Science and Technology – Page 2

The Fall Will Be Broadcast

Getting hit by lightning is not fun! If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, which include moving to the SW, feel free to hit the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo, use the options in the Tip Jar in the upper right, or drop me a line to discuss other methods. It is thanks to your gifts and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.

This is the third, and last planned, bit of commentary on the shooting in Texas. The first post is here, and the follow-up is here. Many of you have commented about the video in the various posts, and it is a point that needs some discussion.

The ubiquitousness of video is a remarkable thing. On one level, it represents the strides made in video and recording technology over the years. I still remember getting trained in video recording, editing, and production in 1976 at the Boy Scout World Jamboree. The cameras were large, the editing suite large, and the quality was so-so by today’s standards. Back then, it was revolutionary.

Today, the Contour camera I bought to mount to my helmet a few years back is tiny in comparison to those early cameras, and still is huge in comparison to some of the high-res cameras you can buy on the cheap. Oh, and that huge editing suite? Everything it did and more can now be done on a laptop. The reels of video tape (and later video cassettes) are now a small chip.

The doorbell camera my landlord has may not be as high-res as some, but it is surprisingly good for the size. From wherever we are, we can check to see who or what set off the camera, and if the mail has been delivered yet.

It is more unusual these days for a house not to have something like that, or even more than one, for security purposes. Businesses have cameras inside and out for security, so that when something happens there is a record of it and a means for the police to track down the perpetrators. Add to that cameras that are in place at shopping centers, set-up by LE, and a surprising amount of your life is on video. They don’t even have to hide the cameras in fake power pole transformers and such anymore.

And it’s not just the large cities. It is widespread everywhere, from urban New York to rural Iowa. Part of the idea was to let people keep an eye on things no matter where they were, and to have a record of events if needed. Part was to have a record that could be shared with LE and prosecutors at need, to help ensure justice when and if something happened.

Many are starting to re-think things. First, in many areas of the country you have a new breed of prosecutor who is soft on crime and is far more lenient on perps than on victims. Ones who have already indicated they will go after those who fight back rather than the perp. Second, you have them and others who will abuse those video records to harass or otherwise abuse the innocent. To stalk people for reasons personal and political.

As a number of people have pointed out in the comments, what would have happened if there had been no video being shot at the restaurant? Nothing that would have caught the act, the shooter’s vehicle, or other things that would have helped LE track him down. You would have just had the witness statements about the tall/short caucasian/other thin/fat etc. etc. etc. that are witness statements. Could he still have been tracked down? Yes, but it would have been a LOT harder to do. Would that effort have been made with just a dead career violent criminal who hit the FAFO jackpot? Good question.

I may have heard a rumor about a business that suffered a mysterious glitch in their very good video system a while back. One that just happened to not catch an incident that may not have happened that could have caused a good person some trouble. In fact, I may have heard of more than one. Frankly, as things head south, I expect to hear a lot more rumors and stories like that.

Also, what incentive will there be for people to cooperate with LE and prosecutors if the perps are going to be out again in a few hours at most, and anyone who stood up to them being investigated or harassed? Worse yet, identified in the news so the perp can easily learn their name and all about them for their own actions?

I think we are going to start seeing a large lack of cooperation on the part of the public, and not just in the jurisdictions that have soft-on-crime prosecutors and/or ineffective governance at all levels. What happens there will have people in good areas questioning the desirability to cooperate with their own LE and prosecutors. Do I think it will get to the point people are disabling or hiding their video systems? I think we are already there.

As for the comment about 500-yard shots not being on video, think again. Right now, from the time I leave my front door, my travels are on video with surprisingly few gaps. There are doorbell cameras, security cameras, traffic cameras, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out the Rodent Liberation Front has cameras set up as well. If you think that LE can’t trace back where a shot came from, and there won’t be video of traffic in that area, much less of people walking around, think again.

There are good odds that unless someone takes active steps there will be. Once you leave that bubble of active steps, well, someone may wonder why you were in that area and what you were carrying. Oh, and don’t forget that most large cities (and quite a few others) have systems for detecting and localizing the sounds of gunshots. Is it possible to avoid or spoof some or all of it? Yes. Easy? Depends.

Far more of our daily lives is on video that we realize. Between video, tracking of cell phone and social media usage, and other ways we can and are tracked, someone determined can learn a lot and even cause us lots of problems.

I don’t think we’ve hit peak video yet; but, I do think we’ve already entered the era of selective video. One where individuals, businesses, and other entities are not going to be as quick to share video with anyone, especially LE and prosecutors, as they were even last year. Given all that’s happened in about the last three years, I expect to see this trend grow. As such, I can’t blame anyone who elects for selective sharing.

On Reading Scientific Papers

Back many moons ago, when I taught some basic science courses for a small university (tempted to put that in quotes), I encouraged a certain amount of skepticism and critical thinking in my students via a fictional sensational news/marketing push/story. I can’t remember all of it (stupid lightning), but enough to lead into today’s post.

The push story was that anyone contracting a particular gum infection, “gumjooboo,” stood a 99 percent chance of dying from it. Thing was, there was a special toothbrush now for sale that while very expensive, was 99.9999 percent effective in preventing gumjooboo. I then walked the students through parsing and researching to show that gumjooboo only effected a small percentage of a particular tribe in one small area of the Amazon basin. This led into some discussions on probability, odds, etc. Also, a bit of discussion on interpreting scientific papers.

First, and I say this as a former (still commit a bit of it) science journalist and former member of the National Association of Science Writers, take any media story about scientific research with a tun of salt. You might be amazed at how often the media presentation is 180 degrees from what the study says or shows. Number of reasons for it, including lack of specialization, lack of experience, and even deliberate misrepresentation.

Specialized reporting is not what it used to be in the corporate media. Newspapers and television stations, much less networks, had dedicated science and medical reporters. You had people like Jon Van covering science at the Chicago Tribune. You had people like Jules Bergman at ABC covering aviation and space. These were people with years, decades, of experience. You don’t find that as much anymore in corporate media. Instead, you far too often find people right out of J-school tasked with covering various science and medical studies. Funny thing is, we saw that coming and Jon, the medical reporter at the Tribune, and I had a very interesting discussion on that subject many years back. Sadly, they were right in their predictions. New media is mixed, but there are some excellent science and medical reporters out there.

So, let’s take a quick look at how to read a scientific paper. In fact, let’s do so in part in the context of current events.

First, in what publication is it appearing? If Scientific American, make that several tuns of salt right at the start. I, personally, no longer trust anything they print. If it is a paper on astrophysics and it’s in a biology journal or the Journal of Irreproducible Results, that should be a red flag. If it’s a medical study and in a medical or biological journal, that’s a good start.

Next, you are going to have a title. The title should be even, maybe even boring, as “reputable” journals avoid sensationalism. It it is highly sensationalistic, such as saying the President’s mother is an alien or gas stoves are causing massive brain damage and asthma, good odds it is not a valid study, and that it’s not in a reputable or good publication. Though to be fair, The Enquirer seems to be gaining ground on many so-called scientific journals.

Up next is the list of authors. It should include current employers for each (J. Blowhard, National Institute of Health) and in many online papers links to previous papers, etc. It should also lead to affiliations, that is the organizations to which that researcher belongs. Now, if you find in a paper on the horrors of using gas stoves that one or more of the authors worked for a company that removed gas from buildings or was dedicated to eliminating gas as a fuel, that’s another red flag. Always check current and past employers, professional affiliations, and previous papers.

Now, sometimes it is up front and above board, and as such listed high up. Most times, however, it is buried towards the bottom of the paper. The “that” is a disclosure of who funded the research in question. Sometimes it is open, quite often it is a foundation or fund that has a noble-sounding name. Always check that out, as quite often the major source of funding for that noble-sounding trust or whatever is a major industry organization or even a company. If that organization or company is either dedicated to eliminating the horror that is gas, or promoting the competition for gas, well, yeah, that’s another red flag.

If you really want some fun that’s not a gas, go look up how much FDA nutrition research over the years was funding by trusts and funds bearing names like Kellogg, or even directly by major food companies. It’s not even that hard as it is well documented. Funding is king, and often is key to understanding and evaluating the research paper in question. Even when the U.S. government funds research, look to see if it is taxpayer funding or courtesy of a grant to the government by an industry-funded trust.

Next up should be an abstract. This is a synopsis of the paper and it’s conclusions. To be honest, it is all that is read by far too many corporate media reporters and is why such reporting is often “just a bit outside.” They can be confusing, and it can be easy to read into them what you want to read into them. Good ones are not, but you’re dealing with scientists and engineers who are talking to themselves, not authors used to talking to the public.

First up in the paper should be the background. What led to the paper? Why did they do it the way they did it? Lots of good information usually, and it is often fun to read between the lines on this. One of my favorites remains a research study on coffee filtration, which when you read a bit between the lines, boiled down to: we are coffee-heads, some of us have lipid problems, so we decided to see if filtering made a difference because we are NOT giving up our coffee. It is also good place to start spotting red-flags, as if the background is sketchy, the study is sketchy.

Next thing to look at is methodology. Most good studies are looking at a real-world situation, and therefore the methodology should mirror the real-world as much as possible. Not so easy on things like black holes, but on possible pollutants and such from gas stoves, dead easy. Therefore, if you see things where the methodology basically sealed an area such that it was guaranteed to raise concentrations (layers of plastic, foam bars, etc.) as it is almost air-tight, that’s a big red flag.

Every good paper should have a section on prior research. It’s part of the discussion of why this research was needed and what the paper contributes to the discussion. Remember, real science is about questioning, researching, debating, and testing. Science is never settled, and thinking back on watching a grad student all but dance in Spacelab Control when she was proved right on a theory and her professor wrong still makes me smile. Note, the professor wasn’t upset, he found it a good thing. That’s real science.

If a paper either doesn’t have such a section, or it is woefully incomplete, it is not a valid scientific study and paper. For example, if a study uses limited numbers, small area, and questionable methodology to reach a conclusion, and fails to discuss an easily found paper on PubMed that involved samples relating to half a million children worldwide, there is an issue there.

There should also be a conclusion, but by this point unless it says Jeffrey Epstein didn’t hang himself, you should have all the data you need. If a paper is nothing but a series of red flags, it is not a paper but propaganda. Next question is who is behind it or why. Why would anyone want to force a large segment of the population onto a underpowered and problematic grid and away from clean energy that is harder to control and/or cut-off than electricity? Good questions.

You should always have questions at the end of a paper. In good papers, most of mine are along the lines of ‘who is doing the next step research on this’ and ‘where can I find more information.’ In bad papers and propaganda, more towards the above.

When it comes to papers and the media coverage of same, trust no one. Rather, trust but verify. Especially if research is being used to push major policy decisions.

UPDATE: Got reminded that you also need to check if data is being accurately compared. Not saying there can be a tendency in bad papers/propaganda to do apple/orange comparisons (it’s another one of those red flag things), but be sure it is apple to apple, and not an attempt at a quick tap dance.

UPDATE II: In regards the whole gas debacle, check out this very good thread that takes it completely apart. It is very much worth the read. Also, if you think they really have stopped the effort to ban gas, please think again.

Nuclear 101: Weapons

UPDATED to correct typo, sure there’s at least one more in there…

While the primary focus is on nuclear weapons and war, I’m going to talk a bit about other types of special weapons as they can and do play a role in a nuclear war and nuclear strategy. So, let’s start by taking a look at the basic weapons.

First up, the original weapon that opened the nuclear age. Fission weapons derive their energy from breaking apart the atom. To be a bit more precise, a neutron is used to break apart a single atom into two smaller atoms which releases energy and more neutrons which then break apart yet more atoms in a sustained chain reaction. This releases a large amount of energy, which is then measured in kilotons (1 kiloton = 1,000 tons of TNT [note: typo corrected! Thanks for pointing it out]) or megatons (1 megaton = 1,000,000 tons of TNT). Note that pretty much all fission weapons stay in the kiloton range.

In terms of operating systems, there are two types of fission weapons: gun-type and implosion. In a gun-type fission weapon, conventional explosives drive two masses of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) into each other to produce what is called a criticality: the chain reaction necessary for the bomb to function. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a gun-type device.

The implosion device uses a core, or pit, of plutonium surrounded by conventional explosives. The sophisticated explosives create a uniform compression of the plutonium which creates the criticality which then ensures the chain reaction with some form of neutron initiator. If you want more details, you will need to look it up yourself and I note that there is a lot of information out there, a good bit of which is accurate. I will note that you can use HEU as the pit instead of plutonium. In fact, the UN reports that Iraq was doing just that back in the bad old days. It should also be noted that the world’s first nuclear explosion at Alamagordo and the Nagasaki bomb were both implosion devices.

Brief aside, gun devices are easier to build from a technological standpoint but tend to be rather large. Implosion devices are much more technologically challenging on almost every level, but allow a great deal of power in a smaller device.

The next level of weapons are fusion devices. Whereas fission splits, fusion brings deuterium and tritium together to form helium and a whole bunch of energy. Hence the name, hydrogen bomb as deuterium and tritium are isotopes of hydrogen. Edited for clarity and to fix a typo. The energy output of a fusion weapon is much (much much even) higher than a fission weapon.

In discussion on nuclear war, you are going to hear the term “thermonuclear weapons” used. What are they? Simply put, they are a combination of fission and fusion weapon. In grossly over simplistic terms, the fission weapons can be “boosted” by adding in a fusion component. The majority of nuclear weapons in use by major powers today are in fact thermonuclear devices.

Regardless of type, conventional warheads tend to be divided into two areas: Strategic and Tactical. Strategic are mated to longer-ranged delivery systems and are of larger yield. Tactical are intended for use with short-ranged systems and have a much smaller yield. Strategic are intended to take out large areas/targets and tactical are designed to take out a small/limited target and minimize damage outside a limited area. Cough, cough.

There are some specialized types of nuclear weapons. One that hit the news a few decades back was the so-called neutron bomb. This was a device designed to do minimum damage to an area (though it could be argued that it was intended to focus damage to a specific area/target) and neutralize the surrounding area via a massive dose of neutron radiation. That burst of radiation would result in the death of humans (and other animals) hit by it, but leave the infrastructure intact and non-radioactive.

Are there other types of specialized warhead? RUMINT, of course, says yes. Everything from enhanced/tuned EMP to signals to the aliens waiting just outside the solar system. May have to pull some of them into some fiction I need to write, but for purposes of our current discussion the only ones that, if they exist, would have any impact would be enhanced EMP.

No discussion of nuclear weapons would be complete without discussion of issues of criticality and fizzles. Criticality is essential to enabling the chain reaction that is a nuclear explosion. It’s when you get it without wanting to set of such a chain reaction that it becomes a not-so-minor issue.

One way to get an accidental criticality is to bring two masses of material, be it HEU or plutonium, close enough together that a reaction starts. This has happened, in more than one country, when people handling such materials either brought them too close together as part of an experiment (or manufacturing process) and got a flash criticality. This was a short-term event because the materials were immediately separated, though the flash was most often a terminal event for those present.

The other way it can happen is if a fire or other catastrophe some or all of the conventional explosives in a nuclear device. I will simply note that modern weapons make use of specialized explosives and explosives design/layout to minimize the risk of such.

Then there are fizzles. While most of the discussions of learned types focus on boosted weapons, they technically can happen to any type of nuclear explosive. In short, a fizzle is simply an incomplete reaction. In a boosted weapon, the boost doesn’t happen. In a single-type weapon, the chain reaction is not sustained to the planned extent. At worst/best (worse from the user standpoint, best case from the view of the target), the explosion is not as large as planned. RUMINT suggests that there can be odd effects from a fizzle, including some potentially nasty material for clean-up.

You can also have duds. For whatever reason, the bomb does not go off. The conventional explosives may or may not go off, but the core of the bomb does not even reach fizzle status. If nothing goes off, it does make clean-up and containment easier. If the conventional explosives do go off, it can spread radioactive materials around.

Which gives a nice segue into other types of special weapons. In the parlance in which I grew up, CBN for Chemical, Biological, Nuclear.

Chemical covers a range of nastiness from nerve agents to simple caustic compounds. They are intended to incapacitate or otherwise neutralize large groups of ground forces. For those who have not served, having to operate in MOPP gear is hot, nasty, and cumbersome to be polite I am told. I include it here because one of the best ways to deny an enemy use of nuclear weapons is to hit the appropriate storage depots with chemical (or biological) weapons. This prevents ready use and preserves them in case you want to secure them or use them for your own purposes (don’t judge). By the time someone can secure, decontaminate, verify, and then deploy — well, it’s most likely things are already over for the time being.

Biological weapons also cover a range of options. Most people think of killer plagues, and yes there has been research into such (and some countries continue on that to this day). It also includes other vectors designed to incapacitate enemy leadership. Again, there’s a range and if you are really interested, dive in and explore. I include it here primarily because it is a factor that needs to be mentioned, though one scenario may come up in later discussions.

Non-explosive nuclear are best represented by dirty bombs. That is, using conventional explosives to contaminate as large an area as possible by spreading some form of nuclear material including nuclear waste. If, like me, you’ve had the joy of going through the FEMA Weapons of Mass Destruction Course, even a very large and effective dirty bomb is only going to cover a limited area. Pick the right area though, and… While not necessarily practical, you could potentially use a non-explosive criticality to take out key enemy leadership with the right assets. This may or may not get discussed later.

Now, to the topic that generates large amounts of wailing and gnashing of teeth: testing. Yes, testing is needed.

Before computer modeling and simulations because practical, most nuclear weapons design was based on mathematical probabilities and a certain degree of trial and error. Want to know if a new design worked, and worked as planned? Build it and try it.

With the advent of truly advanced computer design and simulations, there came a group who said we no longer needed to do testing of any sort, above ground, underground, or even deep space. There’s just one problem that the smug SOBs who say that computer simulations are all we need don’t get: GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Simulations, while often quite good, are no replacement for reality. They can limit the amount of real-world testing required, but they can’t replace it any more than they can replace the need for manual checks of the weapons to detect corrosion in the pits or elsewhere, damage to components from radiation, or any of the other things that need to be checked. They can suggest a schedule of such checks, and maybe even where to spend extra time checking, but they can’t replace the checks, or the tests.

Question for the class: when was the last time we tested either a new or existing design to be sure they either worked as planned or still worked as designed and tested?

Given how much of our nuclear forces are still using designs and components from the mid-1960’s, it’s kind of an important question. Especially since we are at a point where we not only need to modernize our weapons and forces, we need to look at a variety of new warhead and delivery vehicle options to meet new and different threats.

On that note, I think I will stop for the day and on Monday pick up with delivery vehicles and systems. Today is a very quick and broad overview of the weapons, now it’s time to look at how they get from point A to point B.

Yes, I’ve very deliberately not gone into detail on any number of areas and issues. You can write massive tomes and dissertations on any facet of everything brought up today. It suffices to get get some basic information out and avoids becoming a primer if you will.

There are plenty of such out there, and some are fascinating reading. For the purposes of this series of posts, however, the high view should be sufficient.

Some Previous Posts:

Vladimir And The Ukraine

Answers, Ramblings, And A Bit More On Vladimir And The Ukraine

Your Must Read For The Day On Russia

The Puzzles In Play, And The Missing Pieces

Quick Thoughts On Ukraine/Putin

The Thing Behind The Curtain

Missing Pieces And Surprise Pieces

Accuracy, Reliability, And More

Putin, Trump, And The Coming Storm

Three Futures For Russia

Quick Thoughts

Saturday Update

Mismatched Locomotives

War, Ag, Demographics, And The Worst Is Yet To Come

Past, Present, And A Hungry Future

Huge Grain Of Salt

The Moskva

Retribution Inbound

Uncertainty And Preparation

Honest Question

Monday Morning Quick Brief

War Of The Memes

A Little Free Ice Cream

Rumors Of War

Three Times Is…

If It’s Wednesday, This Must Be Moldova

Going Nuclear

How To Spy On The Russians

Here’s Hoping I’m Wrong

Pins And Needles Time

Mock Away

Intel Wars

The Revenge Of HUMINT

A Funny Thing Happened

Rumors of Rumors

Ukraine, Uvalde, Oh My

Very Interesting

A Quick Russia/Ukraine Update

Russia/Ukraine/Lithuania

Hmmmm

Hmmmm Follow-Up

Ukraine/Russia Tidbit

If You Think

Nuclear What?

*****

Nuclear War Posts In Order:

Nuclear What?

*****

If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the tip jar in the upper right or the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo. Getting hit by lightning is not fun, and it is thanks to your help and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.

Re-Imagining Space Stations, Pt. 3

A few more background thoughts for our thought experiment. To build the future, we must know the past and understand why some of it was done the way it was done.

NASA has hated the idea of building anything in orbit. One of the things I heard mentioned about any of the ideas on using the Shuttle external fuel tanks was that it was too dangerous. To say that NASA was risk averse is an understatement of several orders of magnitude. If something didn’t work/didn’t work right, you most likely never saw it again. I think the only reason the Tethered Satellite System got a second flight was because the first flight didn’t work because of an idiotic (and unnecessary) change by NASA safety to the mechanism, and the blow back to not giving it a flight would have been huge. As it is, losing the satellite on the second mission guaranteed that NASA won’t touch tethers/tethered satellite again for a century or three. That will be up to industry (and I suspect NASA may try to block such).

Doing things like space walks are inherently dangerous. You are in a vacuum, with radiation, changing lighting (plus a freeze/thaw cycle) as you get a sunrise/sunset about every 90 minutes as you orbit, and require stability to get anything done. The first time I did work for NASA, I worked for a company that helped develop the “SX” wrench, which was actually a ratchet that could be used in microgravity. Add to it the fact that the spacesuits NASA uses for “extra-vehicular activities” aka EVAs, aka space walks, have issues. If you’ve been following recent news from the ISS, the last two or three EVAs had problems with water building up in the helmets to the point it was a real issue for the astronauts in question. They are actually not doing any EVAs right now while they try to figure things out.

There’s also the little matter of not wanting anyone to go Dutchman. Without tethers or some form of thruster pack, it would not be hard for someone to take a one way impromptu tour of low-Earth orbit. Dutchman is bad, okay? We don’t want anyone to go Dutchman.

So, no surprise that for the most part NASA has gone for the big module system, with as much automation as possible. Never mind the big contracts for the defense companies that build them, or the companies that spend thousands if not millions designing suits, etc. Leaving that aside, NASA has avoided doing anything that would require large amounts of EVA. EVAs are risk, and NASA wants no risk, zero defects, etc. They’ve worked hard to keep the need for EVAs on ISS to a minimum.

But, developing new structures, systems, and related infrastructure in orbit is going to require EVAs. Lots of them, and probably long ones. That means as the thought experiment progresses, we need to be thinking about new and improved spacesuits, new or novel means of safety to augment or potentially replace current tether systems, and even means of rescuing that person who goes Dutchman because you know someone will. Sooner rather than later most likely. Space is even more unforgiving that the ocean, so keep that in mind as the thought experiment unfolds.

Now, a few thoughts on what types of structures or facilities are going to be needed. We are going to need human habitation, and as we start to build orbital facilities or put together missions to the Moon and Mars, we might find ourselves actually needing something like bunkhouses. Specialized research facilities? You bet, all types including platforms for astronomy, space exposure, and remote sensing. Slips for assembling those missions elsewhere, from LEO to the Moon or Mars? Yep.

The only limits to this thought experiment are your imagination and that at first everything will have to come up from Earth. So, keep in mind current launch capabilities and near-term capabilities. All the more reason for creating industry in orbit ASAP.

So, let’s look at getting this underway. If you want, reply in the comments. If you come up with something larger than a comment, we can look at guest posts. If you want to take just one part of something, go for it. The idea is to get lots of ideas and innovations so that we can refine, expand, tweak, and otherwise help plot the next generation of orbital facilities.

Previous Articles In This Series:

Space Memories And The Future

Re-Imagining Space Stations, Pt. 1

Re-Imagining Space Stations, Pt. 2

*****

Re-Imagining Space Stations, Pt. 2

Yesterday, I said that today we would look at some of the specialized facilities needed for orbital operations. Well, I was wrong. Before we get into that, I think we need to do a bit more background for the thought experiment.

Right now, pretty much everything we put up is cylindrical, for aerodynamic reasons. While aerodynamics don’t matter in orbit, they do on the way up because all the different stations have had to have their components made on Earth and carried up on rockets. Hence, cylindrical shapes. Even non-cylindrical items have to be carried up in cylindrical containers.

Now, in orbit, particularly the lower orbits, you do get drag. It’s why the ISS has a power module to raise it back up to altitude every so often. It’s why things dropped in orbit, be it a camera (butterfingers!) or something else, do eventually de-orbit and (hopefully) burn up on the way down. Problem is, the smaller/lighter the object, the longer it stays in orbit. Once you get up to GEO, that ceases to be a major issue, which is why all the big plans for space stations/colonies have focused on being built there.

Let’s revisit that debris for a moment. In the original post that sparked this thought experiment, I mentioned that someone could make a fortune devising a way to collect that stuff. It’s not just that a good bit of it could be recycled in orbit for other projects, it’s because it is a menace to ongoing low-Earth operations. That chip of paint is moving at a speed where it will do a fairly good imitation of a bullet if it hits something. That bolt floating around? It could do some serious damage to anything it hits. Many of the micropunctures experience by ISS and other structures don’t come from meteorites but from other space debris.

Keep that in mind because until someone does get the financial incentive to clean things up, the problem of debris is only going to grow. Especially if the Russians keep testing anti-satellite systems by taking out dead satellites in low-Earth orbit. That’s another reason the ISS has a power module: sometimes you need to change orbit to avoid that debris so the crew is not having to make emergency repairs. Or worse.

There have been a number of suggestions over the years to protect orbital facilities, from electrostatic means to actually building modules like submarines with inner and outer hulls. One of the more, er, interesting proposals was to put a big slab of something out a distance from a module/structure in the most likely direction for debris. The problem with that concept were/are: the cost to launch the big slab of something; and, it can only protect in one direction and you have debris coming front, rear, side, top, etc. There are some other minor issues of orbital mechanics and such, but those can wait.

So, let’s start making this a real thought experiment by considering the following information.

Initially, what gets built will have to come up from Earth. However, we are not necessarily constrained to cylindrical. What goes up will have to go up in a cylindrical container, but we could send up carbon-fiber or other advanced material trusses, frameworks, etc. that can take on pretty much any shape. Cubical, open framework, or even say a frisbee-like shape that could have significant safety advantages for in-plane orbital debris strikes. The only limits are our imagination and the constraints imposed by the height of orbit. Once you are at GEO, there’s pretty much no limit.

Now, add in two other factors. One, if one of the first things up is some sort of foundry operation, you can collect some of the larger chunks of debris and melt them down, reform, and start building. Admittedly, there are some legal challenges as various countries and others still claim ownership of dead satellites, major chunks of debris, etc. Though I will not that even though they don’t want anyone else touching their stuff, they also don’t claim liability for any damage caused in orbit or via re-entry by their stuff. For our purpose, let’s just treat it as a law-of-the-sea issue and plan on using/reusing the materials.

Second thing to consider is that lunar soil/dust is reported to make excellent concrete. If it is reductive concrete (or can be made so cheap and easy) all the better. Great for building a lunar base, and if someone developed a robotic system to grab such, get it to orbit, and send it to the appropriate orbit, who says your structures have to be metal? Add in spin-casting and you’ve opened up a new range of possibilities.

And, I’m going to throw in a third thought for the day. There are other resources available in/near Earth orbit. Start with meteorites and asteroids for metal, but keep in mind that depending on composition even non-metallic asteroids could potentially provide other advanced materials as well as base components.

Rant/ The STS/Shuttle system made use of an external tank that contained tons of oxygen and hydrogen, even after hitting orbit. There were several proposals made to use those tanks as the basis of a space station. NASA said it wasn’t possible, they weren’t interested, and they very much didn’t want anyone else (particularly a commercial operation!! Commercial was and is in many quarters a nasty word to NASA) to do anything with them so they actually expended energy to de-orbit the tanks during the launch process. Yes, the Shuttle actually went down, released the tanks, and then climbed back up to a higher orbit. Which is sad as there were proposals to instead raft the tanks together, inter-connect them, attach thrusters to keep them in a good stable orbit, and have those tons of oxygen and hydrogen available for future use. For now, we are going to need such until orbital and extra-orbital operations can secure those resources via other means. /Rant

So, we have options in regards materials, shapes, and more. We are not limited to low-Earth operations in anything except the short-term. So, are there any other pre-conceived notions we can and should stand on their head before we get started? Who knows, find out tomorrow on the next episode of “As The Satellite Tumbles”

Previous Articles In This Series:

Space Memories And The Future

Re-Imagining Space Stations, Pt. 1

*****

Space Memories And The Future

Yesterday, John Ringo read this thread from Trent Telenko about the Ukraine and Spacelink and had a few words to say. Others, myself included, added more. If you haven’t read it, take a moment because it is a bit mind boggling to realize that in many respects, Elon Musk is the most powerful man in space from a military point of view.

I would expand on Trent’s ideas by pointing out that Elon also controls a variant of Project Thor, an idea discussed by the late Jerry Pournelle in his columns and in some small group discussions. Thor, as envisioned by Jerry, would be ‘flying crowbars’ in space. Simple iron rods fitted with a nosecone/seeker and guidance fins on the rear.

When needed, de-orbit so they come in over the needed area (Fulda Gap for instance), the seeker heads look for Russian tanks (which from the top do look very different from Allied tanks) and the crowbars maneuver to hit them at very high velocity. No more tanks. Iron because the things are going to vaporize and it is best if something that could potentially be ingested by our troops can also be handled/metabolized by the body.

I’m not recommending that Starlinks be used to take out individual tanks. I will note though that they could be used on launch facilities, command and control facilities, and even bunkers. In fact, it could be useful for Elon’s safety, and that of his family, to let the word go out that something like that is set up if anything happens. Might be bluff, might be real, not even Vladimir would want to find out for sure.

When you look at all he controls, and that some of that could potentially double as an ASAT or KEV, he truly is the most powerful person in space. And, he’s only going to get more powerful as his ventures expand.

One of the things I noted was that there have been calls for Elon to take over the Russian module and associated items as they pull out. I think building a replacement under contract to NASA would help hone his own operations while improving the ISS. I think going in as a partner would prove limiting.

I have no idea of what is on Elon’s drawing board for getting to Mars, but here are a few thoughts. Some of these may have originated at a dinner hosted by Jerry and Roberta Pournelle at a AAAS convention many years back. He invited myself, Fred Pohl, and two others who’s name I can’t remember (stupid lightning). While we touched on many topics, we also discussed Jerry’s plan for a private/private enterprise moon colony.

If SpaceX had been around back then, I think Jerry could have pulled it off. It doesn’t matter where you are going, you have to have the proper launch capability and you have to have a reasonable cost for the launch. Elon and SpaceX have both and are looking to bring the cost per pound to orbit down further.

Since doing almost anything to scale is going to require staging areas and such, a commercial space complex would seem a reasonable start. All-in-one stations like the ISS really aren’t optimal for quite a bit of research. Set up a manned operation with unmanned modules nearby, and you have a place where you can ramp up orbital operations, including assembly and even manufacturing, while earning at least some return from leasing out portions to researchers.

Second, there are a lot of dead satellites and debris up there. Come up with a way to collect the debris, and not only is your place in space safe, you should be able to make some money off it. Satellites have a lot of interesting materials in them, and some of it can be repurposed into new items/structures without the need to lift materials into space. A few legal issues would have to be explored, but between the dead satellites that are parked and abandoned, along with larger debris (boosters, panels, etc.) you could save a lot of expense in going elsewhere.

Now for the Boring Company. Any habitat on Mars is going to need to be underground. I suspect that is one reason for the Boring Company. Be a pity if some of that boring and sealing tech were leased to someone wanting a lunar base to use before the Mars missions. I will also note that lunar soil makes excellent concrete according to reports, which raises some interesting possibilities. Practice on the Moon, send robotic missions to Mars and there is a habitat ready and waiting for the first mission. Be a pity if there was an orbital component waiting as well.

It would also be a pity if the melting/smelting of the satellites/debris led to some ongoing resource extraction and manufacturing in orbit here or elsewhere. Not to mention the science fiction standbys of pharmaceutical R&D and manufacturing, and other profitable operations that could become viable.

Nor would it all be on Elon and his companies. Other companies will want to be a part of things, just as they did early on with NASA. A good chunk of change could have been saved on the Shuttle galley, as a company offered to design and build one at no charge to NASA, as long as their logo (small even) would be on it. Of course, NASA said no. I think we can be reasonably sure Elon’s not averse to partnerships, joint ventures, and other such smart things.

Years back, when I left working for NASA the second time, both John Ringo and David Weber said I could do a lot better. Things haven’t gone as planned, but who knows, someone might have need for a slightly singed writer and planner.

*****

More On The Mysterious Drone Swarms

If it is not the military, who is it and what are they up to? Is Skynet smiling?

The Truth Is Out There?

UPDATE: You can believe Wayfair’s statement or you can believe what the rep said in the call. Big brother is here…

There are a number of reasons I’ve backed off social media to a considerable extent, even though it means limiting my ability to market my works. First up, social media has become toxic with the SJW cancel crowd running wild. The screaming, preening, virtue-signaling fascists want to silence everyone — and the more people are on just one or two major platforms (say, Fecesbook and Jitter), the easier it is to do.

Second, you give up a good bit to be in that walled garden, particularly privacy. As in social media sites and Google (Be Evil) are mining you for all you are worth, sometimes literally. Anything you say online, search for online, etc. is more data. Add in all the apps that are also owned by one of these companies (which is why I dropped Waze), and it extends the reach even further. You also give up truly free speech, as if you say anything that can upset an SJW (and most anything can when you are dealing with people looking for a reason to unleash their anger and virtue-signaling), you find yourself in “jail” and denied the ability to speak.

Third, going back to those apps I mentioned earlier, when you have smartphones, smart televisions, and such along with apps and services, you get this. Have you checked to see how many apps have access to your microphone? Your camera and camera files? People have been talking recently about all the times Alexa listens in on you when you don’t realize it; but, how may other systems and apps do that? Can you have true privacy with smart devices? No.

Can you go in and do simple things like denying access to microphone and cameras? Yes. In fact, you should. For years I’ve had my laptop camera taped over as it has been, and still is I believe, one of the easiest systems to hack in any computer. Someone watching without your knowledge can learn a lot just by studying your finger movements — it’s remarkably easy to figure out what is being typed, including account numbers… For that matter, I would love for the built-in microphone to have a manual off switch, as it’s a lot harder to prevent it from being used against you.

Yes, there is a cost for deciding not to be a part of the extreme toxicity and for denying what I can of my personal information to as many as I can. But, it’s not insurmountable. I also hope to see more leave the big three (and to get some serious anti-trust investigations going), and a return to blogging. It’s still there, still going, and may be what saves things in the long run.

Ponder a bit, and think about what you want, and your privacy. Then, take action. It really is up to each individual to make a difference.

Quantum Computing, For Good Or For Ill

It may indeed be BS, will wait for my computer friends to say more. Meantime, we would do well to think about the results, both for good and for ill, that will come from this technology. It will come, after all, and we should be prepared for it.

Meantime, read what Rod Dreher and his readers have to say. Yes, I read Rod though we disagree on many things political (I do wish he would stop clutching his pearls and flouncing to the fainting couch any time Trump does something), and because he is one of the few out there doing real and serious reporting on sexual abuse and other scandals in all churches. His coverage of the Catholic Church is incredible, and his gets the problems some of us have with the Church. As for me, my faith in the spiritual Church is strong, but I fear I have no faith left in the institution erected by man. That, however, is a post for another day.

One Fun and One Interesting Link

It’s hump day, so decided a little humor is needed.

I’m not saying some hypothetical discussions took place about 35 years ago along this same track. I am simply going to say, ‘It is satire, isn’t it?” Really would be a good way to mess up potential or actual enemies, now wouldn’t it.

Back in high school physics, we had some interesting discussions and debates about FTL. If you read both the theory and the special theory, FTL can’t be done in space normal, hence hyperspace or similar terms. There is no reason such isn’t possible outside space normal. A possible way to get out of space normal may be possible, and it is now getting some attention.

Enjoy your Wednesday, be safe. More soon.