admin

Sep 222025
 

The people running present-day Star Trek have tried desperately to tinker with the Trek backstory so that it can be “our” future. But the past as revealed by canon Star Trek, from TOS through TNG, DS9, Voy and Ent, is clearly NOT our future. Fifty years have passed since the advent of TOS, decades which include very different events between Trek-history and IRL history. Similarly, dates and events which were in the future of TNG and DS9 when written and aired have passed without those events occurring in real life. So when did the Trek timeline and ours diverge?

 

As best as I can recall, the earliest depicted (in on-screen canon Trek) time travel incident on Earth occurred in the first season TOS episode “City on the Edge of Forever.” Here, McCoy goes whacko due to an accidental drug overdose and hops like a madman through The Guardian of Forever, a time portal with an inconvenient user interface. He is sent back to New York City in the year 1930, and while there does *something* that changes the Trek timeline: instead of the Allies winning WWII, the US delays entry and the Nazis win. Kirk and Spock have to go back and change things *back* in order to restore the Trek timeline. They arrive a week or more before McCoy does; in that time Spock discovers that the divergence point in the two timelines is the life or death of one woman, Edith Keeler. If she dies, Trek history plays out. If she lives, the Nazis win. So in the end the focus of the episode is on making sure Keeler dies and the timeline as understood by the Trek characters is restored, thus showing the importance of one individual.

 

But forgotten in all this: there are *two* deaths in the episode. The first to die is a homeless bum, apparently dubbed “Rodent,” who runs into a raving looney McCoy. McCoy passes out and Rodent rifles his pockets looking for loot, discovers the Docs phaser, and promptly vaporizes himself. Nobody sees this happen; it’s not further noted or discussed. It’s just some random street creature who suddenly vanishes, a not unusual occurrence in any timeline.

 

But here’s the thing: the death of this man either had no bearing on the Trek timeline… or it *establishes* the Trek timeline. Perhaps this is the moment when timelines diverge. Not between the Allies or the Nazis winning WWII, but between Trek and Our World. Consider: it is implied that McCoy went back and changed history, presumably saving Keeler from a vaguely defined traffic accident. Kirk goes back and prevents McCoy from saving Keeler. So, huzzah. But McCoy going back *caused* Rodents death. If McCoy hadn’t gone back Rodent would not have died, at least not in that way.

 

So, perhaps this is the divergence. In *our* timeline, which does not result in canon Trek, McCoy doesn’t go back and cause Rodents death. So what’s the importance of this man? It’s difficult to see how one 61-year-old drunken bum can make a difference. But perhaps he has a son in his 30’s, who has a son of about 14. In the Trek timeline, Rodent vanishes from everyones life; in our timeline, he remains. In our timeline, this drunken bum becomes more of a wreck as he gets older; he ends up living with his son, who has to devote time and money to taking care of his increasingly ill father. The grandson lives in poverty, has to work to survive in the Depression, does not get much schooling. Perhaps joins the military in the mid 30’s, has a fair start on a military career… and dies at Pearl Harbor, contributing nothing further to history.

 

But in the Trek timeline, Grampa Rodent vanishes. He may be missed by his family, but he’s not there to cause disruption or financial distress. The grandson can go to school. Does well. Does *really* well. Perhaps enters the sciences, or perhaps writes influential science fiction. Makes a major impact not just in the United States, but overseas. Sets science ahead by some years in some areas. What evidence do we have of this?

 

1: Khan Noonian Singh, genetic superman. He and his ilk burst on the scene in the 70s or so, and are running sizable chunks of the planet by the early 90’s. Khan was played by Ricardo Montalban, who was about 45 when he shot his scenes. This would mean that Khan would have been born somewhere from about 1945 to 1955, if one assumes some leeway in the aging. Who would have run such a program at that time? Well… the Nazis are the primary guess. In might seem odd that they’d make an *Indian* superman… but Himmler and his ilk thought that the Indians and the Aryans were closely related. Perhaps the idea was to try out the process on an Almost-Aryan first; when Baby Khan came out ok, they made a bunch of Super Aryan Babies. The other “augments” shown all seemed to be such. The end of the Nazis were clearly not the end of the Augment production program; the research was clearly captured and continued by *somebody.*

 

2: While Grandbaby Rodent spurred the Nazis to create “supermen,” the US in turn became somewhat more proficient with nukes. In the DS9 episode “Little Green Men,” we find the US setting off an above-ground nuclear test in the Nevada proving grounds in July, 1947. But in reality, the US didn’t set off nukes in Nevada until 1951… and we set off *none* in 1947. We set off one in New Mexico in 1945, two in the Pacific in 1946, three in the Pacific in 1948. Setting off nukes in Nevada in 1947 indicates the US was well ahead in the Trek timeline compared to IRL. Plus there’s the fact that the US government *knows* that aliens, and their technology, exist.

 

The “Enterprise” episode “Carbon Creek” indicates that Sputnik launched pretty much on schedule in the Trek timeline. But the TOS episode “Assignment: Earth” has the US launching a Saturn V with a nuclear weapons platform from the otherwise fictional “McKinley Rocket Base” in 1968. Not just that, but this is in response to someone else, presumably the Soviets, having done the same thing a few months before, presumably using a successful N-1 launch vehicle. So the use of nukes is far more accepted in the Trek year of 1968 than in the real 1968. And of course the “augments” would relatively soon after that pop up on the scene and start causing worldwide trouble.

 

In the 1970’s, NASA doesn’t build two Voyager probes. It builds at least *six.*

 

And a little later in 1986, a series of event around San Francisco would spur DARPA to rapidly advance weapons tech. Chekov leaves a Klingon phaser and communicator (and who knows what else) with Naval Intelligence onboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. Granted the phaser was malfunctioning, and the investigators thought he was some kinda loon, but they would soon start to reverse engineer it. Because at about the same time there would be reports of:

1: A mysterious invisible craft in the park. That helicopter was *not* invisible.

2: Reports, and possibly photos/film/video, from a (Norwegian?) whaling vessel of an invisible  spaceship suddenly appearing close overhead. Likely coupled with tracking systems picking up infra red and sonic booms of something hypersonic tear-assing through the air over the ocean.

3: Reports of the *use* of that weird Klingon phaser by people who stole Patient Chekov from the hospital, with clear signs that it was able to rapidly weld a door closed. Patient Chekov, who was seen to have severe brain injuries, was seen by professional neurosurgeons to be healed quickly by the suspects. One of the reported suspects was also reported to have interacted with an elderly patient who miraculously regrew a kidney.

 

DARPA is gonna be *real* interested in that phaser once they put those stories together. They’re also likely to damn near drain that old lady about dry checking her blood for whatever miracle drug caused her kidney to regrow, with the possibility of making some important discoveries. Similarly, if they put it together, that same suspect from the hospital was also witnessed at a plastics facility… and a whole new area of materials science arises from *that.*

 

All this before the Eugenics Wars.

 

Of course, for the Trek timeline to be simply split from ours due to events in the 1930s, this means that right now at this very moment Klingons and Vulcans and such are romping around out there. Unlikely, of course, but not yet disproven.

 

 Posted by at 8:07 pm
Sep 172025
 

Ryan art of a Counter Insurgency (COIN) concept from the 1960s. This aircraft is somewhat similar to the OV-10 Bronco but with the important distinction of having a rotor for VTOL capability. For forward flight the 3-bladed rotor would largely stow within a large saucer-shaped rotor hub to decrease drag. Unfortunately, this is all I have on this concept; if anyone has anything further, I’d love to see it.

The high-rez (600 dpi) scan of the artwork has been made available as an “extra” to APR Monthly Historical Documents Program subscribers/Patrons above the $10 level. If you’d like to get in on such things, or would simply like to help me procure and save such rare aerospace ephemera, consider subscribing. This can be done either through Patreon or Paypal, as described here:

https://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/monthly.htm

 Posted by at 4:18 pm
Sep 152025
 

In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, a LOT of people found themselves with exciting opportunities to explore new career options after posting gleeful nonsense online that their employers didn’t like or were downright horrified by. And while I’ve long been opposed to “cancel culture,” this simply doesn’t bother me. If you found that your co-worker was thrilled to ecstasy over the murder of someone whose politics you agreed with, would that not make for an uncomfortable to downright impossible work environment? If they supported not just that murder, but advocated publicly for *more,* wouldn’t you wonder where *you* sat on their kill list? Even if you opposed the politics of the killed and agreed with politics of the killer, wouldn’t you see that level of glee as kinda psychopathic and liable to spread kinda wide?

 

But it got me thinking.When Osama Bin Laden got got, when this or that serial killer sat on Ol’ Sparky, when some random street thug got run down and smooshed by the cops, a *lot* or people turned out to celebrate. If Hitler or Stalin or Jack the Ripper get put down, people celebrate, and for the most part society views this somewhere between “slight distaste for the excessive emotionalism” to “downright supportive.” So what makes celebrating Bin Ladins death good and Kirk’s bad? Obviously, one was a bad guy, the other was a good guy. But equally obviously, those celebrating Kirk’s murder saw him as a bad guy. From what I’ve seen a lot of that is based on misinterpretations to outright lies, but the fact that their views are based on falsehoods doesn’t mean their views are any less heartfelt.

 

So, let’s try to draw a comparison. Let’s stay away from extreme examples like Stalin or Saddam Hussein. Let’s look at someone I’ve seen raised several times related to Kirk: Kyle Rittenhouse. In 2020, he shot three people in Kenosha, WI, killing two, and subsequently was viewed as a hero by many and even ended up at several Charlie Kirk-related events. The three he shot were mocked by many, including myself. Why is mocking their deaths/injuries acceptable while mocking Kirk’s is not?

 

Well, there’s the motive for the shootings. There’s the kind of people the shooting victims were in general; there’s what they were generally doing that day, and there’s what they were doing at that very moment. Compare:

 

Motive, Kirk assassination: Political terrorism

Motive, Rittenhouse shootings: self defense

 

General type of person: Charley Kirk – law abiding, engaged in peaceful political debate

General type of person, Rittenhouse shootings:

1: Joseph Rosenbaum, dead: spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual assault of minors, beat he girlfriend

2: Anthony Huber, dead: spent time in prison for attacking both his brother and sister

3: Gaige Grosskreutz, lost 90% of his bicep: Seems like kind of a nobody.

 

What were they doing that day:

Kirk: Debating publicly, giving time to people who disagreed with him

Kenosha Three: All three shooting victims were “attending” a protest on the side of looters, rioters and arsonists. Rosenbaum and Huber seemed to be there as agents of chaos; Grosskreutz seemed to play a medical support role to keep said agents in the fight to tear down society.

 

What were they doing at that moment:

Kirk: speaking with someone on the other side of politics.

Kenosha three: all three were trying to kill Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz pulled out a Glock with the seeming goal of shooting him in the head, but got shot first.

 

In the case of Kirk, even if you disagreed with his politics, you can’t rationally argue that he was engaged in criminality at that moment or generally, while the Kenosha three *all* seemed to be bent on extreme criminality. That’s the difference: mocking a criminal seems fair game.

 

Many companies, from random employers to social media platforms, say that they don’t tolerate advocacy of violence. But that’s clearly not true. And I don’t even mean it’s politically slanted… it’s *really* not true. Feel free to say “I support the military forces of Ukraine against Russia.” Nobody will much complain except supporters of Russia, who will say “I support the military forces of Russia.” And what is that support if not the support of people armed with weapons trying to kill other people? It’s perfectly acceptable. “I support Israel” means you support the bombardment of Hamas. “I support Palestine” means you support rubbing out all the Israelies. “I support Patton/Zhukov/Sherman/Julius Caesar/Muhammad/fill-in-the-military-leader” means you support them killing their enemies, and more or less nobody will much bat an eye at that. If you mock the death of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or Saddam or Jim Jones, again not too many people will care because those were not only awful people because “I don’t agree with their politics,” but “they were engaged in murderous activities at the time.” If you mock the death of some dimwad who climbs the side of a building to vandalize it and falls off and goes splat, again, not too many people will really complain because that death was based on that person doing an objectively wrong sort of thing. Disagree with his politics or theology all you like, what Kirk was doing when he got shot was peaceably talking to people.  “Having a debate” is NOT the sort of thing that should rationally end in a gunshot.

 

If you mock the death of Kirk, you suggest a threat to people who agree with his politics. If you mock the death of some idiot who plays chicken with a train and loses,  not too many people are going to go “hey, that could be me, and maybe this guy will run me over with a train.” If you mock the death of Stalin, the only people likely to get upset are those who plan on becoming democidal tyrants.

 

Where’s the line? It’s vague, but “actively murdered” is kind of a clear line… usually. Jeffrey Dahmer was actively murdered in prison, and again, nobody will much complain if you dance on his grave. Just… use some common sense. Would it be bad to mock the assassination of Person X? Well, assume that Person X was their political opposite. Would it be bad for a leftist to mock the assassination of, say, JD Vance? Ask said leftist if it would be acceptable for a rightwinger to mock the assassination of Kamala Harris. Some some damn sense, people.

 Posted by at 10:28 pm
Aug 082025
 

So a very distant relation in Sweden is working on fleshing out his family history and managed to get in touch with my mother regarding my mothers fathers fathers father, who left Sweden in 1852 and came to Illinois. Included in what we have so far is a translation of a letter the guy sent back home to Sweden describing the ocean voyage and the trip from Boston to Chicago in “steam wagons.” Kinda interesting to read, but there was one sentence that jumped out at me as kind of a WTF moment. I don’t know if there were anomalies in the translation from Swedish to English, but given how well the rest of the letter seems written, I’m thinking not. I think my Great great great grandfather got some bad info while in Boston regarding a local landmark:

“We went to see the tree under which Samuel Columbus rested the first night after discovering America.”

Ummm.

GGGGrandfather makes note of tricksters trying to scam immigrants, so it would surprise me none at all if some random tree was declared an important historical landmark. Doubtless someone tried to sell souvenir branches or something.

He lived to the ripe old age of 99, having fought in the Civil War on the Union side.

 

 Posted by at 9:37 pm
Aug 012025
 

Rewards for July, 2025 have been released. These include:

Document: “GETOL Technical Merits & Status,” General Dynamics/Convair, AD-VTOL-41, February, 1963. Report on Ground Effect Take off and Landing studies.

Document: “Flying Cranes,” Sikorsky, 1959. Brochure describing and illustrating heavy lift helicopters built and projected.

Document: “Nova and Post-Nova Propulsion Summary,” Rocketdyne presentation, 1962, describing extremely powerful liquid rocket systems for vehicles bigger than Saturn V.

Diagram: SR-71 pilots instrument panels

CAD Diagram: Douglas DC-8-1004, 1945 design for pusher-prop small airliner

Subscribers/Patrons for the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program not only receive a monthly collection of aerospace goodies such as these, but can also pick up back issues all the way to 2014.

aerospaceprojectsreview.com/monthly.htm

 

 Posted by at 2:11 am
Jul 252025
 

A fan concept of a Star Wars Y-wing but brought into the Star Trek universe as a courier. Only the one view, but to me it looks awesome. It’d make a neat model. It certainly seems to make sense from an aesthetic standpoint, looking like something that might serve the Runabout role during the TOS era.

Once again, fans doing a better job of designing vehicles that look canonical than the actual IP holders.

 Posted by at 2:09 am
Jul 172025
 

A Tweet about the Pixar movie “Coco,” which I have not seen, got me thinking (and I think re-iterating an idea I blathered about on this blog years ago but can’t be bothered to look up again).

https://x.com/cirsova/status/1945885686768230903

An interesting theology: you continue to exist in some form so long as someone remembers you, then once nobody alive remembers you, *poof* you’re gone.This is apparently the plot of “Coco,” where some kid visits Mexican Afterlife, which is a party for those whose living relatives still venerate them. While this does not seem to jibe with my understanding of Christianity, set that aside for the moment and just ponder the basic idea, that your existence in the afterlife is contingent upon people remembering you. (A lot of theologies around the world include some ancestor-veneration, seemingly implying that Great Granny’s afterlife is depending on you dropping off a banana on her shrine now and then.)

For most people throughout history, that meant that within probably 40 years of your death, you’re off to oblivion. Some people last in some form of memory for centuries, of course… Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great will last a good long while. But some people are remembered, then utterly forgotten… then remembered again. Consider  Gilgamesh or any number of Pharaohs or minor functionaries mentioned on clay tablets or tomb walls or hidden texts. They were forgotten and lost for millennia, with not a single soul living on Earth knowing their name. But then their name is found and read again by archeologists. Some  become world famous, known to millions: King Tut, for example. Others, like Ea-nāṣir, are known ta  relative few. Are these dead souls left in some sort of limbo or stasis during the years they’re forgotten, then come back, or do they just pop back into existence?

And of course, how much does the condition of the afterlife depend on the condition of your memory? Is the afterlife a party only if people who actually knew you still remember you? Does it fade into hollowness and boredom as your memory fades? Are you left sitting motionless in an empty space if your memory consists solely of your name written on some unread wall?  Imagine the grim fate awaiting us all as we wait for proton decay to erase the last memory crystals that contain our tax records, a googol years or more from now.

 

 Posted by at 11:52 pm
Jun 282025
 

Buttons is about 16. While nowhere near the oldest a cat can get, it is, sad to say, old for a cat. All my prior cats made it to 10 or at best 11, so Buttons has outlasted them all. And sadder to say, he has some medical issues that, left unchecked, will end him pretty quickly. So several times a day I have to force some meds into him, a process he *really* doesn’t like, but is tolerant of. Even with the meds he gets occasional relapses; but prior to the current meds  some months back he had incidents that came close to The End. So… he could have years left, or I can post bad news tomorrow. That’s just the way it is.

Abby, on the other hand, is only about 2. Young, vigorous and loves to fight, she’ll merrily throw down with Billy or Banshee, practicing the very best cat-judo moves. However, she is remarkably gentle with Buttons. Seems she knows he’s The Honored Elder and is to be treated with respect and restraint. She lets him sleep, and sleep he does… he could easily sleep 20+ hours a day.

Every now and then he feels particularly good, and engages in play. Here he is trying to bait Abby into some level of a fight. I was gratified to see that while she played with him, she did not play rough.

 

 Posted by at 10:55 am
Jun 232025
 

For about 20 years I’ve been buying aerospace documentation on ebay. For a good chunk of those I’ve crowdfunded the purchases of really expensive stuff. And by “really expensive” I’ve meant something like “hundreds of dollars for a single report.” Split the purchase price between one or two dozen people, send all of them high-rez scans, and the price can be quite affordable and everybody is happy. Huzzah.

But recently a new trend has emerged: exorbitantly high opening bids. Normally that wouldn’t be an issue: if the opening bid is stupidly high, nobody buys. the item goes unsold and often the seller will come down in price. Woo. But the recent development is buyers who are willing and able to buy, repeatedly, extremely expensive stuff. For example, a seller apparently got hold of an estate with a bunch of Republic Aviation stuff. For aerospace projects fans, there have been some fantastic items… and I’ve utterly failed to obtain any of them because the opening bids aren’t hundred,s they’re thousands… and someone else out there has really deep pockets and has been snapping them up. I tried bidding on one early document; with crowdfunders I was able to bid over $1,600 in the last few seconds, thinking I was the only bidder… but I got sniped by someone who bid several times at higher amounts. Since then I’ve watched numerous items sell for even more in the last seconds, apparently to the same buyer. I’ve repeatedly contacted the seller about buying scans, photocopies or even just complete sets of photos of the documents, but such requests have gone unanswered. So these things are *poof* gone forever.

Now, these are documents that I was unaware existed before I saw the listing, and I’ve lost no money. So objectively I’m not worse off than before… but it’s incredibly frustrating to see such things, know that at least theoretically I could have had access to them, and now they’ve gone from one black hole to another black hole.

 

A couple examples, reports on the Republic AP-77 design from the mid-1950’s, a tactical bomber for the USAF with clear XF-103 heritage.

 

And…

 

What can I do about it? Not a damned thing, unless I finally win the Lotto.

 

If I *do* win the Lotto, I’m not telling anyone. But there will be signs.

 Posted by at 12:52 pm
Jun 232025
 

Sadly not $200,000 or 200,000 followers willing to do my bidding, but 200,000 miles on my car a few days ago. Not much of a milestone I suppose, but it’s what I got.

 Posted by at 12:32 pm