Is the Shuttle derived system a good deal?

Rand Simberg at Terresterial Musings doesn't think so.  As for me, I've been pleased with re-using this system for the now.  That could change though, since my education on this subject continues.  By the way, the link isn't about the Shuttle system per se, he just has a short blurb on the post which shows his opinion of the Shuttle derived system now being pursued as policy- to wit:

If NASA is smart, they’ll use both Falcon and EELVs for crew transport, so they have redundancy. What the Air Force really needs is a NASA to not develop a new Shuttle-derived vehicle, which it doesn’t need, and doesn’t have the budget for, but Congress is insisting that it build anyway, for no reason other than job preservation in Alabama, Utah, Mississippi and Florida.

Yes, the government is a big money waster, no doubt about it.  But I like the idea of using the big external tank for other things besides just ditching it into the ocean after it has finished thrusting a payload into space.  With the continuation of the shuttle based system, this may be at least a theoretical possibility.  Not that something similiar can't be done in another way, though.

Bombs away!

I'm going to read a book about skyhooks and such.  Here are a couple videos that I made that may amuse you.  I think this one you'll have to go to YouTube to see.  But this one, I'll embed here.

Update:  I'm disabling and the link above (YouTube) and relinking here.

Update:  About half finished with the book.  I've been blogging regularly for about 3 months now.  During that time, I have gotten quite an education about space.  This book I'm reading now is an eye opener.  Possibly the most significant book I've read yet.  More on that later.

The One

I made a quickie Xtranormal video on their website.  I run the risk here of alienating some people, but sorry.  This deserves being lampooned, and this will be merciless in its ridicule.  Perhaps it could have been done better and with more taste.  If only I had more of a fling for it, the humor of it may come through.  As it is, it may draw some fire.  Maybe.

Long live the King

This is a quick and dirty essay. I would like to expound upon these ideas,
but time does not allow it. I have got to get this out there quickly, so
here goes.

I came across a certain phenemonon making the rounds recently. It is
called "The Secret". I think Oprah Winfrey had a show about it. It is one
of those things that grabs the popular imagination. I looked into it,
and I thought a lot of it reminded me of that "positive attitude" mindset-
but upon further reflection, I think there is a dark side to this.

So, what is a "secret" anyway? This is not a textbook definition, let's
just say a secret is a truth that is hiddenly purposefully. The purpose
being its being hidden is a need for dominance and control. It is not the
same as success through a positive attitude because that philosophy champions
growth and this growth cannot succeed unless it is shared. Sharing is the
opposite of being secretive. Therefore, this "secret" must remain so;
because if it is discovered would make it a threat to those who want that
dominance and control.

This reminds me of a book that I read many years ago by Robert Ringer:
Winning through Intimidation. In that book, Ringer was quite critical
about the usual success stories and advocated his own philosophy of what
he called "intimidation". In the beginning of the book, he mentions Ayn
Rand, who he admires. Well, anyway, this introduced me to Ayn Rand and
her ideas. His introduction of Ayn Rand was used to downplay the negativism
associated with the word "intimidation". Ringer was using that word not
in the conventional way, but in a way that he hoped would get his ideas
across to his readers.

And what was that? I think it was something in what Rand wrote about on
several occasions that I observed. There is a tendency, perhaps a inherent
trait in some people that makes them want to deny you your hard won, hard
earned success.

So, how do you look for signs in the real world of this phenomenon? I
would look at some famous people and how they made their success. Let's
start with that television show called American Idol. It is the only
season in which I watched the last shows in which the winner is selected.
That year in which I watched was the year that Carrie Underwood won. What
struck me about it was that there was so many talented singers. Each of
them could have won. So why did Carrie Underwood win?

Not to say that she didn't deserve it. But any one of those contestants
could have been an American Idol. Yet, the thing I am going to mention
here is what happened afterward. It seems that she was being promoted
for some reason. Not every American Idol winner gets the attention and
promotion that she has gotten. Why is that? I think it is a phenomenon
that I'll refer to as the kingmaker phenomenon. There is this "something"
out there that is promoting those who are approved by the Kingmakers. I
think Carrie Underwood is favored by the Kingmakers.

If my theory is correct, then there are many out there in prominent position
because they found the favor of the Kingmakers. Like Barak Obama. Tell,
what is so great about Barak Obama? Wasn't he selected by those who wanted
to make him president?

But the Kingmakers are not always successful. An obvious example of that
is George W. Bush. Boy did the Kingmakers hate him! Ronald Reagan is
another. The Kingmakers are not always successful, but they eventually
tend to wear down the public with their negativism. Even Reagan, as
popular as he was, was on the verge of getting into a lot of trouble by
the end of his presidency. The Kingmakers were not pleased.

Of course I'm getting to Sarah Palin. If you bother to notice, the Kingmakers
are definitely not satisfied with Sarah. If there is any chance at all for
her, she will have to find a way around the Kingmakers as Reagan and Bush
did. Otherwise, she will share the fate of Dan Quayle and other victims
of the Kingmakers destructive force.

Of course, the Kingmaker is the liberal media, and their allies. They
are on the left politically. They are not champions of capitalism and
freedom, but the enemy of it. Anyone who wants to champion freedom,
personal success, and overall wealth creation is an enemy of these people.
They want to control and dominate. They want to be served, not to serve.
Look out for the Kingmakers. They pretend to be your friends, but they
are not. Do not be fooled.

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL by Ray Charles

Politics Schmolitics

Rush Limbaugh sends something called "Rush in a Hurry" to those of us who are on his email list.  Since I don't listen quite so much as I used to, I can go there and get a quick view of what El Rushbo has been talking about.

It turns out that the tax deal is breaking down.  It sounds like the Democrats are loading it up with spending.  Either the Republicans swallow this in order to get the tax cuts, or nobody gets anything.  I didn't check into what Rush said about it other than he hopes it goes down to defeat, so I'll put in with my own opinion here.

Here's what I see:  if the Republicans sign on to this, two things could happen with respect to deficits.  They get bigger (most likely), or they get smaller (not likely).  If they get bigger, the Democrats can always blame the tax cuts for it.  If the deficits actually get smaller (big surprise), the Democrats can claim that the spending doesn't hurt, so let's do more!  In other words, no matter how the deficit turns out in this scenario, the Democrats can't lose.

Now, let's look at the economic impact.  Again, two things can happen: the economy improves or the economy gets worse.  If the economy gets better, the Democrats can say the spending improved the economy, not the tax cuts.  But if the economy gets worse, the Democrats can blame the tax cuts, especially since the deficit is likely to get worse.  So, they can cover their butts that way too.

Now, if everything blows up, and there are no tax cuts and there is no spending either, the Democrats are covered there too.  They can claim that there hasn't been enough spending all along, and so they'll demand more.

The short and the long of this is that the Democrats are just positioning themselves for the next election.  Just as Krugman indicated here.  How about doing what the people want?  No, that would not be in their political interest.  They are counting on short memories and short attention spans.  And they just might get away with it.  Why not?  They've been getting away with this kind of thing for years.  No need to change now.


Update:
Krauthammer is calling the  tax deal the Swindle of the year.   Erik Erikson of Red State says Tax Compromise Must Now Die.  Pass or no pass, the issues are not being addressed.  It's political posturing.

Maybe it makes too much sense

By way of Al Fin and NextBigFuture, I came across this post at Centauri Dreams.  What caught my attention was the lunar rotovator concept that I mentioned in the previous post.  It's possible that I looked at this yesterday, and that is what was in my mind this morning. 

Paul Gilster, the author of the post, suggests reading this book, which fleshes out the proposition. 

As for the why this idea may never catch on, well, it wouldn't surprise me a bit.  With a government that spends as much as this one does, the opposite thought may be believed.  But conventional wisdom being what it is, it is most likely wrong.  To the contrary, this idea could save a lot of money, and even make a lot of money.  That is the reason it won't get done.  Nobody believes its any good because no one is doing it.  Yet, look at all the stupidity that is going on.  Even if this was bat do-do crazy, it wouldn't be worse than this other crap they are wasting money on.