A discussion of cyclers. A cycler can be set up so as to provide transit to Mars and back with minimum propellant, once
it is in place. Astronaut Edwin Aldrin wrote a paper on the concept many years ago. The Starship may enable such an
approach.
There are many ways to skin the cat, so to speak. This is one way. Cyclers can be employed, as well as other ways.
Anyway, a big station could be set up as a cycler. Also, TWO cyclers can complement each other. One of them would be
considered an Earth to Mars leg, and the other would be Mars to Earth. They'd have to be timed in such a way that a
transfer between stations could take place. The downside is that one side of the cycler duo would require a lot of
delta v to get to it as it passes by. No room for error.
Bob Zimmerman thinks this is a start. Nope. I've seen this before. It's a fake. The only way that MIGHT work is for the public to
demand it. Of the GOP side, that means the base. The base should band together and make it a high priority that these programs get
cut, or none of this will get done at all.
Those who follow these things may recall the backlash against Liz Cheney. The GOP caucus wasn't going to take action against her at all
until there was a backlash. The bottom line is that the GOP needs their feet held to the fire. Don't be satisfied with mere gestures,
like this will be.
If they won't do something to rein in the abuses, then they should be primaried out. Or the worst of them should be allowed to go down
to defeat, even it means a setback in the near term.
This update is provided by Felix Schlang of 'What About It'. It seems that he has an advertisement there for
Ground News, which I've heard of before. If you're worried about bias in the news, then supposedly Ground News
can fill in the gaps. There is some legitimate concerns about bias, as Felix mentions, there are only a FEW
media companies and owners. You get a pretty slanted view, if you're not careful.
But this was supposed to be a Starship Update. It may seem like it is going slow sometimes, especially if you're
watching SpaceX closely. On the other hand, if you don't watch this closely, you may miss the next launch. That's
because they are getting the launch pad back into good order again.
SpaceX is not only going to launch one rocket, but many. They are gearing up for that. Once they get moving on
that, it will become quite the sight to behold. NASA only built about a dozen Saturn V's. But SpaceX may have that
many on backlog if this keeps up. The first few will be expendable, but once these things are recovered as intended,
the number of ships will grow to a large number. As that happens, the cadence of launches will increase steadily.
LPP Fusion will switch from deuterium to pB-11 fuel. This is the end game, I suspect. If it works, we've got fusion.
If not, maybe it is back to the drawing board, so to speak. Many others are trying other pathways to net energy
from fusion. Focus Fusion is but one of those ways.
I made a small investment in it on Wefunder. It may still be possible to invest.
the most recent posting follows below:
Updated, 5/31/23:
The campaign has been successful in reaching its goal of 100k.
It might have been a better post if this video was posted with it. Here's the
Here's a link showing the scientific mileposts towards scientific proof of concept, and a roadmap towards achieving those,
and also a roadmap to commercialization. That's for those who would ask how close they are to the goal.
The goal is to get to 30k joules with each shot. It seems that they have been at .25 joules for close to a year and a
half. That assumes that I'm reading this correctly.
I've been following LPP Fusion for nearly a decade, I suppose. Let's just say that they are getting close to the make
or break time, in my estimation. There's a way to get there, as this Nextbigfuture article shows. It is a matter of
fine tuning the system. The hangup lately have been the switches. These seem to be firing properly now, and it is
short time until the next batch of shots to test the device, and see where it is at now in terms of feasibility.
All of these years, they've seem to be going towards this conclusion. My guess, from a non-technical viewpoint, is
that they expect rather dramatic improvements, as they have moved on to proton-boron fusion. To get there, they have
managed to achieve the necessary energy state ( with regards to temperature). Confinement is next. It is expected
that confinement will improve with the usage of boron.
This reaction, protons and boron, will yield no neutrons. This is important in limiting the radiation going forward.
If it works, it will be an aneutronic device, meaning no neutrons. Not all fusion reactions are aneutronic. In fact,
it takes much higher temperatures to achieve aneutronic fusion. You might say that it is harder, but the belief amongst
the LPP Fusion folks is that that use of boron will help rather than harm their efforts.
The yields go up exponentially, if things go according to plan. Details are in the Nextbigfuture link. It is from 18
months ago, so I'm not sure if all this time has been spent on the switches. If the switches are right, then it on
to proton boron and then on to feasibility. This might go faster now, assuming everything works as planned.
A scene from the movie "A Clockwork Orange". Alex appreciates the performance, but his "droog"
called Dim, doesn't. This leads to some problems between them later on in the flick.
It seems that I'm going to take up music again. So this scene from the movie came to mind. I
saw the movie when it came out in 1971, but it went over my head. It's fairly sophisticated,
in many ways.
The corruption is rather blatant. They don't even hide it much anymore. One more thing on the list for the GOP
to discuss in the upcoming election. Instead, we are talking about the corrupt state's accusations against someone
who wants to do something about it.
the last update of Jul 4, 2023 follows:
Update to post on Jul 4, 2023
Cocaine has been found in the White House. What more do we need to hear about this clown show before they
get the hook? There are reports coming fast and furious now. Blood is in the water, it was said.
For the longest time, it has baffled me at how this guy has kept afloat politically. When he really appears too
weak to run, only then will they dump him. Note that it isn't from embarrassment, nor shame that they would even consider
it. Only because they are worried about their prospects in the next election. The real shame is that it didn't
knock him out a LONG time ago. That would mean that these were more decent people.
Trump's indictments won't hold water either. Or shouldn't. But the GOP isn't much interested in stopping this.
Instead, they are trying to replace Trump with DeSantis. There's a story out that Collyfornia is changing its rules
so that DeSantis could get a larger share of the vote than what his performance would indicate. He could get only
20% of the vote, yet get half the delegates. Good 'ol GOP. Rule of law and democracy guys. /not
Something's wrong here, but will it ever be corrected? I mean, if Biden ends up being re-installed for another term,
how can this country endure it? Something has to keep the country in one piece. These kinds of things do not help.
the original post follows:
We're done for, or Brandon is
Sen. Ron Johnson is calling attention to the lack of integrity in the Hunter Biden probe. This is about as clear
cut and simple as one can make it. If it fails to be convincing, then there is nothing that can. There are
relationships between the people who crafted the plea bargain deal and Hunter Biden's businesses, which are at the
heart of the investigation. That's a violation of law.
Doesn't look like a conspiracy theory... I wonder what the GOP hopefuls for the nomination have to say about this one???
And the Speaker of the House? Is this their idea of "rule of law"?
Maybe this is like a pebble that can cause an avalanche. Or maybe an asteroid strike couldn't shake these people?
The attacks against Trump are made so as NOT to talk about these things. Instead, we are talking about the accusations,
which have been FALSE. The accusations, therefore, are a distraction. Should be talking about issues. If it is
about personalities, it is only because his opponents would like to make it about personalities.
Trump should be talking these issues all the time. Instead, we are all talking about what the opposition wants to
talk about. Since the opposition is really talking about nothing, it is only because they don't want to talk about
the issues.
the post of Jul 12, 2023 is below:
Nobody outside of the left wing has a program. If there is no program, there cannot be a vision behind it. Unless
the vision is to have no program. If the vision is to have no program, that's a program. In any case, there has to
be a reason BEYOND personalities for someone to get elected. Otherwise, what is the point?
If there isn't anything besides Trump to vote for Trump, then that's governing by personality. That's not a program.
What's Trump about? To make America great again? That's a slogan, not a program. The question should be addressed.
Why vote for Trump? How is that going to make America great again?
This isn't anti-MAGA here. There's something missing. The GOP is simply missing in action. The GOP is a cypher.
They do NOTHING. The GOP claims to be about certain things, but does nothing about any of it. Maybe they'd like to
cut taxes, but that's about it. Trump seems to be about himself. Sorry, but that may not have been the intention,
but it what it is NOW.
As for potential programs, there does appear to be a concentration of power into too few hands. James Madison advocated
a multitude of interests to guard against the excesses of faction. It's in the Federalist Papers, in case you missed it.
A program could be put into place to break up these concentrations of power, and place it into more hands. A specific
example could be the media companies. Bongino has noted that there is a government-corporate symbiote that controls
the media. The control of the media gives them the power to control what people see, hear, and think.
Teachers Unions control the Education establishment. Break that up with school choice. Don't just mouth the platitudes,
GOP. Do something about it. Advocate for it, and run on it. If you win, you have a mandate to enact it into policy.
If the idea is to cut taxes, then repeal the amendment that provides for an income tax. All that seems to have done is
to supercharge the leviathan state. Replace the income tax with a corporate tax, and an import tax. If that's not
enough to fund the government, then cut back on the size of government until the budget is balanced. Indeed, pass a
balanced budget amendment. There's too much power concentrated in Washington DC, as well as in the states.
Those elements could make a program to run on. Reagan ran on cutting taxes and increasing military spending. That
was a program for that time. It seems that this government is out of control. The way to get back control from the
leviathan state would be to enact policies that would diffuse the concentration of power. This could be a program
that could make America more like it was intended to be.
BREAKING: In another sign the Mar-a-Lago raid was political, the DOJ prosecutor who authorized it --DNC donor and Russiagate alum Jay Bratt --blacked out every reference to Trump cooperating with subpoenas from the publicly released search warrant affidavit, new court docs reveal
What about that fission fragment engine? The idea is to embed fissonable material within the aerogel. The fission
material would get hit with neutrons, and the fission would cause the fragments to escape the aerogel. The fragments
are then directed out a "nozzle" at very high velocity. The mass of the fragments times the velocity squared would
be the thrust ( I think). If the velocity is 1/10th light speed, then that would be a lot of thrust from a small
mass. ( E=mc squared)
Based upon recollection, the best results were with the fissonable material close to the surface of the aerogel. That
makes sense because the fission fragments have to work their way out of the aerogel. The same is true with the neutrons.
Control may be an issue. How to keep the fissionable material from fissioning? Once it starts, it is a chain reaction,
as it emits more neutrons than it absorbs. There would have to be some control device. That may be a problem. It
may be necessary to let the reactions run to completion, then discard what's remaining of the aerogel.
What if the aerogel were in thin slices, with a moderator between slices? The moderator would stop neutrons, which would
stop the reaction. There'd be a stack of aerogel impregnated with fissionable uranium. Bombard it with neutrons, and
let the reaction proceed until complete, then discard the aerogel. Each aerogel slice would come off the stack until
the fuel is exhausted.
Would this work? Only thing I know is that NASA may be funding research into such a device. It may not be as I
speculated here. There were few details from what I saw.
the original post of 7-12-23 below:
So the Angry Astronaut says he will go to the UK and be a part of the nuclear powered rocket that is being developed.
It's an interesting subject, and project too. There was a nuclear thermal rocket developed during the Apollo Era,
which was called NERVA. It was at a high state of technical readiness, but was scrapped.
It's not a new idea. But what is new here is to use the nuclear power to generate power that would enable fusion,
and to use the fusion product as reaction mass. I mentioned a person withe the "handle" of QuatumG. This morning,
I googled the name, and found his blog. The blog is still there, but he doesn't post much anymore. He seems to lost
interest. Funny, in a way. Maybe the concept is one that he may have thought up himself. Now someone else is doing
it.
As mentioned yesterday, what will be done with all the heat generated by the reactor? Some electricity can be generated
that way, and the electricity can be used to enable fusion. The fusion products will be going at a fraction of the
speed of light. Since the fusion products have mass and velocity, there will be thrust. But not very much, really.
Nuclear thermal rockets need lots of lots of thermal energy. The NERVA program was dealing with 1 gigawatt reactors.
This indicates another problem with this concept. In order to get usable amounts of thrust, you will need massive
reactors. Massive reactors will generate massive amounts of heat. A gigawatt of thermal energy might generate a
third of that in electrical energy. Further losses will occur from the generation of electricity. The whole mess
needs to be cooled down.
Is it possible to make a thermal rocket design that will do this job, and do it efficiently? I think there will be
a problem. The ratio between thrust and thermal power was something like 50 lbs of thrust for every megawatt. The
kind of reactors involved here are not likely to be a megawatt. Maybe half a megawatt. This means only 25 pounds
of thrust. The ISP will be 30-45k, but the thrust won't amount to much. It would have to run all the time in order
to get going.
In the end, it will still be a nuclear thermal engine. Waste heat could be used to generate electricity, which could
be used to gain addition thrust. This is only a marginal improvement. This method isn't likely to be efficient at
all.
I'd prefer the fission fragment concept I posted about previously. The reaction doesn't thermalize, so heat wouldn't
be an issue. The generation of heat is a low tech way of going about generating thrust. There's still the problem
of thrust. Generally speaking, there will be a trade off between thrust and ISP. It's like automobiles. If you
need a race car, you need a lot of power. Power means fuel consumption. A low ISP rocket engine is like an economy
automobile. It can get good gas mileage, but it won't go that fast. Rockets need to go fast. High ISP rocket engines
aren't good for getting out of deep gravity wells. The fission fragment design wouldn't be any "hot rod", but it would
be about as efficient as it gets.
a ted talk about anti matter propulsion, which is a different subject, but the same guy who has a concept nasa is studying regarding fission fragments--Ryan Weed
Here's an idea that I once discussed many years ago with a fellow who identified himself on Twitter as Quantum G.
The idea was that you do not need a net energy production from fusion in order to use it as a propulsive device.
The fusion reaction does occur. Modern devices ARE capable of producing fusion reactions. But they are NOT capable
of getting positive net energy out of them.
Therefore, an onboard device that can generate the necessary energy to produce the fusion reactions will get you
the reaction mass that can propel a ship. In this case, the proposition is to use a fission reactor to produce the
energy that drives the fusion reactions.
The result would be an ISP of 10-15 times the best devices available today.
The Angry Astronaut did not specify the downsides enough. The trouble with these kinds of devices is 1) the high
energy requirements will produce a lot of heat. How to cool it down? and 2) What kind of thrust can this device
produce? Ion engines do not produce much thrust. You would need to produce a lot of reactions in order to get a lot
of reaction mass.
The VASIMIR proposed spacecraft can also produce a high ISP, but it doesn't have an energy device either.
ISP is like MPG for automobiles. The higher the ISP, the further you can go on a tank of fuel. The ISP mentioned
here could be around 30-45k. That's several orders of magnitude better than chemical engines. But there's no mention
of thrust capacity on this video. Nor heat management.
What's the vision? What's the reason to vote for these guys? If it is there, I don't see it. If it is somewhere,
it should be repeated every day.
Being against the "other guys" is not a vision. But that is what the Democrats are "offering". If the GOP mirrors
that, then what's the difference? Besides, it is "class conflict" mode that the communists adhere to. If you
are going to adopt their premises, then you are well on your way to becoming one of them.
If it takes something to trap heat in order to produce AGW, does carbon dioxide do the trick? It is compared to a
greenhouse, is it not? A greenhouse is made of translucent materials, which are solids. A solid can hold heat inside,
but can carbon dioxide?
The solid is also more massive. The entropy would pass through the solid on its way to expanding into the universe.
It isn't stopped, it is just slows down the old entropy thing. On the other hand, with a gas, it will expand outward
into the universe without anything to slow it down.
Evidently the energy is kept on the carbon dioxide molecule. However, for ANY gas, there would be a jump to a higher energy state, and the entropy within would send on its way EVEN FASTER. After all, what's holding it back? On Earth, the gravity well holds it back. But it would continue anyway on up to the upper levels of the atmosphere, and release the heat up there. It would be released because that is entropy doing its thing. Even black holes cannot hold up the energy
forever. Entropy most always wins.
Wouldn't the upper atmosphere get hotter? Maybe, but not for long. The same thing will happen until it gets into space.
That's where the entropy will take it. It is always so. For now and forever into the future.
So it is a matter of how long, then? It could not be long. Gases dissipate very quickly. It takes a lot more than
the ability to hold on to heat a bit longer than other gases. Since they are all gases, the entropy will be carried
out, and the universal gas law implies it as well. Gas will expand forever if it is not constrained. Gravity will
constrain it. A solid will. But another gas will not. If it does, you'd better package it and sell it, because it
would be worth a lot.
the last update was on 7-10-23, below:
Update of post of July 9th, 2023:
This post ties things together. In order to find a lot of my posts on AGW, type it into the search box on the left
side bar. There was one about mass and gravity. It so happens that this meshes well with the entropy discussion
here. There was one about the universal gas law ( PV=nRT ). That also meshes well with the entropy discussion
in the video.
Therefore, in order to slow down entropy ( and bring about warming), you need to invoke something like gravity. Well,
a gravity well ( the Earth's gravitational pull is compared to a well), is nothing more than a large mass in space.
That meshes well with the universal gas law, but the variable "n" in the equation is directly proportional to mass.
As with the universal laws involving gravitation, the more mass, the more gravitational pull there is.
You won't come anyone near the amount of mass in the atmosphere that it will impact gravity very much. But gases have
the quality of compression, which invokes the "p" in the gas law. Stack up a lot of gas in a planetary system, and
you'll get atmospheric pressure.
So to connect it all, before you can get heat in the atmosphere, you'll need "n" to be very large. The variable "n"
is referring to the number of molecules of gas. In terms of the equation, it is expressed as "moles", which is a
constant. That constant is a very large number: approx 6 times 10 to the 23rd power. Given that molecules are very
small, it takes a lot of them to make a mole of a substance. In terms of gas, at standard conditions, a mole of a gas
is most always 22.4 liter. A mole of a gas is its molecular weight. Therefore, hydrogen gas is 2 grams per mole,
since hydrogen bonds with itself into a molecule, and the molecular weight of hydrogen is 1 g per mole.
If the reader is still with me on this, you'll see the connection between gravity and mass, and the weight of the
atmosphere.
It stands to reason that in order to get conditions that will allow a star to start burning its hydrogen, there needs
to be sufficient amount of mass. The entropy is trapped there, and escapes as the star starts to produce its energy
from fusion. That process allows entropy to begin to increase again. For awhile it is delayed by the gravitational
pull. Once the gravitation pull gets strong enough, because the mass has accreted enough, then the star begin to give
off its energy, and entropy increases again.
In other words, you cannot get entropy to slow down until you have enough mass. Once it slows down, the mass begins to
heat up. The process that forms stars must also be the process that would cause global warming, if that were the case.
But it isn't because we're not talking about anywhere near enough gas to make any kind of a difference in entropy and
therefore any kind of difference that would change the climate.
the original post follows:
Let's consider themisunderstood conceptof entropy for now. The narrator asked "What do we get from the sun?". The
answer was energy. But energy "spreads out". Consequently, we get entropy from the sun. As the sun uses up its
energy, it is becoming more disordered, which is what entropy is. When the sun's energy reaches us, it will heat
the environment, and then the environment releases the energy back into the universe. What goes in most go back
out in equal measure. Otherwise, the heat will build up. That is, unless something else slows it down.
But energy can be captured for a time. When photosynthesis creates the chemical energy we depend upon as food, this is
potential energy being stored as chemical energy. Is this stored energy, known as potential energy, an increase
in order then? That would mean a decrease in entropy. This use of word is troublesome, as an increase in
order means the decrease of entropy. Anyway, heat flows from where it is to where it isn't. Entropy spreads at
the same time that heat spreads. A heat exchange is an increase in entropy then. Or is it?
Referring to the video again, it was gravity that created the stars. As the Big Bang spread out matter in all directions,
and the universe expanded, matter began to coalesce into clumps of matter that grew larger and larger until they became
stars and galaxies. Consequently, gravity wells can be considered a storehouse of energy. It collects the matter that is
expanding ever outward, and thus slowing down entropy. Gravity then acts as a brake upon the expenditure of energy.
Star and galaxy formation creates a vast amount of potential energy.
Black holes do not emit very much energy, and it was thought that they emitted no energy at all. Steven Hawking discovered that they did emit a very small amount of energy, which is now called Hawking Radiation. Black holes must
be the ultimate storehouse of energy then. The energy released at such a slow rate will go on until the end of time.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in the universe tends to a maximum. It makes sense that there
is such as thing as Hawking Radiation, for it is the confirmation of the second law of thermodynamics. As the black
hole emits such a small amount of radiation, it will nevertheless run out of radiation to emit at some point. This will
be eons and eons into the future, but it must happen eventually.
Everything in the universe might be considered as a storehouse of energy that is getting depleted all the time. Eventually the energy will be fully expended as entropy reaches it maximum. This will be the end of the universe.
So what does it all mean, Basil?
Could it mean that entropy is decreased as energy is concentrated? Order is being brought to the system. Think of that
as the stars condense and start shining. Planets are formed as well, as they orbit the new stars. This is how own
sun was formed, and how the Earth formed. Here's a question: Can entropy EVER be reversed? A hunch would posit that it
can't. Perhaps it would be like Hawking Radiation, in that it can be trapped for awhile, but energy will always escape, and entropy increases.
I said that I wanted to prove that man-made climate change is bunk. For it not to be bunk, you'd have to show that an
increase in magnitude of potential energy is being created. This would be similar to the process of planet, star, and galaxy
formation. Nothing can increase the energy in a system. It all tends towards maximum entropy. Therefore, the accretion
of energy means that the entropy is being held up by something. If you wish to believe that carbon dioxide can do
that, you have to believe that it is preventing the increase in entropy in the system.
The video says that is not impossible, but very unlikely. This modest essay wasn't proof, but it may be a beginning.
Something that happened today that reminded me of this principle. Not only in terms of this blog, but in how I organize things in general.
last posted on Apr 28, 2019
One of the organizing principles of this blog is to build up on past posts. It is good practice not to go around and around in circles, and make progress on a topic or subject. Thus, by having thing well linked and categorized, I don't repeat myself unless it is drive home a point that I made previously. If I link to old posts, it isn't necessarily as a means to add "filler". The re-posted post will serve to fit in with the current discussion. If I were to make an entirely new post on it, it would be like reinventing the wheel.
To summarize the procedures:
links to previous posts are in boldface.
links to pdf files are in green
italicized links are mostly to an Amazon link, but not always
There were other conventions, but I forgot them already. So much for being well organized. Come to think of it, this post said the same things. I could have re-posted it instead of this. Point made, I would think.
If you watch a lot of videos on YouTube, you might notice that many of the comments say that the older music is
better than the newer music. Having seen that comment so many times, and seeing this video up by Rick Beato, I decided
to put this video up on a post.
He looks a little un-well here. It was a bit hard to watch. But I stuck it out mostly. The video comes from the
heart, I believe, so it is definitely worth watching.
My reaction is that the internet has a dark side. It has ruined a lot, but it has also created a few things. One
thing it may have ruined is the music industry. It looks like Beato is trying to save some portion of it. I would
buy his stuff, especially when I was young, I would have loved to have his stuff. But I'm too old now.
On the larger side, music is part of the culture, and all of the culture is going to the dogs. It would seem
congruent to see what is happening to the music industry.
The trouble is this: once the older generation dies off, there will be no one to teach these things to the young. That's
how cultures die off. Just like the way ours is dying off. Beato said something like what John Kutsch said about his
audience---they are all gray beards. That's not good.
I don't like to be a downer, so hopefully there's a silver lining to this dark cloud...
