Wow. If you look at the comment section, they are Canadians who are quite hostile to the idea. But I'm not concerned about them. Instead, actually watch the video.
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.
Saturday, March 22, 2025
Why a military takeover of Canada won't work
Be careful what you wish for.
Some Democrats wanted Trump to win the GOP nomination in 2016. I'm sure that they regret that now. Trump turned out to be far more formidable than they imagined. This could always happen. If you oppose Sanders and AOC, then don't wish for any success for them on any level. Work to obtain that outcome. Otherwise, you could be the author of your own doom.
'Please Let This Be True'! James Woods and Others Spot a Winning (Nudge Nudge) Non-GOP 2028 Ticket https://t.co/cmYB3rMDns --- Not so sure about the wisdom of this.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 22, 2025
Friday, March 21, 2025
Joy Reid: "Canada would win a war against USA"
3/21/25, 7:27 AM:
Joy Reid predicts that America will go to war with Canada and lose pic.twitter.com/ACyHoW8mh1
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 21, 2025
Thursday, March 20, 2025
Impossible to get to Mars?
Getting there may not be the problem. Getting there and back alive and well is indeed a problem. Therefore, I think the first missions will be suicide missions. If you complicate matters with the insistence that everybody must come back alive and well, then it might be impossible with the tech we have now.
But someday, not long from now, it will be possible. I think so, because of the rapid advances in robotics. Robots could make a human presence possible. They'll be sent in any case, as Musk said he will send his own robots to Mars. The robots could prepare the war for a short term existence on Mars, but it will take a lot of missions, and a lot of commitment to make the whole thing viable for anything but short term suicide missions. A civilization of over a million people seems like a pipe dream. However, a highly dangerous mission in the near term is likely. Maybe not before the end of the decade, but early in the next.
Are we missing the point?
Who is being targeted here? Musk? Perhaps so, but they are also targeting people who have bought these cars, are they not? The people who bought these cars are now afraid to be associated with Tesla. They wish to make people people afraid to buy these cars, or to be seen in them.
There was never any economic reason to buy these cars. People who bought them were virtue signalling their "enviromental sensitivity". Now they want to take all that "virtue" out of owning and driving these vehicles, and to replace that "virtue" with hatred and fear. And the effect is to punish Elon Musk. Maybe they'd like to kill Musk, too.
The effect is to take out the guy who made electric cars feasible, when all the prior efforts to make electric cars cool had failed. What they are really punishing is Musk's wishes to follow his own course. If he made cars that a whole lot of people would be better off owning, then they would also be punishing the whole world. Then why? Just because he defied THEM? What makes THEM so high and mighty? Hell hath no fury like the liberal scorned.
These people are trying to take away the people's right to choose what they want to drive, even if the reasons are silly. Tesla can stand or fall on its merits, not because they pissed off a bunch of leftist assholes. It was, after all, only leftist assholes who bought the damned things in the first place. Whoop-de-doo. They punish themselves. Damn idiots.
Believe what you will
3/20/25:
The assassination of JFK is in the news again. It so happens that I was perusing the Roku channel, and I found the Quantum Leap episodes that were referred to in the video below.
What to write about it, then? That is, what to write about the TV shows that were aired in the 1990's. I'd say too many people worry about it, meaning the assassination. Sometimes a thing is what it appears to be, and nothing more. People want to see more in it than what was there. That's my take.
Kennedy was shot. So was Reagan. So was Trump. People do things. People believe things. I don't believe Kennedy was assassinated by some grand plot. So I think that this post has aged well. At least, it seems that way because my opinion still remains the same as it was back then. People will believe what they want. So be it.
10/15/22:
Comment:
The controversy surrounding the events of the JFK assassination has taken on a life of its own. It may never die. As for the video, I recall watching the show when it was on teevee some thirty years ago. It was about something that happened almost thirty years before that show aired. So now, that event is almost sixty years old.
People have written books about the assassination. The one I've got was written by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi didn't think there was a conspiracy, and gave ample evidence that it was not. As for Oliver Stone's movie, there were a few scenes that were made up from thin air. Bugliosi seems more credible to me.
My viewpoint is a lot like Bellisario's when he says that people "want to believe in it". You hear an awful lot about conspiracy theories these days. Conspiracy theories can cut both ways. Maybe we should look beyond the conspiracy theory allegations, and look at from the viewpoint of "cui bono". Who benefits from the use of a conspiracy theory for some advantage? It goes both ways. Those who set forth a conspiracy theory, and those who try to refute it.
The best way to refute a conspiracy theory is with facts. But there's that problem with the desire to believe a conspiracy theory mentioned above. Facts themselves can be disputed, or denied.
I've checked into it ( the JFK assassination conspiracy theory) about as much as I'd like to. At some point, you have to decide for yourself what you believe. I don't believe there was one with respect to JFK. As for the latest being floated about and denied today ( with regards to the 2020 election), there hasn't been enough facts that have come to the fore to put it to rest one way or another. One thing is certain: there's no way Brandon got 81 million votes. No way. Interesting to note who is trying to capitalize politically upon it, and who is trying to suppress any honest investigation of it.
The assassination of JFK is in the news again. It so happens that I was perusing the Roku channel, and I found the Quantum Leap episodes that were referred to in the video below.
What to write about it, then? That is, what to write about the TV shows that were aired in the 1990's. I'd say too many people worry about it, meaning the assassination. Sometimes a thing is what it appears to be, and nothing more. People want to see more in it than what was there. That's my take.
Kennedy was shot. So was Reagan. So was Trump. People do things. People believe things. I don't believe Kennedy was assassinated by some grand plot. So I think that this post has aged well. At least, it seems that way because my opinion still remains the same as it was back then. People will believe what they want. So be it.
10/15/22:
Comment:
The controversy surrounding the events of the JFK assassination has taken on a life of its own. It may never die. As for the video, I recall watching the show when it was on teevee some thirty years ago. It was about something that happened almost thirty years before that show aired. So now, that event is almost sixty years old.
People have written books about the assassination. The one I've got was written by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi didn't think there was a conspiracy, and gave ample evidence that it was not. As for Oliver Stone's movie, there were a few scenes that were made up from thin air. Bugliosi seems more credible to me.
My viewpoint is a lot like Bellisario's when he says that people "want to believe in it". You hear an awful lot about conspiracy theories these days. Conspiracy theories can cut both ways. Maybe we should look beyond the conspiracy theory allegations, and look at from the viewpoint of "cui bono". Who benefits from the use of a conspiracy theory for some advantage? It goes both ways. Those who set forth a conspiracy theory, and those who try to refute it.
The best way to refute a conspiracy theory is with facts. But there's that problem with the desire to believe a conspiracy theory mentioned above. Facts themselves can be disputed, or denied.
I've checked into it ( the JFK assassination conspiracy theory) about as much as I'd like to. At some point, you have to decide for yourself what you believe. I don't believe there was one with respect to JFK. As for the latest being floated about and denied today ( with regards to the 2020 election), there hasn't been enough facts that have come to the fore to put it to rest one way or another. One thing is certain: there's no way Brandon got 81 million votes. No way. Interesting to note who is trying to capitalize politically upon it, and who is trying to suppress any honest investigation of it.
Wednesday, March 19, 2025
More Background on Judge James Boasberg - The Fight Continues
Last Refuge
This one stinks to high heaven. Chief Justice Roberts could be implicated in some crooked sheet, main.
Why the left must be destroyed politically
So now it's terrorism for you lefties?
Karoline Leavitt Gives the Best Response When Asked About Tim Walz's Tesla Swipe https://t.co/E3MmRo6drW
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 19, 2025
Let's make a deal
Trump Agrees To Give Back Statue Of Liberty In Exchange For All The Land In France We Liberated In WWII https://t.co/m4fcy4JKhB via @TheBabylonBee --- heh
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 19, 2025
Hills to Die On: Democrats know how to pick 'em
Democrats are provoking this, but why?
A theory would involve Marxism. They'd prefer a dictatorship that they could overthrow, even if it meant that they would have to do a lot to create one by their own provocations. You could save the Republic, but you'd have to destroy them as a party in order to do it.
3/18/25:
American Thinker, by Monica Showalter:
What is it about Democrats and their urge to inflict criminals and terrorists upon us?
In their quest to Get Trump on immigration, which is probably his strongest point with the public, they've picked three migrant cause célèbres...
Comment:
Now Chief Justice Roberts is tossing his hat into this ring. It's a mistake. How's Roberts going to look when he has to either support these rogue judges, or support common sense and the public interest?
A space station manufacturer's dream
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)
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)
Tuesday, March 18, 2025
They are at least illegal aliens, even if they aren't gang members or terrorists
The courts have no legs to stand on, and the media is trying to support a questionable reach for power on the part of the radical left.
Media Headlines Pretend Deported Violent Gang Members Are Just ‘Migrants’ In Search Of A Better Life https://t.co/HddzogFfai
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 18, 2025
Who's trying to be dictator? Can the President be president without permission from the courts?
Trump Is Right To Push Back Against Judicial Supremacy https://t.co/ZtHHiSV7AU --- Indeed. It seems that the radical left has strange hills it wants to die on.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 18, 2025
Monday, March 17, 2025
House divided cannot stand
Liberalism is dividing the country against itself. One or the other must go. That is to say, liberalism must go, or its opposition must go. By the way, LIBERALS think that way. That is the basis for cancel culture. If they won't tolerate opposition, then why should WE?
The Era Of Presuming Liberal Moral Superiority Is Over https://t.co/1e8MT6b1j5 --- Liberalism delenda est.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 17, 2025
Sunday, March 16, 2025
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and vice versa it seems
According to Democrats, this is the apocalypse, folks.
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 14, 2025
No really, Democrat expectations for the economy have NEVER been lower, including the global financial crisis and covid. For Democrats, this is the 10th circle of hell. pic.twitter.com/8Gie6ln9NA
Canada's problems will become our problems
Their politicians have run their country into the ground. They're using the tariffs as a rallying point to keep themselves in power. Trump stirred a pot that could've been left alone. But is there another way to look at this?
Canada will become a national security problem in any event. If they're a failed state, that's a problem too. It also appears that they're turning to Chinese narcotic trade as a tool in their bag of tricks.
Canada's reaction is also instructive. They seem to be all to willing to stir up the anti-Americanism pot. If Trump went after them militarily and set the terms that were favorable to us, then why not? These people are asking for it. Or, they could become more reasonable. How do this play out? It's not looking too good for Canada.
Democrats have no scruples
Sinema in favor of filibuster when it wasn't cool in the Dem party. Now the filibuster is cool, and she lets her former colleagues here about it.
Why Sinema Woke Up Yesterday Morning and Chose Violence Against her Old Dem Colleagues https://t.co/YJuHS3D1uE --- Woke up and smelled the rotten eggs.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 16, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)