Cute name, "What the Ship". Maybe he ought to include "Ship Happens".
The guys gets too cute sometimes. I give him some credit for knowing his stuff, but let's try to get a bit more factual and relevant.
Geez, I am getting a bit grouchy these days. OK, but the stupidity in the world just gobsmacks me. What else can I do but raise a little hell?
I watch the oil prices in order to see what impact the Iranians are having on shipping. Not that it really matters. None of this "ship" should even matter to America. We produce our own oil. Enough for virtually all our needs. If the nitwittery could get under control, we wouldn't import a barrel, and WE would control prices----not these ragheads.
I am tired of suffering fools gladly. So there.
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, August 24, 2026
Why are things upside down?
In one word---Communism.
You've got to give it to the commies, they are relentless.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, it was said that America won the Cold War. Nope. It just shifted gears into another phase. The Soviet Union was replaced by Red China. Why call it "Red China"? Aren't the Chinese capitalists now?
If there's one thing that the commies excel at and that is WAR. Everything about commies is about WAR. Their entire raison d'tere is "class warfare". They'll never give up, which means that they have to be ground down to absolutely nothing, or they will rise again. Keep in mind that the Communist Party is China has not renounced communism! They haven't given it up. But we have shut our eyes, and have become stupid. In particular, the WOMEN.
The link above is a question that relates directly to the issue. Women are the ones who fall for this commie crap. To be sure, they're plenty of men who do too, but women are especially vulnerable for some reason.
You get some women out there who ask the question as to what has happened to the men... Well, the answer to that is inverted. Just as the article linked to above asks. The question should be what has happened to the women? Well, the commies got ahold of the women, and have ruined them.
The commies go after the weak, as all predators do. It is up to the men to do the protecting. But the men were taught to be "sensitive". Women think they love that until they discover what the downside is. A bunch of wussified males pretending to be women. That's exactly what is being pushed upon this society, and too damned many are falling for this nonsense.
The article is written by a woman, who seems genuinely perplexed by what is happening in our society. She might try looking in the mirror.
Women have gone from pushing Prohibition once they got the right to vote to now pushing communism. Well, that's going from one extreme to another, don't you think? I don't think women know any better.
If things are going to turn around, the men had better get their sheet together main.
Ten to one the response to this will be denial. Well, denial is not a river in Egypt, my friends. The one and only way to turn things around is to recognize who the enemy is and what they enemy is doing. They are behind the social degradation that this woman who wrote this article and asked the question-- "Why are things upside down?" The trouble is that the answer was once well-known, but has been buried upon layer upon layer of communist propaganda.
Some way or another, this will have to be countered and utterly defeated.
That's because communism and freedom do not go together, and the commies know that damned good and well. That's why they want to censor and cancel you. They know good and well that you cannot be allowed to defend yourself, so you must be disarmed.
Now the commies are taking over the Democrat party. In the days of JFK, even he, as a Democrat, was willing to fight communism. The Democrats stopped fighting in the sixties. The GOP is starting to join them. Who's stopping them? Trump is trying, but guess who wants to stop Trump? The Establisment GOP.
They call it MAGA, but it ought to be called America's Last Stand. If MAGA fails, we are too. Stick a fork in us, cuz we're done.
I'm not done. I'll be done when I'm dead you commie a-holes.
Over and out.
You've got to give it to the commies, they are relentless.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, it was said that America won the Cold War. Nope. It just shifted gears into another phase. The Soviet Union was replaced by Red China. Why call it "Red China"? Aren't the Chinese capitalists now?
If there's one thing that the commies excel at and that is WAR. Everything about commies is about WAR. Their entire raison d'tere is "class warfare". They'll never give up, which means that they have to be ground down to absolutely nothing, or they will rise again. Keep in mind that the Communist Party is China has not renounced communism! They haven't given it up. But we have shut our eyes, and have become stupid. In particular, the WOMEN.
The link above is a question that relates directly to the issue. Women are the ones who fall for this commie crap. To be sure, they're plenty of men who do too, but women are especially vulnerable for some reason.
You get some women out there who ask the question as to what has happened to the men... Well, the answer to that is inverted. Just as the article linked to above asks. The question should be what has happened to the women? Well, the commies got ahold of the women, and have ruined them.
The commies go after the weak, as all predators do. It is up to the men to do the protecting. But the men were taught to be "sensitive". Women think they love that until they discover what the downside is. A bunch of wussified males pretending to be women. That's exactly what is being pushed upon this society, and too damned many are falling for this nonsense.
The article is written by a woman, who seems genuinely perplexed by what is happening in our society. She might try looking in the mirror.
Women have gone from pushing Prohibition once they got the right to vote to now pushing communism. Well, that's going from one extreme to another, don't you think? I don't think women know any better.
If things are going to turn around, the men had better get their sheet together main.
Ten to one the response to this will be denial. Well, denial is not a river in Egypt, my friends. The one and only way to turn things around is to recognize who the enemy is and what they enemy is doing. They are behind the social degradation that this woman who wrote this article and asked the question-- "Why are things upside down?" The trouble is that the answer was once well-known, but has been buried upon layer upon layer of communist propaganda.
Some way or another, this will have to be countered and utterly defeated.
That's because communism and freedom do not go together, and the commies know that damned good and well. That's why they want to censor and cancel you. They know good and well that you cannot be allowed to defend yourself, so you must be disarmed.
Now the commies are taking over the Democrat party. In the days of JFK, even he, as a Democrat, was willing to fight communism. The Democrats stopped fighting in the sixties. The GOP is starting to join them. Who's stopping them? Trump is trying, but guess who wants to stop Trump? The Establisment GOP.
They call it MAGA, but it ought to be called America's Last Stand. If MAGA fails, we are too. Stick a fork in us, cuz we're done.
I'm not done. I'll be done when I'm dead you commie a-holes.
Over and out.
Sunday, August 23, 2026
Trade Talks - President Trump and USTR Greer Respond to Canada's Claims
CTH
Comment:
People say Trump is a unlikable guy. The crap he puts up with contradicts that. If he was as big a dick as these others are, then they MIGHT have a point.
The Canucks are just being primo a-holes. Plain and simple. Actually, the US side made an offer that was quite generous. And now this. But somehow Trump is the bad guy.
The above goes for these Democrats, too. Hmm. Stop calling them Democrats. They've gone full blown commie pinko fags. But to say so would make ME a bad guy. Say what?!? Me a "bad guy"? You gotta be kidding me.
Comment:
People say Trump is a unlikable guy. The crap he puts up with contradicts that. If he was as big a dick as these others are, then they MIGHT have a point.
The Canucks are just being primo a-holes. Plain and simple. Actually, the US side made an offer that was quite generous. And now this. But somehow Trump is the bad guy.
The above goes for these Democrats, too. Hmm. Stop calling them Democrats. They've gone full blown commie pinko fags. But to say so would make ME a bad guy. Say what?!? Me a "bad guy"? You gotta be kidding me.
Saturday, August 22, 2026
A launch pad located on the moon
8/22/26:
Fiddling around with idea to use beamed energy to get a lander/ascender to/from the lunar surface. It would be about the size of the lunar module from the Apollo Era. To guide me in the calculations, I used the link below:
Here's a link to calculate the energy
g for moon is 1.622 meters/sec2
PE = (1 kg) x (100,000 m) x ( 1.622 meters/sec2 ) equal 162200 joules
KE for escape velocity moon 2.38 km/s equal 5664400 joules
KE for 2/3 escape velocity 1271375 joules, added together to get total energy required: equal 1,433,575 joules
Therefore to roughly approximate, to launch 1 kg in lunar orbit at 100 km is equal to 1,433,575 joules / 3,600,000 Joules or about 0.4 kilowatt hour per kg.
That equals 1810 kilowatt hours energy for lunar orbit approximately for a mass about the size of the lunar module ascent stage which was 10000 pounds or 4500 kg.
Now guessing that to deliver 20 megawatt/hr of power for .1 hr or 6 minutes would be enough energy to get to lunar orbit--- to deliver that much energy would require 200 fuel cell units that could deliver 100 kilowatts each.
The idea here is to use Parkin's concept of microwave beam energy to land and take off from the moon. It would have a performance ISP equal to a nuclear thermal rocket, about 850 sec., which would save mass in landing and taking off. You would have to have a fuel supply on hand for taking off, of course. Having the fuel depot located on the moon obviates the need to bring the landing fuel with you, simplifying matters greatly.
To execute this idea, you would need a crash landing trajectory that would be interrupted by the beamed energy to slow the spacecraft down to a soft landing. That is to say, there would be no orbiting first. That would require even more energy than the calculations above--- but not too much more.
You would place a microwave unit on the moon with an energy source to run it. The energy would be beamed to the incoming lander as it gets into range. You would have to slow down from about 5000k mph to zero in less than a few minutes ( without doing the calculations). That's true because the beam may not have a range more than say 150 miles. At 5000k mph, you will cover that distance quickly.
Taking off, just reverse the process. After filling up the fuel tank of course.
The next question is: how big must the microwave unit(s) be to deliver say 30 Megawatts of power? The current guess is that you could deliver these microwave dishes in a number of landings to a yet to be determined location on the lunar surface. Each unit itself would be about the size of the lunar lander in the Apollo Era. The microwave dish would be on top instead of the ascent stage. Each dish would be an integrated unit complete with power source.
How many dishes to deliver the required power?
The rest of the topic is for later discussion.
Update:
You may need multiple launches of a the new big ass rocket being developed for a pretty penny.
Source: SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration
Or, you could use SpaceX's new family of Super Heavy Lifters.
The calculations were a bit foolish of me to post. It's embarrassing. I'm not trained in the physics, obviously.
Nevertheless, one does not need to know too much about it in order to see that that delta-v from the lunar surface to lunar orbit is rather low in comparison to Earth.
The lunar lander during the Apollo Era used about half the wet mass of vehicle in order to touch down on the surface. Thus, if the lander masses at about 35,000 lbs, then the mass on the surface would be 17,500 approx.
Likewise, the return to lunar orbit requires that the vehicle have approx 1/2 of its mass as propellant.
In the case of the lunar modules ascent stage, that was about 10k for the upper part of the LEM, for a propellant load requirement of about 5k lbs.
Using different propellants would change the numbers a bit, but it's a good approximation. That is, unless you start doing things like the Parkin concept. Then it would require much less propellant to get to lunar orbit. That's because the ISP would be comparable to a nuclear thermal rocket, which was around 900.
It makes a lot of sense to use the moon as a waystation on the journey to Mars. Perhaps that's why Elon Musk is going to go to the moon.
Of course, that means a lot of preparation first.
Fiddling around with idea to use beamed energy to get a lander/ascender to/from the lunar surface. It would be about the size of the lunar module from the Apollo Era. To guide me in the calculations, I used the link below:
Here's a link to calculate the energy
Potential energy (PE) is just weight multiplied by distance upward; this is the same weight multiplied by distance upward, which is the same as mass multiplied by acceleration of gravity, multiplied by distance:g for earth is about 6 times that of the moon
PE = w * h = m * g * h
g for moon is 1.622 meters/sec2
Kinetic energy is just half the mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity:calculations for 100 km above moon:
KE = ½ * m * v2
PE = (1 kg) x (100,000 m) x ( 1.622 meters/sec2 ) equal 162200 joules
KE for escape velocity moon 2.38 km/s equal 5664400 joules
KE for 2/3 escape velocity 1271375 joules, added together to get total energy required: equal 1,433,575 joules
A Kilowatt-Hour is 1000 Watts for one hour, which is 1000 Joules per second for 3600 seconds, or 3.6 million Joules.
Therefore to roughly approximate, to launch 1 kg in lunar orbit at 100 km is equal to 1,433,575 joules / 3,600,000 Joules or about 0.4 kilowatt hour per kg.
That equals 1810 kilowatt hours energy for lunar orbit approximately for a mass about the size of the lunar module ascent stage which was 10000 pounds or 4500 kg.
Now guessing that to deliver 20 megawatt/hr of power for .1 hr or 6 minutes would be enough energy to get to lunar orbit--- to deliver that much energy would require 200 fuel cell units that could deliver 100 kilowatts each.
The idea here is to use Parkin's concept of microwave beam energy to land and take off from the moon. It would have a performance ISP equal to a nuclear thermal rocket, about 850 sec., which would save mass in landing and taking off. You would have to have a fuel supply on hand for taking off, of course. Having the fuel depot located on the moon obviates the need to bring the landing fuel with you, simplifying matters greatly.
To execute this idea, you would need a crash landing trajectory that would be interrupted by the beamed energy to slow the spacecraft down to a soft landing. That is to say, there would be no orbiting first. That would require even more energy than the calculations above--- but not too much more.
You would place a microwave unit on the moon with an energy source to run it. The energy would be beamed to the incoming lander as it gets into range. You would have to slow down from about 5000k mph to zero in less than a few minutes ( without doing the calculations). That's true because the beam may not have a range more than say 150 miles. At 5000k mph, you will cover that distance quickly.
Taking off, just reverse the process. After filling up the fuel tank of course.
The next question is: how big must the microwave unit(s) be to deliver say 30 Megawatts of power? The current guess is that you could deliver these microwave dishes in a number of landings to a yet to be determined location on the lunar surface. Each unit itself would be about the size of the lunar lander in the Apollo Era. The microwave dish would be on top instead of the ascent stage. Each dish would be an integrated unit complete with power source.
How many dishes to deliver the required power?
The rest of the topic is for later discussion.
Update:
You may need multiple launches of a the new big ass rocket being developed for a pretty penny.
Source: SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration
 |
| Falcon XX would have lift capacity equivalent to Saturn V or new SLS rocket |
Friday, August 21, 2026
DNI Tulsi Gabbard Gives Update Following Surgery for Husband Abraham Williams
8/21/26:
The Conservative Treehouse
Comment:
Same thing I was diagosed with--sacral chordoma.
He had a surgery, I elected to have proton therapy, which is a type of radiation.
He seems rather young. But I suppose this condition can crop up at any age, but most likely than not, at an older age than what he appears to be.
Chordomas can happen at young ages, but those who get it in younger ages tend to get it closer to the skull according to age. That is to say, a young person gets it in the skull, someone older, perhaps the neck, and someone OLD like me, in the sacrum.
Every case is different, I suspect. I have survived mine by nine years so far. The average lifespan after diagnosis back when I got it was five years. Let us hope Mr. Williams will have a lot of life left.
Mrs. Gabbard gives an update on her husband's progress in recovering from this disease. He must have a tremendous pain tolerance to avoid painkillers. I'd like to think I'm not that big of a wuss. By the way, I kinda wonder why they refused radiation. Was proton therapy not an option? Hard to see that it wouldn't have been. If he had chosen radiation, he would've had a lot easier time of it. Tough guy, eh?
The Conservative Treehouse
Comment:
Same thing I was diagosed with--sacral chordoma.
He had a surgery, I elected to have proton therapy, which is a type of radiation.
He seems rather young. But I suppose this condition can crop up at any age, but most likely than not, at an older age than what he appears to be.
Chordomas can happen at young ages, but those who get it in younger ages tend to get it closer to the skull according to age. That is to say, a young person gets it in the skull, someone older, perhaps the neck, and someone OLD like me, in the sacrum.
Every case is different, I suspect. I have survived mine by nine years so far. The average lifespan after diagnosis back when I got it was five years. Let us hope Mr. Williams will have a lot of life left.
Some favorable political news for the GOP
8/21/26:
Folks have not caught on to what Trump is doing for the country. Other countries have been living off our generosity. Trump is changing that. What does this do? It makes life more affordable, which the Democrats claim that they want to do. One thing that will show up soon, but maybe not soon enough to get the message out, is to reduce prescription drug prices.
The left-wing noise machine is making out the inflation as out of control, but it isn't really. Even with higher gasoline prices, the CPI is not showing those kind of increases. Inflation is still well-controlled, and it will get better and better.
The Democrats have no answers. Just complaints, fear, and loathing.
President Trump doesn't enjoy great favorability numbers. So he needs a boost where he can find one. Even though Trump is not on the ballot, a popular president cannot hurt the party in control. An unpopular president might well hurt the GOP's chances.
Here's some good news for the GOP: There's a manufacturing boom that isn't getting much attention. That's not surprising, since the media won't report anything that might help the president.
Another snippet of good news for the midterms: Prescription drug prices have seen the largest drop in more than 60 years. Since Democrats are running on affordability, this should blunt their message.
The rise of the wacko element of the lunatic-fringe-left doesn't hurt either. The down side to that news is that there may be too many who no longer think these people are bad news. But they are.
I guess this explains a few things
8/21/26:
It seems that Barnhardt has always been against Donald Trump. He's a crypto-Jew, or something like that.
I never got it, so I must be from Rio Linda.
Maybe the press will ax him if he's a crypto-Jew. That is, if the press actually gave a flip one way or the other.
One has to ax oneself this one: What if he IS Jewish? The one thing that MIGHT get me a bit riled is if he expected me to worship his ass.
I think he's a good president, maybe even the best we've had since I've been around. But I don't worship anybody, including him.
That's all for me on this subject.
There's a follow-up on Barnhardt on this crypto-Jew business.
I spent about an hour listening to this, and decided that's enough.
At some point, a person can jump the shark. It may be too early to say, but Miss Barnhardt may have really done it this time.
But maybe not. I kinda doubt that anybody can take over in the manner she is saying UNLESS there is a curtailment of free speech.
If Trump ever does anything like that, I'd say it is a red flag.
But get this: Even if this was the case, and everything she says is right, he cannot do it without essentially wiping out the checks and balances in the Constitution. But she knocks the founding of America, too. Trump cannot be the Devil that casts himself out of hell. A Kingdom Divided against itself cannot stand.
In other words, you cannot "save" America by destroying it.
It seems that Barnhardt has always been against Donald Trump. He's a crypto-Jew, or something like that.
I never got it, so I must be from Rio Linda.
Maybe the press will ax him if he's a crypto-Jew. That is, if the press actually gave a flip one way or the other.
One has to ax oneself this one: What if he IS Jewish? The one thing that MIGHT get me a bit riled is if he expected me to worship his ass.
I think he's a good president, maybe even the best we've had since I've been around. But I don't worship anybody, including him.
That's all for me on this subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)