SpaceX Starship Towed Near Christmas Island

Which is a territory of Australia, if memory serves. Is that the plan? Or what's the plan now?

AI discussion of the joint:

please give information about christmas island

**Christmas Island** is an Australian external territory in the Indian Ocean, located approximately 224 miles (360 km) south of Java and 870 miles (1,400 km) northwest of Australia. The island covers 135 square kilometers (52 square miles) and is administered by Australia, with its capital at **Flying Fish Cove**.

**Naming and History**: The island was first sighted by Europeans in 1615 but was officially named on **Christmas Day, 1643**, by Captain William Mynors. It was annexed by Great Britain in 1888 due to its rich phosphate deposits, administered by Singapore until 1958, when it became an official Australian territory.

**Geography and Environment**: Christmas Island is the summit of an underwater mountain, with its highest point being **Murray Hill** at 1,184 feet (361 meters). The island is covered largely by tropical rainforest, with two-thirds designated as a **National Park**. It is often called the "**Galapagos of the Indian Ocean**" due to its high level of endemic species and minimal historical human disturbance.

**Wildlife**: The island is world-famous for the annual migration of the **Christmas Island red crab** (*Gecarcoidea natalis*), with populations estimated in the tens of millions. These crabs migrate from the rainforest to the coast to breed. The island also supports unique seabirds, reptiles, and insects, though the Christmas Island shrew was declared extinct in 2025.

**Accessibility and Culture**: Travel is primarily via **flights from Perth, Australia**, which take about three hours, or by yacht/cruise ship. The population is approximately 1,700–2,200 people, consisting mainly of ethnic Chinese, European, and Malay communities. The official language is English, though Malay and Chinese dialects are widely spoken. The economy relies on phosphate mining, government services, and growing tourism.

There's not much there. Maybe there's a harbor?

Yes, **Christmas Island** has a harbor located at **Flying Fish Cove**, which serves as the territory's main settlement and primary port.

### Harbor Facilities and Operations

The harbor is the only safe anchorage on the island, characterized by a steep underwater drop-off and deep-water approaches. It does not feature traditional alongside wharf berths for general docking; instead, it utilizes a **catenary buoy mooring system** with three main berths:

* **Phosphate Loading Jetty:** The main berth, capable of accommodating vessels up to 180 meters in length for exporting rock phosphate.

* **General Cargo Berth:** Located inshore, used for importing supplies and general goods.

* **Fuel Berth:** Situated at Smith Point for refueling operations.

### Accessibility and Limitations

Access to the harbor is **weather-dependent** and can be restricted by swell and surge, as the cove is open to the north.

* **Commercial Shipping:** The port handles bulk mineral exports and containerized imports, with a maximum vessel draft of approximately 6.1 meters for general cargo operations.

* **Yachts and Visitors:** Visiting yachts are welcome but must use designated mooring buoys (fees apply); **anchoring is prohibited** to protect coral formations. There is no marina, haul-out facility, or significant repair yard, making the harbor suitable only for short stopovers.

* **Cruise Ships:** Large cruise vessels cannot dock and must anchor offshore, tendering passengers to a basic cargo pier near London Village (note: this refers to Kiritimati/Christmas Island in Kiribati; for the Australian territory, facilities are similarly limited to cargo jetties).

Comment:

Not sure what's the plan here, but there's bound to be one, right?

Anyway, here's a video:  

Wonder how many people fall for this propaganda

The Fox news link's headline on Free Republic appears to paint a rosy scenario for the President, but the commentary isn't rosy scenario. If you disregard the talking heads, you'll see a dwindling ability for Iran to affect oil prices. At this time, they can rattle the sabers and scare people in the Persian Gulf. That's about it. Oil prices are elevated, but nothing like the nightmare scenarios once envisioned.

To be sure, prices are still elevated. Even so, inflation remains around targeted areas.

So I'm wondering if all the negativity will affect the midterms.

The crazy Democrats are being taken over by the even more crazies. If folks think these crazy loco weeds are going to do anything useful or positive, they're going to be disappointed.

But that's how politics goes. Some folks are disappointed in Trump. But the disappointment is unwarranted. There's has been been plenty of good developments. The ones like this story, with higher prices at the pump, are likely not to last. Indeed, the way out of this is already in the works. It may taken until after the election to see the results, but it will happen.

Iran cannot be saved by the Democrats anyway. Not unless the Dems win 2/3rds of the Senate and the House. No way that happens even in the worst case scenario. Trump can still be Trump for a couple more years in any case.

But a smashing win would be nice.

Another perspective about Houston's Big Dig from Brave AI

8/19/26:

Time to move on from this topic. Based upon what I've gathered from 2 AI sources, there isn't much in the way of detail about how this will be built out. The Devil is in the details.

The reasons given for such a massive project are more political than practical. It will not likely help traffic, although it might do so in a marginal way for a period long enough for the next time.

The price tag is excessive. The construction itself will be a nightmare, according to a comment I saw. I have no doubts about that.

It has to be sold with "a little bit of sugar to make the medicine go down". The "sugar" is the ostensible reasons for the project. Knitting together the city isn't really a problem that's worth $13 billion to "solve". It really doesn't matter to me anymore anyhow. I don't live in Houston anymore. I don't work in Houston anymore. I don't drive its freeways anymore. So I'm outta here.

8/18/26: (as of this writing, yesterday)

What's actually being done? What are the plans for the Big Dig in Houston? Here's what Brave AI had to say about it...



Brave gives you a few buttons to click for more info... One of these is "Elaborate". So I clicked...



Likewise, you can click even further, and so I did...



Not many nuts and bolts facts about exactly what they're doing. But you get the general idea. First, they do the flood control stuff with the retention ponds. Then they'll re-route I45 to follow I10 until I69. Whereupon it switces from I10 to following I69 down to the intersection with I45 again. From there, it I45 just does its own thing.

The project will follow phases. This phase comes first. That other phases will take until 2050! Total cost over 13 billion scoots. <br>

Thought experiment, continued

8/19/26:

This old post needs some updating... Things have changed a bit in the last 16 years. Elon Musk has nearly got his Starship operational. However, he will not do space solar.

Will anybody ever do space solar? If focus fusion works, the answer will be "no". No need for solar if you've got aneutronic fusion. Aneutronic fusion may be close. But maybe not. I'm invested in it now. So I'm plugging it a bit. They've got a fundraiser going on on Wefunder. Check it out, if interested.

It is necessary to disclose that I'm invested in it, by the way. Yep, I stand to make some money if it succeeds. So could anyone. Hint, hint.

11/16/10: The original post begins directly below:

This is a continuation of the thought experiment started yesterday.  Let's reduce
this down to just one car and the amount of solar panels you would need to produce
the electricity for that one car.  From my study of batteries, you can get about
3 miles per kilowatt hour with a battery.  This calculation is from my memory and
may not be entirely accurate nor up to date.  But this isn't exact, a round figure
will suffice for now.

The Chevy Volt has a 40 mile range for its battery pack.  Using the 3 mile per kwh
number, you would need about 13 kwh of power to drive with electricity.  Again, this
may not be exact, but it is using a figure from the real world in order to get a
rough estimate.

From this we can calculate how much solar panelling will be necessary in order to
produce the 13 kwh.  Using the web page from yesterday, we have 80 watts of continuous
power from a 1000 sq inch panel.  At 95% availability in geosynchronous orbit, the
panel will produce  (.95*80 watts * 24 hours)/ 1000 watt hours per kwh = 1.824 kwh.
Why 95% availability?  A solar panel in geosynchronous orbit at an altitude of
22,000 miles (approx) will be in the sun almost 95% of the time.  From this number,
we can now calculate the number of panels needed in order to produce the electricity
for 1 auto.  13 kwh/1.824 kwh per panel gives a little over 7 panels.

What would be the cost of these 7 panels?  This is about 49 square feet of panels.
From this webpage, we can calculate it (again a bit rough calc) it figures out
to be about 56 dollars per square foot.  So, 7*56 = 392 or about 400 dollars.

How long will it last?  Maybe it could last 30 years.  Perhaps that would be way
too optimistic.  Let's say 10 years.  Then the cost per year would be 400/10
which would be about 40 dollars per year.

Sounds pretty cheap, still.  What is the cost per kwh if you use electricity from
the wall plug?  At 10 cents per kwh, you and 13 kwh per day you get the following
.10*13*365= which is about 475 bucks per year.  The above solar panel configuration
would only have to be 1/10th as efficient in order to yield the same cost.

Is it worthwhile to launch from the moon?  You have to have the infrastructure in
place on the moon in order to make the solar panels and to put them into orbit.
That would take a considerable investment.  If you can get the costs down of
manufacturing the solar panels to anything near what it takes on earth, then what
you have left is the cost of launch.  How much would that be?  About 5% of what
an earth launch would cost.  Again, rough figures.  That would be about 10,000 *
5 percent or 500 dollars per kg.  You'll still have to do better than this because
7 solar panels would definitely weigh more than 1 kg.  The 10,000 number is based
upon shuttles which are expensive even for earth launches.

The launch problem still exists even on the moon, or at least in this example.
Can you do better than the 5% number?  Maybe.  It takes energy to launch from
anywhere.  Getting stuff off the moon would require an efficient way to use
energy for launches.  If you figure that out, you figure out this problem.

What about mass launchers?  It would only use energy and little to no fuel.  This
could be a start.  I pick this up again in a future post.

President Trump Pauses 50 Percent Tariffs Against Canada Hours Before Effect

CTH

Comment:

This one seems like a little like more oil for us, as opposed to more expensive oil from the Persian Gulf. This actually works to America's favor.

Therefore, if the Keystone Pipeline finally gets built, it will be a good deal.

Alberta will make more money, but will they leave Canada? Better for them to leave if Canada insists upon robbing them. But that is between Alberta and Ottawa. In the meantime, we get the oil. Will it help with prices? Not right now, but it will do so eventually.

If you watch the oil price action, the highest prices are in the Persian Gulf, with Brent next highest. The lowest prices are for West Texas Intermediate. The low cost producer has the advantage. There might be more oil available in the Persian Gulf, but the fighting there makes it expensive to get out. Why should this be OUR problem? It won't be. It is only our problem because the policies that preceded Trump. The prices are high only now because Trump took action now while he is in office.

Better now than when Iran has the bomb.

But Iran won't have the bomb either. Why can't knuckleheads see this?

Point confirmed

A point was just confirmed. It is a point that I've mentioned often enough that it should be considered one of the themes of this blog.

Politics doesn't solve problems. Indeed, politicians CAUSE problems, and then use those problems to gain power.

Put no faith in the princes and powers of this world. That is a mangled quote from the New Testament, fyi.

An example from current events would be the ongoing Iran war situation. The Iranians have lost, but they won't accept that. That's because the American side has a weakness that can be exploited. Americans are a pretty spoiled group of folks. Americans want cheap gasoline, but they also do not want to do what is necessary here in order to secure that supply. There's plenty of oil available from the Persian Gulf, but in order to get that oil, you have to secure the Strait of Hormuz. This can be done militarily. But the American side will not accept the casualities that are likely to result from that.

There was something really unusual that was on the webz yesterday. There's no link, so it's just from memory here. Anyway, a critic of the war was trying to make an issue out of the casualties and deaths from it. That is truly absurd. There aren't many deaths and casualties. Hardly any at all from hostile action. These people will make an issue out the handful of deaths that have occurred there from hostile action, and the way they do it is to exaggerate it. Some of the deaths over there were counted because it was in the war zone. Not from Iranian action.

Truly absurd, that is. There have been more deaths from training mishaps here in the States than what has occurred in this war. What silliness to make an issue out of this.

The Iranians want to exploit things like this. They can effect little right now except a price increase that is primarily of oil from the region.

But Brent Crude is higher. Why? Ten to one it is because of politics, not from a shortage of oil from that area of the world.

WTI is the lowest price now. This is seen as a problem! It's no problem. Oil discovery and exploitation is profitable in the USA right now. Why is this a problem? Politics!

Solutions are not desired. If oil bothers you, molten-salt reactor technology has existed for the past 50 plus years. It was concept proven in the '70's. There's no good reason not to pursue the tech, but guess what the reason is for not pursuing it? Politics.

Oil and nuclear power have their critics, who seem to have a plausible reason for their objections. But their objections are largely exaggerated and in some cases, outright false. There's no global warming due to oil use. Nuclear power can be developed that is cheaper than coal. These are the facts. But the facts don't matter when politicians are on the loose.

Such are some of the themes of this blog. It has never changed, because my opinions have not changed, but rather confirmed.

There's some other ways to obtain energy, but these are harder to make good as far as the economics and feasibility is concerned. Politicians have therefore raised the specter of scarcity and high prices. Such work to the advantage of politicians, of course.

What's the public to do? The Good Book may not have said it, but I say the Lord helps those who help themselves. You could pursue what I'm pursuing, which is a solution to the energy problem. The princes and powers of this world don't want these solutions.

Therefore, I write about politics, not because I love politics. I hate it. But it is necessary to pay attention to politics. Somebody has got to run things. We have to decide who will do it.

Lately, I have allowed myself to believe that LPP Fusion can succeed in the near term. So I increased my stake a bit. Not a whole lot. I haven't gone all in on it. The tech may not be workable. But if it is, it will be revolutionary. Revolutions happen because of a crying need that continually isn't being met, and that a critical mass of people who are wiliing to do something about it actually decide to get to work and do it.

If I can afford to invest in it, then just about anybody can. There's really no excuse not finding out if Erik Lerner's vision can be fulfilled. If it can, electricity will become radically abundant. This would not be the first time in history that such has occurred. Human progress has resulted from things like this.

But perhaps people would rather suffer. I'd rather not suffer if it isn't necessary, but when it is, then buck up and suffer in order to improve things. You might have to go to war, and die. Or you might have to be willing to accept a small risk of a radioactive issue arising out of the use of nuclear power from fission. Or you could spend a few bucks on Erik Lerner's research. No matter how you slice it, you have to decide to do something. So-called renewables won't work. At least, not on Earth. You get only a few hours of sunshine a day. The wind doesn't always blow.

You know, we've been down this road before in the '70's. Jimmah Carter had his little malaise speech that got him canned. When will people wake the hell up? It seems worse this time than in the '70's. The revolution may come, but if it does, will it solve anything? The politicians have already had their chance with the molten-salt reactor. So we went back to oil, and we still get upset about the deaths even though there really aren't that many. So you've got to do something. Maybe something will get done, but we don't have forever to do it. Hopefully, it is the right thing. Know what I mean, Vern?

What's wrong with the street?

How many of youse peoples remember the scene from the movie "Falling Down", in which the main character "D-FENS" blows up the construction site? Well, that came to mind with the boondoggle discussion that I've posted recently.