with Candlestick analysis.
As for the Dow having a Head and Shoulders chart, it wasn't a permanent decline. The Dow rallied into the stratosphere. Yep, I'd say that there's a risk in the markets about now.
There's a lot of rosy talk, too.
But on a serious note, the future isn't certain. As Yogi Berra once said: Predictions are hard, especially about the future. But here's another thought: Why bring this up now? There's an election. Somebody stands to gain if there's a stock market sell-off... I'm just saying it to put it out there....
12/16/14: The original post follows:
Japanese candlestick analysis is but one of many methods to read the financial tea leaves as a manner of speaking. Just noticed a gravestone doji pattern in both the stock market and the gold market.
What does it mean? Nothing good, I don't think. Doji patterns indicate indecision---the market doesn't know what it's direction is to be. In this pattern, it starts and ends at about the same price, but has a rally intraday. Clearly, the rally will not hold, so this is not good.
Here's today's chart, courtesy Yahoo. Note the rally and the opening and closing prices.
The Japanese Candlestick pattern for this would look like a horizontal line connecting the open and close, with a line going up to the high. It looks like a gravestone, hence gravestone doji.
The fundamentals behind all of this is the FED. If the FED attempts to normalize interest rates, the party is over and a bear market should ensue.
We'll see.
Update:
The gravestone doji analysis just died big time. What can I say? These things are not science.
Update:
There's a press release from the FED which suggests that normalization of interest rates won't be happening soon. That's what probably moved the markets yesterday. It only proves that the markets are addicted to easy money. The easy money has to end sometime. Evidently, not now.
This stuff never worked for me in my trading. Never. The only thing that seem like a lead-pipe cinch to be meaningful is a head-and-shoulders chart.
The Dow Jones showed one back in 2008, not long before the crash. I traded it, and made money off of it. Other than this, can't say that I've had any luck with Candlestick analysis.
As for the Dow having a Head and Shoulders chart, it wasn't a permanent decline. The Dow rallied into the stratosphere. Yep, I'd say that there's a risk in the markets about now.
There's a lot of rosy talk, too.
But on a serious note, the future isn't certain. As Yogi Berra once said: Predictions are hard, especially about the future. But here's another thought: Why bring this up now? There's an election. Somebody stands to gain if there's a stock market sell-off... I'm just saying it to put it out there....
12/16/14: The original post follows:
Japanese candlestick analysis is but one of many methods to read the financial tea leaves as a manner of speaking. Just noticed a gravestone doji pattern in both the stock market and the gold market.
What does it mean? Nothing good, I don't think. Doji patterns indicate indecision---the market doesn't know what it's direction is to be. In this pattern, it starts and ends at about the same price, but has a rally intraday. Clearly, the rally will not hold, so this is not good.
Here's today's chart, courtesy Yahoo. Note the rally and the opening and closing prices.
The fundamentals behind all of this is the FED. If the FED attempts to normalize interest rates, the party is over and a bear market should ensue.
We'll see.
Update:
The gravestone doji analysis just died big time. What can I say? These things are not science.
Update:
There's a press release from the FED which suggests that normalization of interest rates won't be happening soon. That's what probably moved the markets yesterday. It only proves that the markets are addicted to easy money. The easy money has to end sometime. Evidently, not now.
The Guess Who: "American Woman"
What's with the Canucks?
Evidently, there has always been something going on. Listen carefully to this song. It is full of hatred. Hatred??? Yes. Even in the tone, there is this tone that my mind searches for a word to describe, but it evades me.
Incidentally, this song came out when I was a teenager. When the song came on, Dad would say to turn it off. He banned the playing of that song in the house.
As kids, I don't think we got it. Well, after reading that post linking to a CTH story about what the Canadians just did, you have to be somewhat thick-headed NOT to see it.
NOTE: This song was recorded in the late sixties. My dad died in the early seventies. It's over 50 years old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)