Wednesday, April 17, 2024
You may not be interested in Skynet, but Skynet is interested in you
Rob Braxman calls it Skynet. It is getting harder to escape the all seeing eyes and ears of the surveillance network. And it will be powered by AI. Isn't that nice? /sarc
What the hell is wrong with people???
A space station manufacturer's dream
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)
Politics Schmolitics 4-17-24
I refuse to be a cheerleader. He is still there. So are the rest of the chumps.
Wishful thinking, or is it real?
Colonization of Ceres
4/17/24:
News about Ceres from Behind the Black blog.
Comment upon the original post down below:
This one didn't have a speculation alert. What I wrote may not have been accurate. I don't seem to mind popping off from time to time. Thus, the need for a speculation alert.
It's pretty dated, in the sense that I don't know how much research I did in creating it. Nor did I include any information that would support that speculation, in some way.
What does it all mean? Without going back and re-inventing the wheel, I'm pretty much screwed with posts like this. It may have had merit, but without the means by which to evaluate it, it's hard to tell. Looks like I'm just popping off.
It's nothing but sloppiness. Drat it. I think the blog link above is probably a better source than this blog. It mentions lots of water of Ceres. There may be plenty of resources on Ceres. The problem is how to get there.
Update a little while later (after 9:56 am) : I clicked through all the links, and one of the links clicked from Behind the Black is no longer there. That's also a hazard on the web. Stuff has a way of disappearing. Why would that be??? Hint: The internet definitely has a dark side.
10:50 am
This link still works. It links to a video by Jeff Greason, which I believe to be important enough to keep fresh. The link still works, and the ideas are still valid. Perhaps even more valid today than ever.
Just one thing to say here: it's that you must stick to a strategy. If you give up too easily, you cannot succeed. If a tactic isn't feasible, then change tactics. But if the strategy is sound, then don't drop it because a tactic failed. Greason was at XCOR. By his own words, he meant to get to orbit cheaply as a tactic, not as a settlement strategy. XCOR was making a space plane. XCOR went bankrupt. This doesn't negate his good words on settlement strategy. "Island hopping" was his recommended settlement strategy. Making a space plane was a tactic to get to orbit. Not the same thing.
Greason is still working on tactics. I suppose there's a reason for that, but the island hopping strategy is sound. But that's my opinion.
2/6/14:
After looking at the previous post and the chart, it would seem to be a very great challenge. There would be little room for cargo for a direct trip from Earth. The only configuration that give a reasonable cargo capacity would be a nuclear thermal rocket. Even then, there would have to be refueling capability on the planetoid that would allow a trip back to Earth.
A bigger rocket would help, but even a fully tricked out SLS with 260k pounds of heavy lift would only be able to put 100k lbs in orbit around Ceres. That 100k lbs would have to include the nuclear core and rocket casing itself. It would have to include a lander.
If you included the entire structure as just one piece, it would have to be about the size of an SIVB rocket stage that went to the moon during Apollo.
Life support would be an issue. Total trip time is about 16 months. You'd have to feed a crew and keep them alive for that long with only that much mass to work with. Without total recycling, it would seem to be a stretch.
Ceres will have to wait.
Even Mars is a stretch at this time and for a long time to come.
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
History of the Earth, one second at a time...
...with each second covering about 1 million years of history.
Doing the math, one hour equals 3600 seconds. Multiply that by a million, and get 3.6 billion years. You need about 900 million more years, and that equals 900 seconds of the video.
It makes a boring as hell video. That's because nothing seems to be changing. But it is changing, albeit at a very, very slow rate.
The point of the exercise is to show that our presence upon the Earth is very very recent, and very very short.
How someone may make of this depends upon who you are, I suppose. Most folks won't stick around for long.
I did, because I have lots of time. Plus I am curious enough about it so that I can critique it a bit. It may need some refinements. It is an impossibly complex job as is, so the idea of critiquing may seem unfair and too demanding.
But I'd like to know certain things that aren't being emphatic enough in the narration. One thing to know is the composition of the atmosphere over time. The narrator does do some of this, but it could be more detailed, in my opinion.
Not to be too critical though. Here it is, just in case you have the time and the patience.
Incidentally, the second time thru this video, and I discovered a way to read along with wikpedia. Pause the video, and put the name of the period in the google search box. Wikipedia may be at the top of web pages. You can click on the Wikipedia pages to read along while the video plays.
Doing the math, one hour equals 3600 seconds. Multiply that by a million, and get 3.6 billion years. You need about 900 million more years, and that equals 900 seconds of the video.
It makes a boring as hell video. That's because nothing seems to be changing. But it is changing, albeit at a very, very slow rate.
The point of the exercise is to show that our presence upon the Earth is very very recent, and very very short.
How someone may make of this depends upon who you are, I suppose. Most folks won't stick around for long.
I did, because I have lots of time. Plus I am curious enough about it so that I can critique it a bit. It may need some refinements. It is an impossibly complex job as is, so the idea of critiquing may seem unfair and too demanding.
But I'd like to know certain things that aren't being emphatic enough in the narration. One thing to know is the composition of the atmosphere over time. The narrator does do some of this, but it could be more detailed, in my opinion.
Not to be too critical though. Here it is, just in case you have the time and the patience.
Incidentally, the second time thru this video, and I discovered a way to read along with wikpedia. Pause the video, and put the name of the period in the google search box. Wikipedia may be at the top of web pages. You can click on the Wikipedia pages to read along while the video plays.
My Country 'Tis of Thee
Daily update
Scarborough has a melt down.
You can fact check that rant out the wazoo. Shooting fish in a barrel. That'd be my assessment even before starting. His is not a serious argument.
I'm pretty sure his claims are way, way off. At the moment, I'm using my Android looking at his nonsense and wondering who would fall for this nonsense. He was allowed to filibuster for awhile as nobody challenged anything he said.
End daily update
In the old days, in the early sixties when the Cold War raged, the school children would be taught this song. I know, because I was a child back then. In addition, the school children recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, and the Lord's Prayer.
These days are different.
Not intending to inspire hatred here. Just stating the facts.
Here's another fact. In those days, the country really was united. Today, the country is divided. Perhaps there is an explanation for this state of affairs?
I've read on the nets that children are being taught to be "triggered" over this or that. It seems that the flag was one of those things that seem to trigger some. Again, this is not to inspire hatred. It is just a statement of fact.
The current President of the United States has deigned to make those who are shouting "Death to America!" on our own shores, a protected class. Once again, this is not to inspire hatred. It is just a statement of fact.
And we are divided. Perhaps there is a reason why this is so. Just asking the question.
Scarborough has a melt down.
You can fact check that rant out the wazoo. Shooting fish in a barrel. That'd be my assessment even before starting. His is not a serious argument.
I'm pretty sure his claims are way, way off. At the moment, I'm using my Android looking at his nonsense and wondering who would fall for this nonsense. He was allowed to filibuster for awhile as nobody challenged anything he said.
End daily update
In the old days, in the early sixties when the Cold War raged, the school children would be taught this song. I know, because I was a child back then. In addition, the school children recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, and the Lord's Prayer.
These days are different.
Not intending to inspire hatred here. Just stating the facts.
Here's another fact. In those days, the country really was united. Today, the country is divided. Perhaps there is an explanation for this state of affairs?
I've read on the nets that children are being taught to be "triggered" over this or that. It seems that the flag was one of those things that seem to trigger some. Again, this is not to inspire hatred. It is just a statement of fact.
The current President of the United States has deigned to make those who are shouting "Death to America!" on our own shores, a protected class. Once again, this is not to inspire hatred. It is just a statement of fact.
And we are divided. Perhaps there is a reason why this is so. Just asking the question.
Watch that sped up video of bridge collision--what's the odds of an innocent explanation?
4/16/24:
FIB will launch an investigation
The ship struck the bridge in a manner in which the force would do the most damage, in my opinion. This is why I am suspicious. It couldn't have been random. The odds are against that happening.
The FIB has not distinguished itself in recent years. This may be considered snark, but it is a reasonable suspicion given their track record. No investigation will be allowed that will show the government in a bad light. It will be politically motivated. Consequently, it cannot be trusted to be accurate nor complete. It will be a white wash.
end update of the post of 3/27/24:
This reminds me of 2001, prior to the 9-11 attack. Two separate occasions when the 610 bridge over Houston Ship Channel was hit. Didn't happen before, and hasn't happened since ( to my knowledge).
I'd say definitely lower than 50-50 probably of an innocent explanation for this. The odds of it randomly turning that way right into the path of a collision? Nah!
LOGAN: Bridge Collapse Was An “Absolutely Brilliant Strategic Attack” https://t.co/E3o97Par7v #Push via @DailyNoahNews Comment: Sped up video looks suspicious to me.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 27, 2024
Monday, April 15, 2024
Why should anyone care what this dude says?
Maybe it is the plain hatefulness of these people that gets them the attention they seek ( Cheney and this guy). Should they be ignored? I wonder sometimes why anyone ( including me) even bothers to post this stuff.
People like this are just hateful. What else can you say?
The idea must be to get you to hate them, and then say you are the one to blame for the hate that they seek to arouse.
It is as if he says "please hate me". If you do, then he says you are a bad person for doing so.
If such were the case, he would be an object of pity. But it is hard to feel sorry for him. He is like a fire ant. Nasty little creatures. By the way, PETA wanted to arouse indignation for advertisements for killing fire ants. Imagine that. Sympathy should not be wasted on fire ants. He isn't significant enough to fear or dread, either. He is pitiful, but not sympathetic.
Better example in this video:
Adam Kinzinger Posts 'Emergency Video' Blaming Trump for Iran and LOL the Jokes Write Themselves (WATCH) https://t.co/0IMYcYDYCo Comment: Even if he joined the Democrat party, they wouldn't vote for him. The same goes for Liz Cheney.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) April 16, 2024
Tax Day and politics schmolitics
Divide and rule. That's the essence of politics schmolitics.
The country is said to be badly divided. How to end the division? The premise is to avoid groupthink, and Ground News purports to do just that. But does it really? I think not.
A few paragraphs in will show their bias. So-called "right-wing" news outlets do not cover these stories. Ground News calls it a "blind spot". Could it be that it is not covered simply because the premises are not correct?
I believe that Washington is in a "blind spot". It is in the bubble of groupthink. One aspect of the groupthink is to employ the Marxist paradigm that Ground News uses for its "analysis". The analysis always favors the left. Anybody who subscribes to this model is already biased towards the left because it is THEIR model. To play on their home field is dumb for true conservatives. That's how you can spot a phony conservative. A phony conservative will subscribe to this model. You see that model all over the "conservative" media.
Therefore, almost everyone is in that bubble. Ronald Reagan was unique in that he was not. He did not trust it. I believe he was successful because he didn't let himself be ruled by that bubble.
I've been on that soap box for a long time. I was on it before anybody else was. Ground News is NOT the answer. You do not end the groupthink with Ground News. You will only succeed in sustaining it.
Ground News might be useful in that sense only. To show WHY you should avoid the Marxist Paradigm. It's intent is to steer you away from the truth, and keep alive the phony fires of Marxist Class Warfare. Marxist destroys the notion of merit, and makes the poor exchange of phony equality over quality. All society is brought down to nothing, as Marxism is good for Marxists and nobody else. Marxism does not serve the people, as they like to claim; but rather, they serve themselves first and foremost. Always and forever. It is like "Gorbasms" that Rush Limbaugh used to talk about--- always fake.
Tax Day reveals a major split in how Joe Biden and Donald Trump would govern https://t.co/uuQVwQ5Rml Comment: Ground News rates this a "center" and "highly factual". I would challenge that rating. I say it is biased towards the left.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) April 15, 2024
Sunday, April 14, 2024
Fake uber alles
In the old days, we used glass. Milk came in glass jugs, and you had to take them back to get a new jug of milk. Cokes too. You could collect Coke bottles and send them back for their deposits. But we "advanced" to recycling, and it is a lie.
This is called progress.
Plastic recycling is a DIRTY LIE.
— John Stossel (@JohnStossel) April 8, 2024
So why do so many green activists push it?
“I think they get a charge out of telling people what to do,” @JohnTierneyNYC tells me.
More than ever… recycling is garbage. pic.twitter.com/4SDWDw7aKx
How NASA and SpaceX will land on the Moon
4/14/24:
It would appear obvious what part of the ship could be discarded after the tran-lunar injection burn. Is it worth it? In essence, it would be a completely different ship. That costs $$$$.
end update of 4/13/24 post:
 |
| How much of this rocket is really needed to land on the moon? |
I still say that's a lot of mass that really isn't necessary for the mission. They won't need the raptor engines after getting into lunar orbit, and they won't be coming back in the Starship anyway. If you're going to use a separate thruster system to land on the surface, but not the raptors for the entire burn, then what useful purpose do they serve? It's not going to be reuable either.
The video does not say how the secondary thrusters will be powered. Only that a secondary system will be needed. The raptors are too powerful for the final landing maneuver. Questions, questions. Maybe SpaceX has the answers. But it isn't what's going to land on the Earth or Mars. So there's that.
Does Israel retaliate for missile attack?
Iran has just completed an unprecedented attack on Israel. Should the Israelis ignore that? Everybody has their price it has been said. What is the price for peace???
https://t.co/9KkFUiOhHQ Comment: Biden tells Iran "don't" attack. Iran attack. Now Biden tells Israel the same. What will happen?
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) April 14, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)