Should Biden be impeached?

Of course. The GOP is gearing up for more failure theater, though. What the GOP habitually does is to fail, and look helpless while doing it. Otherwise known as failure theater. The goal is to make the real opponents of the left think that there will be accountability, when they know that they need cooperation to make that succeed, and they'll have none of that.

But shutting down the government didn't require any cooperation from the Democrats. Instead of shutting down the government, they gave them trillions of dollars of new money to spend, most of which will undermine the things that the GOP claims to be in their agenda.

So I'm not impressed even if they get Biden to resign. They won't. By the way, someone asked Joe Biden about the impeachment possibility, and he laughed. What's Joe laughing at? Or should I ask WHO? Does anyone really need to ask?

If the government had been shut down, it would have affected only a portion of government. Tax revenues would still pour in, and the government would have plenty of money to spend. The "shut down" as it is called, would only have affected a portion of government. Big deal. There wouldn't have been a default. All government debts could be serviced through the funds from taxation.

They've had shut downs before, but the GOP managed to makes failures out of those, too. The entire point of everything they do is to fool people into thinking something that isn't true. Also, they'll claim that they can do nothing.

People keep lapping it up, though.

Not me. Not this time. Hopefully not again. For now on, I'm going to question all sources of information. Doesn't matter who says it. Liberals hate that. But I suspect that the GOP isn't really any different. If they were, there wouldn't be so much failure theater. Liberals cannot match the GOP for mendacity. Liberals will lie to their enemies, meaning us. Which is exactly what the so-called conservatives love to do, too.

Wefunder campaign, LPP Fusion

 

Evidently, LPP Fusion still hasn't reached their secondary goals. That's because they are still sending out messages asking for more. The last I heard ( not counting this morning) was that they were about 10k short.

This latest solicitation is another one of those head-scratchers. So it got me to thinking. I'm relating this to all of the other stuff going on these days. I've come to the conclusion that the world is not such a nice place. It's an honest assessment. A bullshit assessment would be all hearts and flowers. Sheesh, World War III could break out at any time.

I've got a problem with the way this is being presented. Fossil fuels really isn't the problem. That would be true even if fossil fuels were really fouling up the Earth. I don't believe that it is, but again, that's not the problem. The problem is hard to put my finger on.

If their idea is to tap into hatred in order to destroy the fossil fuel industry, well this approach might make sense. But THOSE guys aren't serious, if that's the case. That's because if there was any way that they could destroy the fossil fuel industry, this could be the way. If the idea was to make the world better, this way could be the way. But the pitch is to people who don't care about what they say that they care about. Consequently, the message falls flat. If you tap into fossil fuel hatred, the haters should be beating a path to your door way. But they're not. They're being false with everyone. So why count on THEM?

If there's any reason they may fall short of their goals, it is that they are using a method and a result that isn't in keeping with the intended audience. The real audience should be people who are concerned that they, and their posterity, will not have a secure energy future. Their motivation would be goodwill, not hatred. A solution to the energy question would benefit ALL. There is no need for hatred. You should pursue this way because it is best possible way forward, PROVIDED that everyone wants a more secure and bountiful future.

Their method is free enterprise and the profit motive. But their audience is the people who hate that, and want to overturn it. LPP's efforts are in the best tradition of American Free Enterprise. It should be no surprise that the Greenies aren't much interested in it, even though it promises everything that they claim to want. If they wanted a clean energy future, where the hell are they???

The profit motive will work for this, provided that their research succeeds. Even if they don't, it is worth a try. The amount to invest is really small, and the reward could be unlimited. This pitch would be the best approach to follow.

Going down the road of hatred is ignoble, and it is base. It will not produce the results desired, if those are the results truly desired.

It's a shame. If this goes bust, I lose a couple hundred bucks. I can deal with that. Like I said before, it's low risk, high reward. For a couple hundred, a person could get on the ground floor of something really big. The sky would be the limit.

The Texas Legislature impeached this man

 

Citizen Free Press

I've been asked why I go after Republicans. Here's why. Because of what this man did, Texas went to Trump in 2020. The way Paxton tells it, that is. If you want to believe him, that is.

I choose to believe him because I don't believe Biden got 81 million votes. Paxton discusses how they were trying to steal Texas, and how he stopped it. Now the Texas Legislature, which is Republican, decided that Paxton has to go. The one man who might make a difference, and they want to get rid of him. To me, that says it all.

It may not do any good to get rid of Republicans who won't fight. But the way Paxton tells it, it looks a lot worse than that! The GOP is actually HELPING the Democrats steal elections. It's insane, but I think it is the truth.

There you have it.

Frankly, from what Paxton says here, it's just about a lost cause. At best, the GOP does nothing. At worst, the GOP is an active participant in the destruction of the right to vote. For bringing that to everyone's intention, it looks like the Texas Legislature wants to punish Paxton.

Not voting for the GOP may not be enough! We are in a bad spot here.

Orion nuclear pulse rocket rocket research of the 1950's

Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) sizes of vehicles

One of the problems of space propulsion is the limits of chemically powered rockets. This causes a nightmare of having to build super large rockets that can only propel a spacecraft to limited objectives. So, the question is this: can nuclear power be used effectively? It so happens that a lot of research was done in this area in the fifties, but ended due to policy decisions.

Elon Musk's rockets are pushing the boundaries of chemically powered rockets to their maximum. Thanks to his work, it appears that the task of getting a payload to Earth orbit could remove launch costs to the point to where useful spinoffs could be contemplated. One of these may be to use nuclear power in deep space. Since it is deemed a problem to use this on the ground, perhaps the objection would be less if this was done in space. Perhaps.

The 50's research reveals that the bombs seemed quite small. Even smaller than the "suitcase nukes" that are mentioned from time to time. Peeling around the mysterious of jargon here, a small nuke, if feasible, could yield just 30 tons. You are almost getting in the region of a large conventional bomb here.

The advantage would be in the amount of yield in relation to the mass expended. This is why the use of chemical rockets are so limited. Musk needs a 400 ft tall rocket to get to orbit. True, it carries a large payload, but it is rather huge. Once it is in orbit, it has a lot of extraneous mass that gets in its own way. He will need to refuel multiple times in order to get to the moon for the Artemis project. The Apollo project utilized a mass shedding strategy that left only a 30k pound lunar lander. More than one way to skin the cat. But back to the nuclear option...

Reading down into the linked article, each bomb may weigh less than 500 pounds. It gives an explosive yield of 30 tons or more. The article isn't clear on that, though. If the numbers are meaningful, then it is a ratio of 12 to 1 in terms of yield. It is probably more than that, though. The amount of energy in a nuclear explosion is a factor of 1 million times greater. If it is only 12, that is too low. In any case, there is much more yield per pound expended, which would translate into a much more powerful rocket.

The article gets a little vague, so not much more can be gleaned than that.

Previously on the blog, it was proposed, and may actually be studied right now, is to use a fission fragment device. It wouldn't be an explosion, but it would use fission fragment as the reaction mass. Such seems to be rather elaborate. Why not just blow the damned thing up like Project Orion? Could the explosions be minaturized so much that they wouldn't be so much different than chemical power?

That is to say, what if a fissionable mass was embedded into this aerogel mixture, and was caused to explode? The aerogel weighs almost nothing. Could a means of detonating the thing be set up in much the same way as the Orion project? The explosion could propel the spacecraft towards its destination. Perhaps a yield even smaller than 60 tons could be achieved. Perhaps it could be quite small. The advantages would be in a high thrust and high ISP nuclear propelled rocket.

Did the decision makers give up too soon?

Democrats now favor oppression and censorship by almost 3 to 1

Behind the Black Blog: Democrats now favor oppression and censorship by almost 3 to 1

Comment:

There has been a shift in opinion, according to this. As recently as 2018, there wasn't any difference between Republicans or Democrats. But now, the Democrats have switched over to favoring censorship by a large margin.

The truth is that the Democrats have ALWAYS been in favor of censorship. But they are open about it now. For example, The late Rush Limbaugh had a TV show, in which he demonstated the attitude of the left. He hid his face behind the dot, as he introduced himself on his first TV show. It was done in humor, but there has always been that component in of the Democrat psyche. They ALWAYS wanted to "flush Rush".

Now that it is all out in the open, what is to be done about it?

A related story:

Study: Democrat Support for Violence to Coerce Members of Congress, Restore Federal Right to Abortion Rises

Comment:

The article also said that there was hope that the Trump indictments would REDUCE his support, but has radicalized Republicans instead. More indictments would mean even further radicalization.

Starship update, 7-26-23 (video)

 

The video has no narration.

Not a whole lot that's new. Some updates I've watched didn't say if the methane tanks were filled with methane or nitrogen. This video says nitrogen.

Obviously, there is no extra ring on the booster yet. This will have to be installed, as the quick disconnect has already been altered in order to accomodate the greater height added to the stack by that hot staging ring. This means that the ship isn't ready for flight yet. It's not really that close.

There may be things like spin primes and static fires, but since there needs to be some work done on the booster itself, these tests seem a bit out of sequence. Do they do these things first, and then add the ring? Seems like this is what they're doing. Maybe you get the hardware part done first, then the tests.

Some are forecasting a readied ship by the end of August. The FAA will still have to issue a license to launch. It's not clear when that will be.

A bit of speculation: The FAA will issue a launch license shortly after the court dismisses the law suit. That's IF they dismiss the lawsuit.

With that, I turn it over to the video...

A bonus video. Something about a fusion rocket. Is this the same one that the Angry Astronaut was talking about?

The Kennedy Assassination: Inside the Book Depository

comment:

It's not likely to change anybody's mind. It didn't change mine.

If I were to make a video about the JFK assassination, I would make it short. That's because an excess of words isn't necessary. The elements are simple, so why focus on the other things?