Taking some advice perhaps I could return to the guitar after all. Nah! Just kidding... You know, I DID pick up my gitfiddle again yesterday. I remembered something I had forgotten. You need to get some callouses going on your finger tips. That will take time to build those back up again. Plus, you have to keep your finger nails short as possible. Otherwise it will foul the chords.
It's a thought though. Imagine wowing some folks with a performance of this song. Whoa!
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, August 15, 2026
Fusion Propulsion Post
8/15/26:
I meant to write about it today, but I can't think of anything to write about. It has already been covered. The only thing I haven't written about is... (blankout)
Look, the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics people are on to this, most likely. It would take only a minor modification of their device in order to make it suitable as a fusion propulsion device. How?
By taking away the coil which will be useful for electricity production, but not useful for spacecraft propulsion. But I covered that already. What next?
The thought occurred to me that if this device had sufficient thrust and ISP, you would not need to get to orbital velocity in order to escape Earth's gravity. But I covered that already.
Hmmm. Okay, so I went back into a Power Point file and picked out yet something else that I probably covered already. No, that was a different post. This power point pic isn't what Lockheed Martin produced, because I blanked out what I didn't quite understand or even agree with and came up with this
Now, the main thing to see is a picture of what I'm seeing. Here you have the Focus Fusion device (with the arrow pointing downward toward the magnetic nozzle), the tanks of hydrogen and boron that will comprise the reaction products that will fuse in the device and send out the alpha particles (mentioned in an earlier post) as thrust.
Lerner says that he can get 30,000 out of 100,000 joules expended. The rest is still in the device, not lost. This will demonstrate feasibility, says Lerner. But, let's just say (for the sake of argument) that we are just able to use the 30,000 joules. That is 30,000 Newtons, is it not? Is it not also true, that without slowing down the alpha particles (as would be the case if you were to convert to electricity), that you will get virtually all of this output?
It should be noted that
Why write all this? Haven't they already thought about this? Yes, I'm sure somebody has. What bothers me is that somebody could have something worthwhile and have it suppressed. There was a time when I thought that such a thing would not happen, but these days, I'm not so sure anymore.
Update:
I tried to confirm that 30,000 joules number by looking over a few of my posts. I know that I saw or heard that somewhere, but can't remember exactly where. Also, some of the energy production will come from the Xray emissions. Not all of it will come from the alpha particles. So, the potential thrust will be somewhere south of 30,000 joules. Don't know how far, but somewhat south of that number.
Yours truly has always liked this idea. It could be useful even if Lerner's device never reaches commercial value electricity production.
To recap briefly, all you need is SOME fusion going on. That part is relatively easy. A high school student once set up a lab apparatus to make fusion happen like this. HOWEVER, it is a different story when you try to get it to useful in a commercial sense. It has to produce more energy than it takes in. But in space, this won't matter for propulsion. You will need another energy production device in order to produce the alpha particles that result from the fusion.
There are two other posts on this subject, there are more on this blog...
-DPF Fusion Propulsion
-Focus Fusion as Propulsion, II
I meant to write about it today, but I can't think of anything to write about. It has already been covered. The only thing I haven't written about is... (blankout)
Look, the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics people are on to this, most likely. It would take only a minor modification of their device in order to make it suitable as a fusion propulsion device. How?
By taking away the coil which will be useful for electricity production, but not useful for spacecraft propulsion. But I covered that already. What next?
The thought occurred to me that if this device had sufficient thrust and ISP, you would not need to get to orbital velocity in order to escape Earth's gravity. But I covered that already.
Hmmm. Okay, so I went back into a Power Point file and picked out yet something else that I probably covered already. No, that was a different post. This power point pic isn't what Lockheed Martin produced, because I blanked out what I didn't quite understand or even agree with and came up with this
Now, the main thing to see is a picture of what I'm seeing. Here you have the Focus Fusion device (with the arrow pointing downward toward the magnetic nozzle), the tanks of hydrogen and boron that will comprise the reaction products that will fuse in the device and send out the alpha particles (mentioned in an earlier post) as thrust.
Lerner says that he can get 30,000 out of 100,000 joules expended. The rest is still in the device, not lost. This will demonstrate feasibility, says Lerner. But, let's just say (for the sake of argument) that we are just able to use the 30,000 joules. That is 30,000 Newtons, is it not? Is it not also true, that without slowing down the alpha particles (as would be the case if you were to convert to electricity), that you will get virtually all of this output?
It should be noted that
- I am relying on memory about the 30,000 joules
- That there isn't anything significant that I am missing
- There could be something significant that I am missing because I am not trained in this area
- My energy conversions could be wrong
- The device mentioned has not demonstrated continuous firing. It would have to fire continuously in order to be useful for power or propulsion. I am assuming that Lerner has this figured out.
Why write all this? Haven't they already thought about this? Yes, I'm sure somebody has. What bothers me is that somebody could have something worthwhile and have it suppressed. There was a time when I thought that such a thing would not happen, but these days, I'm not so sure anymore.
Update:
I tried to confirm that 30,000 joules number by looking over a few of my posts. I know that I saw or heard that somewhere, but can't remember exactly where. Also, some of the energy production will come from the Xray emissions. Not all of it will come from the alpha particles. So, the potential thrust will be somewhere south of 30,000 joules. Don't know how far, but somewhat south of that number.
Friday, August 14, 2026
This is what prompted my last post
8/14/26:
How I became the poster girl for liberal agitprop
The author repeated the lie about the GOP almost causing a default.
Quote:
Comment:
There are two problems with the GOP. One is that they won't fight back. Two, that they don't really believe what they claim to believe, for if they did, they would fight back.
Either they start fighting back, or we get rid of them. But that's not happening. They should be screaming about what Limbaugh once called the "biggest lie in American history".
Senator John Cornyn, representing my state, is running some ads on radio. He didn't support Cruz, so now he is trying to claim that he is a conservative. My ass!
If nobody will run against him and primary his ass, then I will not be voting for him in the general election.
Somebody has got to do something. I can do this much. I'd run for Senate myself, but that is an absurd idea.
If there's anything that I've posted here that I regret, it is likely this post. The idea of running for office is something I never should've mentioned.
So why did I do it? It was the exasperation in this post. Why can't the GOP field some decent candidates who will actually DO something???
I'm glad that Cornyn is gone. They aren't being removed fast enough, in my opinion.
I'll do my part here. Running for office is defintely not the ticket. Call that my General Sherman statement. Even if people wanted me to, I wouldn't. It's for the same reason why I would never be a cop. Why?
I'd be a Dirty Harry type cop, that's why. Dirty Harry types get creamed in this culture now. But that's why you do it, some will say. Yeah, but not me. I'm a keyboard warrior, and that's it.
Only in an emergency would I consider it even in the remotist sense. I hope that's clear.
How I became the poster girl for liberal agitprop
The author repeated the lie about the GOP almost causing a default.
Quote:
After a month of news coverage focused on an extremist and dysfunctional Republican Party that shut down the government and brought the nation to the brink of defaulting on its debt, the media had found its new scandal: the troubled rollout of the website where uninsured Americans can purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.[ emphasis mine]
Comment:
There are two problems with the GOP. One is that they won't fight back. Two, that they don't really believe what they claim to believe, for if they did, they would fight back.
Either they start fighting back, or we get rid of them. But that's not happening. They should be screaming about what Limbaugh once called the "biggest lie in American history".
Senator John Cornyn, representing my state, is running some ads on radio. He didn't support Cruz, so now he is trying to claim that he is a conservative. My ass!
If nobody will run against him and primary his ass, then I will not be voting for him in the general election.
Somebody has got to do something. I can do this much. I'd run for Senate myself, but that is an absurd idea.
Thursday, August 13, 2026
Another example to show that you should never underestimate the power of stupid
Joe Scarborough is an ignoramus, or he is a liar. If he is a liar, then his lies should amount to TREASON. There is no way in hell Iran could possibly win this war in any way shape or form UNLESS it gets serious help with traitors within the US body politic. Iran cannot possibly control the Strait. All they can do is cause the price of oil from the region to rise about 5 bucks above WTI. Whoop-de-friggin' do.
I based my opinion upon history. No military has stood up to America for the last 80 plus years. The only wars we "lost" were lost in the political sphere, not on the battlefield. These events occurred because of politics, primarily from Democrats, who are now controlled by COMMUNISTS.
If Scarborough doesn't know these facts, he shouldn't even be making commentary based upon his IGNORANCE. This is the most generous assessment one can make for the guy. He needs to STFU. For his own sake, and if he actually cares about his country, for the country's sake.
His story is very similar to mine
...but mine did not result in anything that could be considered as a success. The difference is that he picked up the guitar again, and I really did not.
Is there a moral to that story? Maybe... Some may wonder if I would take up the guitar again, but I dunno.... (lol).
There are so many resources now available on Youtube and perhaps elsewhere, which did not exist for me in the '70's. That may sound like an excuse, and perhaps it is.
Anyway, he has an explanation for why he became more successful with his guitar growth, and that is what the video is about.
Is there a moral to that story? Maybe... Some may wonder if I would take up the guitar again, but I dunno.... (lol).
There are so many resources now available on Youtube and perhaps elsewhere, which did not exist for me in the '70's. That may sound like an excuse, and perhaps it is.
Shy/Forget/Naive & Invincible by Caryl Archer aka CarylCake
8/13/26:
This is a live performance. She has an equipment malfunction several minutes into the video. No interruption of the performance at all, while she continues singing, she fixes the microphone. I guess you could say that was professional.
Ah, a name from the past! I got curious, what happened with her? Well, I clicked on the video, and it returned a new name. OK. So, it isn't CarylCake anymore? It's something else? ( after a pause to check it out... Same person!)
Here's a video I found with a catchy tune. To my recollection, she once had another tune that thought was catchy back then. Then one has a bit of that, too.
This is a live performance. She has an equipment malfunction several minutes into the video. No interruption of the performance at all, while she continues singing, she fixes the microphone. I guess you could say that was professional.
Kudlow discusses economic news
8/13/26:
"Lefties will be disappointed." Doomers and gloomers will have nothing to talk about. Maybe they'll invent something, eh?
This is a fairly recent post to be doing this for. But it is getting some attention. Why?
The last GDP report was not that great. It was about 1 1/2 per cent growth. That is below what Kudlow is talking about in this video.
Could that be the reason for the interest?
I have this suspicion about the Federal Reserve System. Indeed, the Fed can induce recessions through tight monetary policy. The Fed can also induce growth through a loose monetary policy. Don't believe that? It is implied in the Humphrey-Hawkins law, which provides guidance for the Federal Reserve in its policy making.
Consequently, if there's inflation, the Fed is causing it. If there's a recession, the government is causing it. That may be an over-simplification, but there is that implication in the law that the Fed does have a say in how the economy peforms.
Therefore, when Trump says the interest rates are too high, he's saying that the Fed is sabotaging the economy. Think about that one for a moment, if you please.
As for the statistics, it was once said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can get stats to say whatever you want them to say. Just sayin'.
"Lefties will be disappointed." Doomers and gloomers will have nothing to talk about. Maybe they'll invent something, eh?
Wednesday, August 12, 2026
Jon Matonis on Bitcoin and crypto-currencies
8/12/26:
Bitcoin didn't seem like a durable thing. A small investment back then may have appreciated a lot, so I may have missed an opportunity. What problem does Bitcoin (crypto) solve? Maybe the same ones that paper currency does. But it has the same problems that paper currency has. Perhaps even more problems. Security would seem to be a problem with crypto. I don't trust it.
4/4/13:
GoldMoneyNews
Quote:
Comment:
GoldMoney is a gold vault operation, for want of a better term. This is their communication, which is amongst the ways in which they communicate with the world.
You can buy and sell gold there, with what they call gold grams, which represent 1 gram of gold. In comparison to an ounce, it takes about 30 grams to equal an ounce. GoldMoney's vault is located in the Channel Island of Jersey, near England, if memory serves. I traded with them there, on the internet, in 2007. I stopped fairly quickly that year when the US government started interfering, to my displeasure.
My contribution to the thoughts on this matter on the video is that since BitCoin is peer-to-peer, and a value is needed to establish what a BitCoin is actually is worth, then all is needed is some agreement amongst the BitCoin community as what that value of a BitCoin actually is. Now, if BitCoin is pegged amongst the community that it is worth so many gold grams, then you have achieved an objective value of a BitCoin, in my opinion.
Real currencies are set up by governments. A government is a group of people who exert authority and operate according to some kind of mutual agreement amongst them. In comparison, you would need to have a way to police a system, amongst the participants in that system. Now, a group of people can set this up and run it according to a charter they agreed upon. It can govern the system.
The video doesn't cover this, by the way. It is my own thought on the matter.
Anyway, here's the video
Here is an AI discussion of crypto-currency:
Discuss the history of "crypto" currency. Also describe what it actually is,
please.
Cryptocurrency: What It Actually Is
At its core, cryptocurrency is digital money that operates without a central
authority like a bank or government. Instead of relying on an institution to
verify transactions, it uses cryptography and a blockchain — a decentralized,
distributed public ledger.
Here's the breakdown of the key pieces:
- Blockchain: A continuously growing list of records ("blocks") linked and
secured by cryptography. Each block contains transaction data, a timestamp,
and a cryptographic hash of the previous block. This chain of hashes makes
tampering practically impossible — alter one block and every subsequent block's
hash breaks, alerting the entire network.
- Decentralization: Copies of the entire ledger are distributed across a network
of computers ("nodes"). No single entity controls it or can censor transactions.
- Consensus mechanisms: The network agrees on the valid state of the ledger
without a middleman. Two dominant models:
- Proof of Work (PoW) — Miners compete to solve computational puzzles to add
blocks, consuming significant energy. This is what secures Bitcoin. It's slower
but battle-tested.
- Proof of Stake (PoS) — Validators lock up ("stake") coins as collateral to
propose and validate blocks. Much more energy-efficient, used by Ethereum and
many newer networks.
- Supply control: The issuance of new coins is governed by protocol rules, not
central banks. Bitcoin, for instance, is capped at 21 million coins — a
feature designed to mimic digital scarcity.
- Currency properties: Cryptocurrencies are fungible (each unit is
interchangeable), stored in digital wallets using public/private key
cryptography, and can be transferred peer-to-peer nearly instantly and cheaply across borders.
Critically, cryptocurrency has no intrinsic value — it isn't backed by gold or
government decree. Its price is determined purely by supply and demand, the
quality of the underlying technology, and investor sentiment. As Schwab notes,
it's a non-fiat medium of exchange that functions independently of government.
A Brief History
The idea of "digital cash" predates Bitcoin by decades. The key milestones:
1. The Precursors (1980s–1990s): In 1983, American cryptographer David Chaum
conceived of ecash, an early cryptographic electronic money. Over the following
years, various attempts emerged (e-gold, b-money, bit gold), but all were
centralized or flawed. The unsolved problem was the double-spend issue — how to
stop someone from spending the same digital coin twice without a central
authority.
2. Bitcoin and Satoshi Nakamoto (2008–2009): In October 2008, an anonymous
individual or group under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto published the
Bitcoin whitepaper. In January 2009, the Bitcoin network launched with its
genesis block. This was the first successful solution to double-spending via a
decentralized consensus mechanism (PoW). Nakamoto vanished from public view
shortly after, leaving the network to run itself.
3. Altcoins and Early Exchanges (2011–2013): Rival coins (altcoins) like
Litecoin emerged. Exchanges like Mt. Gox (which later collapsed due to theft)
made trading possible. Bitcoin's price history became increasingly volatile.
4. Ethereum and Smart Contracts (2014–2015): Vitalik Buterin proposed Ethereum,
which launched in 2015. It introduced smart contracts — self-executing code
on the blockchain — and decentralized applications (dApps), massively
expanding what blockchains could do beyond simple payments.
5. The ICO Boom and Bust (2017–2018): Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) let
startups raise money by issuing tokens, driving a speculative frenzy and
subsequent crash. This cycle established crypto's reputation for extreme
volatility and scams.
6. DeFi and NFTs (2020–2021): Decentralized Finance (DeFi) applications —
lending, borrowing, trading without intermediaries — exploded. Non-fungible
tokens (NFTs) brought blockchain to digital art and collectibles.
Institutional interest grew, and El Salvador made Bitcoin legal tender in
2021.
7. Crypto Winter and Mainstream Validation (2022–2024): 2022 saw the FTX
collapse, wiping out billions and exposing rampant fraud. Markets crashed.
However, 2024 marked a turning point — spot Bitcoin ETFs were approved in the
US, giving mainstream investors a regulated, easy way to gain exposure. This
was followed by ETH ETFs and increasing institutional adoption.
8. The Present (2025–2026): Crypto has moved firmly from fringe to mainstream
finance. Regulatory frameworks are being built globally (including US state-
level initiatives like Bitcoin reserve legislation in some states), and the
technology itself — blockchain — is finding applications in supply chains,
healthcare records, identity verification, and even voting systems.
The bottom line: Cryptocurrency is a genuinely new form of programmable,
decentralized value transfer, born from a failure to trust central
institutions. It's revolutionary in its architecture but carries real risks —
extreme volatility, regulatory uncertainty, scams, and energy concerns (for
PoW). It's not a get-rich-quick scheme, nor is it "fake money." It's a
technology with a 15-year track record, evolving rapidly, and its ultimate
role in the global financial system is still being written.
Bitcoin didn't seem like a durable thing. A small investment back then may have appreciated a lot, so I may have missed an opportunity. What problem does Bitcoin (crypto) solve? Maybe the same ones that paper currency does. But it has the same problems that paper currency has. Perhaps even more problems. Security would seem to be a problem with crypto. I don't trust it.
4/4/13:
GoldMoneyNews
Quote:
Published on Mar 29, 2013
Subscribe to our newsletter at http://www.goldmoney.com/goldresearch. Episode 118: GoldMoney's Andy Duncan talks to Jon Matonis of the Bitcoin Foundation who is also a contributor to Forbes Magazine. They discuss Bitcoin's latest price spike and whether crypto-currencies are a credible alternative as a medium of exchange.
Comment:
GoldMoney is a gold vault operation, for want of a better term. This is their communication, which is amongst the ways in which they communicate with the world.
You can buy and sell gold there, with what they call gold grams, which represent 1 gram of gold. In comparison to an ounce, it takes about 30 grams to equal an ounce. GoldMoney's vault is located in the Channel Island of Jersey, near England, if memory serves. I traded with them there, on the internet, in 2007. I stopped fairly quickly that year when the US government started interfering, to my displeasure.
My contribution to the thoughts on this matter on the video is that since BitCoin is peer-to-peer, and a value is needed to establish what a BitCoin is actually is worth, then all is needed is some agreement amongst the BitCoin community as what that value of a BitCoin actually is. Now, if BitCoin is pegged amongst the community that it is worth so many gold grams, then you have achieved an objective value of a BitCoin, in my opinion.
Real currencies are set up by governments. A government is a group of people who exert authority and operate according to some kind of mutual agreement amongst them. In comparison, you would need to have a way to police a system, amongst the participants in that system. Now, a group of people can set this up and run it according to a charter they agreed upon. It can govern the system.
The video doesn't cover this, by the way. It is my own thought on the matter.
Anyway, here's the video
Welding the Starship together, the concept matures over time
TechMap channel
Nerd alert! A technical deep dive or sorts in these next two videos.
Nerd alert! A technical deep dive or sorts in these next two videos.
The video above abruptly changes topic in the middle of the video. If it whets your appetite for more, the following video may be of interest to you. A nerd's delight...
Another technical deep dive into Starship manufacturingTuesday, August 11, 2026
Bongino Show, 8/11/26
Was Bongino really getting some negative feedback because of this show? In my opinion, he is really cooking here. There's an explanation for all of this. It is in the Gospel of John.
What's that, you might ask... It's actually in more parts of the New Testament than that... But it comes down to the fact that the world loves a lie because the world is in darkness. It's a spirtual thing, but the world has forsaken that. You can see it every day.
Battle of Midway, WWII
8/11/26:
At the end of a film on that subject, the character for Adm. Nimitz asked if we were better than the Japanese, or just lucky.
Well, our side had a few things the Japanese didn't have. We had radar. We cracked their codes. We had better reconnaissance, as we had more planes than they had. We were also in our own backyard, so to speak. We had other advantages, too. Like better fire suppression in ships. Better armor on our planes.
But we had some disadvantages. There were few battleships available because of the successful Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor. These battleships could have provided greatly needed cover. The Japanese had them and it was almost decisive. We were nearly out of attack planes when the final ones came in and caught the Japanese by surprise. It was a surprise because they didn't expect a third carrier to be available. Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea. Emergency repairs made her sea worthy, and this wasn't expected. Three Japanese carriers were knocked out with that last blow. That final carrier was decisive. Game over.
No, the Battle of Midway wasn't all luck. There was some luck involved. That luck could have been decisive as well. But it wasn't all luck. If that third carrier wasn't available, even this wouldn't have been good enough.
The moral of the story. Don't count on luck. You should strive to be good enough to take advantage of what luck you may get.
Did Nimitz set a trap for Yamamoto at Midway?
The following video makes its case that he did.
At the end of a film on that subject, the character for Adm. Nimitz asked if we were better than the Japanese, or just lucky.
Well, our side had a few things the Japanese didn't have. We had radar. We cracked their codes. We had better reconnaissance, as we had more planes than they had. We were also in our own backyard, so to speak. We had other advantages, too. Like better fire suppression in ships. Better armor on our planes.
But we had some disadvantages. There were few battleships available because of the successful Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor. These battleships could have provided greatly needed cover. The Japanese had them and it was almost decisive. We were nearly out of attack planes when the final ones came in and caught the Japanese by surprise. It was a surprise because they didn't expect a third carrier to be available. Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea. Emergency repairs made her sea worthy, and this wasn't expected. Three Japanese carriers were knocked out with that last blow. That final carrier was decisive. Game over.
No, the Battle of Midway wasn't all luck. There was some luck involved. That luck could have been decisive as well. But it wasn't all luck. If that third carrier wasn't available, even this wouldn't have been good enough.
The moral of the story. Don't count on luck. You should strive to be good enough to take advantage of what luck you may get.
Liberalism must be all about guilt
8/11/26:
The left is trotting out Gabby Giffords in order to try to guilt trip the opposition to gun-control.
As I suggested before, ask them "what are your solutions?" The solution isn't necessarily giving them what they want. Just because the left wants something doesn't make it an effective solution to a problem.
Gun-control didn't stop the Sandy Hook massacre. Connecticut already has a lot of gun-control. Adding more makes no sense--- if a lot of control didn't stop it, more isn't going to be the answer either.
Now, if you were to take the situation as it happened, and ask what could have been done in that situation that may have made the difference, then you are on the right track.
The situation at Sandy Hook was that there was nobody enforcing the gun-free zone. It is nuts to expect a criminal to obey the law. Why would anybody expect a criminal to obey the law? If all you had to do was pass a law, then there would be no crime. Now think about that. If there were no laws, there would be no crime. If you pass a law, then there is crime. What do you suppose the effect is then if you pass a law? It makes no difference in terms of deterrence unless you enforce it. Nothing is going to change just by passing a law. The act is going to happen unless you have someone there to stop it.
Liberals feel pretty guilty. The one way to stop feeling guilty is to stop doing the wrong thing that makes you feel guilty. Well, duh.
Liberalism is a cycle of guilt. Let the liberals feel guilty. No need to join them, because liberalism doesn't solve problems. Liberalism's all about feeling guilty, and making a virtue of the guilt. Liberalism just makes things even worse so the liberals can keep on feeling guilty for all the damage they cause.
As I suggested before, ask them "what are your solutions?" The solution isn't necessarily giving them what they want. Just because the left wants something doesn't make it an effective solution to a problem.
Gun-control didn't stop the Sandy Hook massacre. Connecticut already has a lot of gun-control. Adding more makes no sense--- if a lot of control didn't stop it, more isn't going to be the answer either.
Now, if you were to take the situation as it happened, and ask what could have been done in that situation that may have made the difference, then you are on the right track.
The situation at Sandy Hook was that there was nobody enforcing the gun-free zone. It is nuts to expect a criminal to obey the law. Why would anybody expect a criminal to obey the law? If all you had to do was pass a law, then there would be no crime. Now think about that. If there were no laws, there would be no crime. If you pass a law, then there is crime. What do you suppose the effect is then if you pass a law? It makes no difference in terms of deterrence unless you enforce it. Nothing is going to change just by passing a law. The act is going to happen unless you have someone there to stop it.
CTH: Susan Kokinda...
Reviews Abdul El-Sayed From Michigan
Doesn't deal with the lefty-righty paradigm of the Socialists-Marxists-Democrats, imo.
That works for me.
Here's another story from CTH while you're visiting. I noticed something over at Barnhardt recently. They're sneaking in the mRNA "vaccines" again for FLU SHOTS. Glad to know that. I won't be getting one of those "vaccines".
Cave men just don't wanna be commie pinko fags
8/11/26:
We see you, but we don't wanna be you.
It's a good thing that cave men weren't fruits. We wouldn't be here otherwise! Know what I mean, Vern?
10/12/24: The original post follows:We see you, but we don't wanna be you.
KAMALA HARRIS’S MAN PROBLEM! As Obama desperately pleads with black male voters to back her, Freddy https://t.co/Bgt072wrS4 ---$$$ quote: "they've Bud Lighted their whole brand". Now that's making the complex simple. Even a cave man can get that.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) October 12, 2024
Getting rocket fuel into orbital space depots
8/11/26:
Speculation alert
MAB post 11
John Powell of JP Aerospace wants to get up to orbit with an airship. John Hunter wants to use an air gun to get fuel up to orbit. Now, this may be a crazy concept, but here goes. Combine the two by sending 100 lb payloads to orbit from JP Aerospace's Dark Sky Station.
Hunter says he can do 10 shots per day. That would be a 1000 lbs per day. After a month, you have a respectable amount of fuel in orbit.
Another purpose for using the Dark Sky Station this way is to avoid the energy loss of going through the lower atmosphere at high velocity. This enables a smaller gun to do a bigger job.
As I noted earlier, you can't put a gas gun on a plane. You can't even put a gas gun on an Ascender. But you can assemble one in a Dark Sky Station because the Station is frickin' huge.
Getting the gun there is only half the problem, though. Maybe the easier half. The other half is what to do about the recoil of the gas gun? It will be too much for the Dark Sky Station to handle.
One thing that could be considered is to capture the energy of the recoil and use it to make work. That work will act as the buffer that will soften the recoil of the gas gun.
How to do that? The old 64K dollar question.
You could use the energy to spin up one or more flywheels. A flywheel with enough mass and capability to spin at great velocity.
Update:
As long as this is a speculative post, let's use the MAB concept in concert with this concept. The MAB would take it to orbit. The Hunter gas gun would give it a boost to 1/2 orbital velocity. The total wet mass calculated assuming 20% payload fraction ( Parkins assumption) gives us a vehicle of under 1k lbs.
What to do about that recoil? Use the Airship to Orbit module launched from the Dark Sky Station for your launch pad. Point it in the direction so that the recoil forces the Airship down. The buoyancy of the Airship will force it to come back up. You could also dampen the recoil a bit as described above.
The gas gun would have a smaller payload than what Hunter is talking about. But the extra mass brings it back up to full size. That's much too big again. So, we pare down the size of the gas gun by making it less ambitious. It will only go 1/2 orbital velocity. A conventional rocket will take it to orbital velocity from there.
Still worried about the recoil.
Well, it certainly appears that something has changed up here. None of these ideas will ever matter at all since SpaceX's Starship will be able to take over 100 Tons to orbit soon. Fuel
depots are in the mix for the Starship, and if that works out, other ideas can't compete.
The thing about JP Aerospace is that you may be able to use it on Mars. On Mars, the atmosphere is already as thin as Earth's at the altitude that JP wants to use the ascender for. The ascender will go to orbit. It is a matter of how much energy it needs and whether or not it will be enough to get to orbit. Mars gravity is roughly 40% of Earth's, so if orbital velocity is also 40%, that would make it about Mach 10? (I could ask AI for that number, and probably already have once. If so, I may update this later.)
Ascender can be used on the Martian surface for sure as a transportation system to any other place on the Martian surface even if it cannot get to orbit (yet).
Gas guns? John Hunter of Quicklaunch once mentioned that you don't even need to heat the hydrogen gas in order to get to lunar orbital velocity! Think of the possibilities.
Speculation alert
MAB post 11
John Powell of JP Aerospace wants to get up to orbit with an airship. John Hunter wants to use an air gun to get fuel up to orbit. Now, this may be a crazy concept, but here goes. Combine the two by sending 100 lb payloads to orbit from JP Aerospace's Dark Sky Station.
Hunter says he can do 10 shots per day. That would be a 1000 lbs per day. After a month, you have a respectable amount of fuel in orbit.
Another purpose for using the Dark Sky Station this way is to avoid the energy loss of going through the lower atmosphere at high velocity. This enables a smaller gun to do a bigger job.
As I noted earlier, you can't put a gas gun on a plane. You can't even put a gas gun on an Ascender. But you can assemble one in a Dark Sky Station because the Station is frickin' huge.
Getting the gun there is only half the problem, though. Maybe the easier half. The other half is what to do about the recoil of the gas gun? It will be too much for the Dark Sky Station to handle.
One thing that could be considered is to capture the energy of the recoil and use it to make work. That work will act as the buffer that will soften the recoil of the gas gun.
How to do that? The old 64K dollar question.
You could use the energy to spin up one or more flywheels. A flywheel with enough mass and capability to spin at great velocity.
Update:
As long as this is a speculative post, let's use the MAB concept in concert with this concept. The MAB would take it to orbit. The Hunter gas gun would give it a boost to 1/2 orbital velocity. The total wet mass calculated assuming 20% payload fraction ( Parkins assumption) gives us a vehicle of under 1k lbs.
 |
| Wet mass for 100 lb payload launched from DSS/MAB assuming 20% mass fraction (MAB module) |
What to do about that recoil? Use the Airship to Orbit module launched from the Dark Sky Station for your launch pad. Point it in the direction so that the recoil forces the Airship down. The buoyancy of the Airship will force it to come back up. You could also dampen the recoil a bit as described above.
The gas gun would have a smaller payload than what Hunter is talking about. But the extra mass brings it back up to full size. That's much too big again. So, we pare down the size of the gas gun by making it less ambitious. It will only go 1/2 orbital velocity. A conventional rocket will take it to orbital velocity from there.
Still worried about the recoil.
Monday, August 10, 2026
Consim video
8/10/26:
I like this game. However, it receives lower ratings than it should.
This video discusses a problem that I never solved with this game. I'm sure many folks encounter the same problem and give the game lower ratings than what it would have otherwise. That's too bad.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I found a lot of "errors" in the game, but later turned out to be something that slipped by me.
The new version I bought recently is like that. I've found a couple things that were really on me, and not the game.
How much of this was engineered the way it is so that it wouldn't be too easy?
Still, I think some better explanations would have been helpful. Not only true with Construction Simulator 3, which is what this video refers to, but also the newer version. (What's its name?, I didn't get one, and it doesn't appear to be listed on the screen! ) See what I mean?
I like this game. However, it receives lower ratings than it should.
This video discusses a problem that I never solved with this game. I'm sure many folks encounter the same problem and give the game lower ratings than what it would have otherwise. That's too bad.
Starship cost estimates (AI discussion)
Question:
SpaceX recently launched its 13th test flight of the Starship. Do you have information about what it costs to assemble the booster and ship, fill it up with fuel, and launch the ship? If so, could you provide a breakdown of the components, if feasible.
Answer:
The costs associated with SpaceX’s Starship program are currently in a state of rapid transition as the company moves from the development phase toward operational maturity. Because SpaceX is a private company, exact internal accounting is not public; however, industry analysis and statements from Elon Musk provide a reliable framework for current expenditures.
For early test flights, the total cost per mission is significantly higher than the projected long-term goal due to the need to amortize massive infrastructure costs (like the $3 billion Starbase facility) and the current lack of full, rapid reusability.
Current Estimated Cost Breakdown (Per Launch)
For a vehicle in the current testing phase, estimated costs are approximately $100 million to $150 million per flight.
Component Estimated Cost Notes Hardware Build ~$90,000,000 Includes the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage.
Fuel/Propellant ~$900,000 Based on bulk industrial rates for LOX and liquid methane.
Operations/ Labor ~$5M – $20M Ground support, pad maintenance, and engineering personnel.
Amortized Dev. ~$50,000,000 Early-stage costs spread across current flight volume.
Total Estimate: ~$145M – $160M per flight (expendable or early-use scenario)
Component Details
- The Hardware ($90M): This represents the manufacturing cost of the "stack." The Raptor engines are the most complex component, estimated at roughly $1 million each. With 33 engines on the booster and 6 on the ship, the engine suite alone accounts for nearly $40 million of the build cost. The remaining $50 million covers the stainless steel airframe, avionics, thermal protection systems, and labor.
- Propellant (~$1M): Fuel costs are remarkably low compared to the vehicle cost. SpaceX utilizes roughly 4,500 metric tons of propellant per launch. With liquid oxygen (LOX) costing about $160/ton and liquid methane (CH4) around $400/ton, the raw chemical cost is roughly $900,000.
- Operations and Labor ($5M–$20M): This includes the immense human capital required to run a launch campaign—engineers, software developers, and pad technicians. In the current cadence, this cost is high per flight because the workforce is spread across a relatively low number of launches.
The Path to Maturity
Elon Musk has publicly outlined a goal to eventually reduce the marginal cost of a launch to approximately $2 million to $10 million.
This transition relies on two factors:
1. Full Reusability: Once SpaceX perfects catching the booster and ship, the $90 million manufacturing cost is no longer a "per-flight" expense but is instead amortized over hundreds of flights, effectively reducing that cost component toward zero.
2. Economies of Scale: Moving from a test-bed facility to a high-cadence manufacturing plant allows for massive efficiencies in labor and material procurement, driving the per-vehicle build cost down from ~$90 million to a projected ~$20 million.
Sunday, August 9, 2026
Starship testing sub-components?
Jipped this NASASpaceflight update at this point, because it is interesting to me. A speculation pops up into my noggin. If SpaceX is testing a sub-component like this, could it mean that it could also become a stand-alone rocket in its own right? I'm thinking of an HLS variant here that could land astronauts on the moon. Just a thought. It's isn't worth an entire post, so it is going here, as opposed to the Space City Speculations blog.
The Morning Summary, April 25, 2011
8/7/26:
The statistics:
Time approx 4:30 am
Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun
Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.
Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon. Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.
New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.
YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.
It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.
Update:
I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.
Update:
One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.
Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.
Update:
It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this. It is all an education, just like yesterday. I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show. It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.
If I may interject a thought into these discussions. Everybody is going at this in their own way. But what if no single way exists? That's a question that should be considered. Take fusion, for example. The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute. The problem is getting it to do what we want. But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach. Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth. But I don't think anyone is thinking that way. Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power. Maybe that isn't even necessary. That's my point.
This post originated here. It was cross-posted on the other blogger platformed blog, and retained here. That means they are separate posts now on different blogs.
I noted firstly on the other blog this morning that folks may be interested in stats.
They're not reliable, and they've ceased to be of interest to me. But if anybody's interested, here's a stat for ya. Total views all time for this blog: 5,107,466
Make of that what you will.
Update to the reaction update, 8/9/26:
Here's one of the more clicked upon posts, which actually serves as an introduction to the blog:
Brief review of concepts discussed on this blog.
The statistics:
Time approx 4:30 am
Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun
Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.
Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon. Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.
New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.
YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.
It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.
Update:
I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.
Update:
One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.
Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.
Update:
It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this. It is all an education, just like yesterday. I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show. It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.
If I may interject a thought into these discussions. Everybody is going at this in their own way. But what if no single way exists? That's a question that should be considered. Take fusion, for example. The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute. The problem is getting it to do what we want. But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach. Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth. But I don't think anyone is thinking that way. Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power. Maybe that isn't even necessary. That's my point.
Starship recovery in the Indian Ocean
Update to the update, 8/9/26: :
8/5/26 Update:
There's some doubt that this will work... It will be quite a salvage job if it does indeed work...
It's been over a week since the launch of Flight 13, and the Starship has not sunk. Evidently, there will be an attempt to tow it back to Australia. Here's a fellow that I've embedded a video on previously with respect to the Iran situation in the Strait of Hormuz awhile back. He's discussing what it may take to get it back to land in one piece. Not necessarily a piece of cake, I take it.
Bye?
8/9/26:
The original post was on 5/15/24:
This is a 10 minute video, and I clicked on it. After watching it for awhile, I decided to click off, and make this post.
He says some things that I agree with. However, I think that his claim to honesty may be a bit of hype. Anyway, is this video a farewell video, or not? By the time I spent my time on it, I decided that I wasn't going to stick around and see if that is what it really was. If it wasn't a farewell video, then I think this was a clickbait video.
Scams, scams and more scams. This guy says he's honest. I'll check back later and see if he really is, or if he is full of shit.
He made a video yesterday. So it wasn't farewell after all.
The original post was on 5/15/24:
This is a 10 minute video, and I clicked on it. After watching it for awhile, I decided to click off, and make this post.
He says some things that I agree with. However, I think that his claim to honesty may be a bit of hype. Anyway, is this video a farewell video, or not? By the time I spent my time on it, I decided that I wasn't going to stick around and see if that is what it really was. If it wasn't a farewell video, then I think this was a clickbait video.
Scams, scams and more scams. This guy says he's honest. I'll check back later and see if he really is, or if he is full of shit.
Taking out the trash
8/9/26:
The news of decline has been greatly exagerrated. I read through part of substack, but it is rather dreary. If you're into that, by all means. I have other things to do.
The original post was on 12/28/24:
Forecast 2025 -- by James Howard Kunstler
Comment:
Worth a read. You may want to bolster yourself with something first... not entirely pleasant reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)