I must be getting old before my time. I tend to forget things really fast, so I need a system that will help me remember. In that spirit, I went back to this blog and read what I wrote yesterday. Everything has a tendency to look different in the morning, so to speak. When you sleep on something, I guess the old noggin is processing the info in some way and then, by the morning, things may look different.
But this time, no. I went to bed thinking that things were downright bad, and I still think so. Re reading the blog doesn't change that impression much, if at all. Heck, it might even reinforce the notion.
Where do I go from here? As anyone who reads this knows, I need a way to put this thing on a paying basis so I can keep doing this. Otherwise, I will have to stop. This is one thing I began thinking about as soon as I woke up. After seven months of blogging, this blog has not earned a cent. This will have to change somehow, because it can't last forever.
Then you've got the national scene and the world scene. Things look like they can fall apart at any moment, so that is on my mind. I can write about it here and share my thoughts with anyone who may be interested. Maybe something good can come from that, or maybe nobody really cares, so it won't matter anyhow.
It is frustrating that nobody seems to care, but it is out of my control. If I can't control it, I won't worry about it. If the world wants to fall apart, then it will fall apart. What I want to do is to make my own part of this world as sane as I can keep it. That may be a challenge that is too much if the whole world falls apart.
My impression is that people just don't want to face the reality of the situation. The tendency is to drift without any direction until you are going over the waterfall and then you ask, "why the hell didn't anybody see this coming?" Reality is biting everybody hard on the ass, but nobody seems to be noticing that their ass has several deep bite marks and is bleeding profusely. Trillion dollar deficits cannot last. It will crash the financial system and that is a fact. The longer this persists, the sooner the inevitable will occur.
Yet, our government does nothing. What the hell is the matter with these people? I think that they are in a bubble. Washington is too detached and out of touch. If they do understand this, and they are acting this way anyway, then they are screwing everybody with deliberate malice. So, this is either incompetence or corruption. Neither is good. In any case, these people are going to have to go if there is any chance. Unfortunately, we may not get that chance.
The time to act is now, but all we got is these people, and that is poor material to work with. Sorry for sounding so negative, but these people in Washington do not impress me. People out here need to pay attention to these clowns, but nobody seems to be. When they do pay attention, they listen to these idiotic TV programs that only serve the interests of the clowns in charge. The media is the establishment and they are in cahoots with the clowns who are causing this mess.
You got to find answers elsewhere. You can't rely on the establishment who is, bluntly speaking, lying their asses off. This in service to their own interests and against the interests of everyone else. Time to call them out and demand answers to these problems right now.
I am finished with this little rant. Now I got to see if I can stir up something for this blog and for me. Bills keep coming, you see.
Update:
The spinmeisters are out there touting this as a victory. This only goes to show that these people aren't serious. There is no victory here. It's just another retreat. And they are preparing the way for another one.
Update:
I do have stuff to do, but I will continue to post here. Don't go away.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Should humans attempt to colonize space?
Looks like a modest number of people are participating in this discussion and poll. Yes 57%, No 43%.
I haven't written a response to that over there, but why not here?
I say yes. After the big, dumb rocket discussion, I am convinced that large amounts of matter can be sent into orbit with consumables that would support life for some time. Not only that, but could be expanded over time for as anyone on Earth who wanted to do it. This would not result in a completely new world immediately, but it would, over time, result in enough matter to sustain a human colony of some size for an indefinite period of time.
How many launches of the big, dumb rocket? At 550 tons payload per launch, let's say that you were to do as many launches as the Space Shuttle, about 120. That would result in 550 times 120 tons of matter. This would result in about 66000 tons of matter, which is about the size of two World War II aircraft carriers. Actually, this is not terribly impressive after 120 launches, but the Space Shuttle has managed only a much smaller station, which definitely cannot support itself for long.
The WWII vintage USS Lexington could accomodate 2600 men. Now, it would be a lot different in space, but it could definitely handle a lot more crew than the space station does now. The configuration would be different of course. It's method of providing for itself would be different too. But something this large could become a base of operations for more significant forays into space. And these would not require so much support from Earth.
I can envision a system of these stations in space which could become trading outposts between the Earth and the rest of the solar system. They could produce goods that could be traded with Earth and vice versa. The system, once deployed, could sustain itself through its own activities.
I can't prove this, though. Let's run that one by some experts. I think that such a system could have a reasonable chance of being self supporting.
I haven't written a response to that over there, but why not here?
I say yes. After the big, dumb rocket discussion, I am convinced that large amounts of matter can be sent into orbit with consumables that would support life for some time. Not only that, but could be expanded over time for as anyone on Earth who wanted to do it. This would not result in a completely new world immediately, but it would, over time, result in enough matter to sustain a human colony of some size for an indefinite period of time.
How many launches of the big, dumb rocket? At 550 tons payload per launch, let's say that you were to do as many launches as the Space Shuttle, about 120. That would result in 550 times 120 tons of matter. This would result in about 66000 tons of matter, which is about the size of two World War II aircraft carriers. Actually, this is not terribly impressive after 120 launches, but the Space Shuttle has managed only a much smaller station, which definitely cannot support itself for long.
The WWII vintage USS Lexington could accomodate 2600 men. Now, it would be a lot different in space, but it could definitely handle a lot more crew than the space station does now. The configuration would be different of course. It's method of providing for itself would be different too. But something this large could become a base of operations for more significant forays into space. And these would not require so much support from Earth.
I can envision a system of these stations in space which could become trading outposts between the Earth and the rest of the solar system. They could produce goods that could be traded with Earth and vice versa. The system, once deployed, could sustain itself through its own activities.
I can't prove this, though. Let's run that one by some experts. I think that such a system could have a reasonable chance of being self supporting.
This looks interesting
Fuel cells made by United Technology. This looks like an advertisement, though. It was in a Google search which was in an effort to find out if anyone in the world is utilizing the hydrogen from ammonia concept, and to see how many places in the world may be using fuel cells in transportation. It didn't look like very many.
Newsletter - Edition 261 - 10 April 2011 By Christopher Laird
This week's newsletter. It is subscription based, so if you want the full skinny, you will have to subscribe.
USD and 2012 questions
Metals and USD right now
2012 stuff won’t go away
The USD role in 2012?
US rollover is $3 trillion a year, US fiscal deficit is $2 trillion a year = US debt burden for 2011 of $5 trillion of US bonds??
USD fall by accident or ‘plan’ what is the difference?
Markets in a pickle
Lots of new leaders taking the world stage
What perfect timing! What a ‘coincidence’
US reaching known critical debt level
Combining prophecies creates a psychological mood
But there is another market scenario for Summer too
Comment:
It is easy to get discouraged by all this, but there is nothing to do but to keep going.
USD and 2012 questions
Metals and USD right now
2012 stuff won’t go away
The USD role in 2012?
US rollover is $3 trillion a year, US fiscal deficit is $2 trillion a year = US debt burden for 2011 of $5 trillion of US bonds??
USD fall by accident or ‘plan’ what is the difference?
Markets in a pickle
Lots of new leaders taking the world stage
What perfect timing! What a ‘coincidence’
US reaching known critical debt level
Combining prophecies creates a psychological mood
But there is another market scenario for Summer too
Comment:
It is easy to get discouraged by all this, but there is nothing to do but to keep going.
LEO on the cheap
This is a pdf file I am reading right now. It says that launch costs do not have to be as high as they are. This is a 1993 paper, so one wonders why nothing was done about it. But given the fact that the government doesn't really intend to make anything cheaper, then it becomes understandable.
Note: I'll be updating this as I go along. I'm just getting started.
Also: here is the title page, which I hope will reassure readers that the author of this pdf is no amateur.
Update: 12:50pm
I have to mention that I begin reading this with a bias. I suspect that there is a lot of waste in the government, that the government does not want to economize; but the opposite, and that lower costs are not only possible, but necessary if space travel is to ever become economically feasible.
Update: 12: 55pm
Just finished first chapter. It is mostly about what, as opposed to how. Still looking for how to lower costs.
Update: 1:07 pm
Survey of existing launch systems. Next chapter, new systems ( from viewpoint of 1993)
Update: 1:24pm
Space plane is discussed. Of course, it never became a commercial vehicle, or much more than an experimental vehicle. Also, a modernized version of the Sea Dragon is discussed called SEALAR. It wasn't the Big Dumb Rocket idea, though. Actually, it was to be a small rocket. It got dropped by the Navy just before it could do a launch. Another idea that was discussed was the Taurus, which is still being developed, evidently. I have heard of it, but it doesn't appear to have been a big success. Three chapters in, doesn't look like there's anything here yet.
Update: 1:29
Will stop here for a little while. Be back later.
Update; 1:57 pm
It is getting more into the why of the high costs of launch. It confirms my suspicion that the US Government doesn't build these things for cost effectiveness. You couldn't have possibly designed a worse spacecraft for the purposes of economy than the Space Shuttle. It's is what I thought. No intention exists to economize.
Update: 2:26 pm
It is getting a bit thick here in the analysis dept. Basically what you need is a simple launch system. Also, you need to avoid re inventing the wheel. Launching high value cargo should go into one type of vehicle and low value cargo in another. (that's my opinion) I'm going to take a break here and resume later.
Update 3:45
I found a passage that is worth quoting, but not now. Basically, NASA has a bias against producing cheaper technology. The bias is opposite. That bias also extends to our culture. This makes sense to me. It can be summed up in the phrase, "you get what you pay for". The fallacy here is that if it is expensive, it must be better. But if it is too expensive, it isn't going to do anybody any good.
Update 4:45
I've seen enough to reach a conclusion. The culture has to change. More expensive does not equal better results. In fact, it may well be the thing that holds us back. Rockets are simple, but are made more complex, and more expensive than they have to be. The solution here may well be a big, dumb rocket to transport consumables, fuel, and low value freight. The more expensive freight and crew should be on more complex machines that are designed for safety. You can lose cheap cargo, but not crew, nor expensive machines.
Note: I'll be updating this as I go along. I'm just getting started.
Also: here is the title page, which I hope will reassure readers that the author of this pdf is no amateur.
 |
| Dunn space.com |
Update: 12:50pm
I have to mention that I begin reading this with a bias. I suspect that there is a lot of waste in the government, that the government does not want to economize; but the opposite, and that lower costs are not only possible, but necessary if space travel is to ever become economically feasible.
Update: 12: 55pm
Just finished first chapter. It is mostly about what, as opposed to how. Still looking for how to lower costs.
Update: 1:07 pm
Survey of existing launch systems. Next chapter, new systems ( from viewpoint of 1993)
Update: 1:24pm
Space plane is discussed. Of course, it never became a commercial vehicle, or much more than an experimental vehicle. Also, a modernized version of the Sea Dragon is discussed called SEALAR. It wasn't the Big Dumb Rocket idea, though. Actually, it was to be a small rocket. It got dropped by the Navy just before it could do a launch. Another idea that was discussed was the Taurus, which is still being developed, evidently. I have heard of it, but it doesn't appear to have been a big success. Three chapters in, doesn't look like there's anything here yet.
Update: 1:29
Will stop here for a little while. Be back later.
Update; 1:57 pm
It is getting more into the why of the high costs of launch. It confirms my suspicion that the US Government doesn't build these things for cost effectiveness. You couldn't have possibly designed a worse spacecraft for the purposes of economy than the Space Shuttle. It's is what I thought. No intention exists to economize.
Update: 2:26 pm
It is getting a bit thick here in the analysis dept. Basically what you need is a simple launch system. Also, you need to avoid re inventing the wheel. Launching high value cargo should go into one type of vehicle and low value cargo in another. (that's my opinion) I'm going to take a break here and resume later.
Update 3:45
I found a passage that is worth quoting, but not now. Basically, NASA has a bias against producing cheaper technology. The bias is opposite. That bias also extends to our culture. This makes sense to me. It can be summed up in the phrase, "you get what you pay for". The fallacy here is that if it is expensive, it must be better. But if it is too expensive, it isn't going to do anybody any good.
Update 4:45
I've seen enough to reach a conclusion. The culture has to change. More expensive does not equal better results. In fact, it may well be the thing that holds us back. Rockets are simple, but are made more complex, and more expensive than they have to be. The solution here may well be a big, dumb rocket to transport consumables, fuel, and low value freight. The more expensive freight and crew should be on more complex machines that are designed for safety. You can lose cheap cargo, but not crew, nor expensive machines.
The Shape of Things to Come
This is a reference to a blog series written by Francis Poretto, aka Curmudgeon Emeritus of Eternity Road. I had a link to his blog on my sidebar, and this post is to inform anyone interested that I have updated the link as a new link to this series.
What he says is fairly similar to what I've been reading from Chris Laird, which I have referenced many times on this blog. It may be similar to what Glenn Beck has been talking about, but I don't watch TV at all, except for sporting events, so I couldn't say about that one.
It may be too silly to think otherwise, but I would rather maintain an optimistic point of view. If things were really this bad, you might as well go curl up into a light ball as in a fetal position and start sucking your thumb. It may be impossible to get out of this mess, but it will definitely be impossible if nothing is done and done soon. He may be right in that it may well be too late already. Let's keep in mind that as long as we are alive and kicking, hope is still alive. This might sound a little too pie in the sky, especially these days.
I do believe that solutions can be found. But the will has to exist to solve our problems. That is the fact that is in question. Who will arise to lead the way?
What he says is fairly similar to what I've been reading from Chris Laird, which I have referenced many times on this blog. It may be similar to what Glenn Beck has been talking about, but I don't watch TV at all, except for sporting events, so I couldn't say about that one.
It may be too silly to think otherwise, but I would rather maintain an optimistic point of view. If things were really this bad, you might as well go curl up into a light ball as in a fetal position and start sucking your thumb. It may be impossible to get out of this mess, but it will definitely be impossible if nothing is done and done soon. He may be right in that it may well be too late already. Let's keep in mind that as long as we are alive and kicking, hope is still alive. This might sound a little too pie in the sky, especially these days.
I do believe that solutions can be found. But the will has to exist to solve our problems. That is the fact that is in question. Who will arise to lead the way?
Nerds and Geeks
Got an idea for this post from Glenn Reynold's Instapundit, who mentioned that Neflix is going to make all Star Trek TV shows available for instant streaming. He called it "nerd heaven". So, being somewhat of a semanticist (maybe not quiet fanatical about it), I got curious enough to learn the distinction between nerddom and geekdom.
From these two definitions, it appears that a rough estimation could be made here: better to be a geek than a nerd. A geek gets it done, a nerd appears to be at the very bottom of the pecking order. Being a geek earns some status because it implies a certain capability. Nerds seem to lack everything that could possibly make you cool in some way. At least a geek can be cool in a certain way at certain times. There you go, my take on it. What is yours?
By the way, I like Star Trek
, but I wouldn't call myself a "trekkie". I don't know what that says, but there it is.
Update:
It reminds me of my superhero series, Dr. StrangeBrain. Every superhero has an alter ego- Peter Parker to Spiderman, Clark Kent to Superman, Bruce Wayne to Batman. The superhero's real identity is just a geek or a nerd ( but maybe not always in the case of Bruce Wayne). Do I have to tell you who the alter ego to Dr. StrangeBrain is? I took something of my own experiences and put it into that character. It wasn't well planned or well done and it is a first story, or first draft, so to speak.
Inasmuch as this is an arts and sciences blog, fictional superheroes fit into the theme of this blog. This blog has to be about something, after all. If I may make something of an analogy here without going too far off the deep end? Here it is: art is the alter ego of science. Art is Batman; Science is a Moon Shot. This also fits the theme of the Superhero series, and Dr StrangeBrain. StrangeBrain is fiction, but my life is real.
Does Dr. StrangeBrain have a song? The Doors
' People are Strange comes to mind. That amuses me, so I'll make it the Doctor's theme song. I can relate to that song.
From these two definitions, it appears that a rough estimation could be made here: better to be a geek than a nerd. A geek gets it done, a nerd appears to be at the very bottom of the pecking order. Being a geek earns some status because it implies a certain capability. Nerds seem to lack everything that could possibly make you cool in some way. At least a geek can be cool in a certain way at certain times. There you go, my take on it. What is yours?
By the way, I like Star Trek
, but I wouldn't call myself a "trekkie". I don't know what that says, but there it is.Update:
It reminds me of my superhero series, Dr. StrangeBrain. Every superhero has an alter ego- Peter Parker to Spiderman, Clark Kent to Superman, Bruce Wayne to Batman. The superhero's real identity is just a geek or a nerd ( but maybe not always in the case of Bruce Wayne). Do I have to tell you who the alter ego to Dr. StrangeBrain is? I took something of my own experiences and put it into that character. It wasn't well planned or well done and it is a first story, or first draft, so to speak.
Inasmuch as this is an arts and sciences blog, fictional superheroes fit into the theme of this blog. This blog has to be about something, after all. If I may make something of an analogy here without going too far off the deep end? Here it is: art is the alter ego of science. Art is Batman; Science is a Moon Shot. This also fits the theme of the Superhero series, and Dr StrangeBrain. StrangeBrain is fiction, but my life is real.
Does Dr. StrangeBrain have a song? The Doors
' People are Strange comes to mind. That amuses me, so I'll make it the Doctor's theme song. I can relate to that song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)