admin

Dec 022016
 

A late 1980’s concept for NASA by Frassanito & Associates for a “Shuttle 2.” Clearly derived from Space Shuttle general ideas, it features a number of important differences, including:

  • A separable cockpit for use in emergencies (a concept given substantial study in the wake of Challenger)
  • Separate liquid hydrogen drop tanks above the wings
  • No boosters, but instead LH2/LOX engines mounted under the ET (presumably SSMEs, which appear to be in individual re-entry and recovery “capsules”)

s89-20011

It’s not certain, but the ET looks bigger than the standard STS ET. Which would make sense given that it needs to be filled with substantially more propellant to take the place of the SRBs.

This piece of art, and two more providing a closer look at the orbiter, are available in high-rez for APR patrons on the APR “Extras” Dropbox folder, under the 2016-12 APR Extras sub-folder. If you’re interested, take a look at the Aerospace Projects Review Patreon page and consider joining!

 Posted by at 10:42 pm
Dec 022016
 

A few minutes ago I heard a science reporter on NPR say something to the effect that it is difficult to get a cat to do what you want them to.  This is true. This is also not the point of cats.

If you want to do “cat” properly… take joy in cats doing what cats do. Not in trying to get them to do what *you* want them to do. If you want a critter that does what *you* want, get a dog.

If a cat does what you want… great! If a cat does something you don’t want, adjust your goals.

 Posted by at 12:29 pm
Dec 022016
 

A few days ago I called out President Elect Giant Middle Finger for suggesting in a  tweet that there should be legal consequences for flag burners. Well, looky here:

S.1911 – Flag Protection Act of 2005

“(c) Flag burning.—Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

Hmmm. Now, I wonder who might have sponsored that bit of (ultimately failed) legislation.

Sponsor: Sen. Bennett, Robert F. [R-UT]

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY]* 10/24/2005
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] 06/27/2006
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 06/27/2006
Sen. Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR] 09/28/2006

Hmmm.

HMMM.

Now, one might argue that the caveat here is that the law specifies that the flag burnin must be done as a threat or form of intimidation. Well, guess what: like being offended, intimidation is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. If you burn an effigy of *me,* I could take that as intimidation. Well… as an American, I could interpret burning a flag as a symbolic burning of the US, which means you’re burning all of the US in effigy, which I could theoretically take as intimidation. Plus, there’s this:

“(b) Actions promoting violence.—Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

Burning a flag is free speech. But it is arguably also “fightin’ words.” If you burn a flag within sight of a veteran, for instance, chances are good he’ll take the opportunity to apply boot to ass… and you know this. So if you burn a flag and get your ass handed to you by a PO’ed biker, under Angry Grandmas Flag Burnin’ Law, you could *also* get fined a hundred grand and tossed into the hoosegow for a year.

 Posted by at 12:38 am
Dec 012016
 

If you said “overpriced impractical skivvies for hot chicks, non-hot chicks who think they’re hot chicks, and exceedingly creepy dudes,” then step up and collect your prize!

Victoria’s Secret Accused of Featuring ‘Racist Lingerie’ in Fashion Show

Featuring everyones favorite new form of social justice warrior idiocy, “cultural appropriation.”

Sadly, the original Cosmo article…

Why Can’t Victoria’s Secret Stop Designing Racist Lingerie?

… seems to have been dumped down the memory hole.

 Posted by at 11:31 pm
Dec 012016
 

Here’s an interesting, if brief, piece on how various religions might handle intelligent aliens showing up:

How Will Our Religions Handle the Discovery of Alien Life?

For each of the rather few religions described, two reactions are described:

  1. Can the religion handle the idea of intelligent aliens
  2. Will the religion try to convert the aliens

The Buddhists, for example, are presumed to be perfectly cool with the idea of ETs, and will not be overly interested in converting them. Jews will accept aliens just fine, and have no interest in converting them. Muslims will accept aliens, but *will* want to convert them. Creationists will have some serious difficulty in accepting aliens. Catholics seem to be a mishmash.

Not listed: Mormons, Hindus, Shinto, standard Protestants, various pagans. And then there are the newage religions, the modern UFO cults, the Scientologists.

Feel free to speculate away!

 Posted by at 5:23 pm
Dec 012016
 

One of the odder aircraft to see combat was the Twin Mustang. It originally began its life as a design for a long range escort made from two P-51 Mustangs joined by a common wing section, but by the time it flew a number of other major changes were made so that its, strictly speaking, not *exactly* two Mustangs joined together. It served well enough in Korea, but it was a piston plane in the era of jets, and was obsolete almost immediately.

Fortunately, one of the XP-82 prototypes is being refurbished with the goal of making it flight worthy. Unclear if they would actually fly it; I’d be a nervous wreck if I was involved in the project and someone decided to take it into the air. Still, if they do so it’d be a hell of a sight to see.

XP-82 Twin Mustang Restoration Project

 Posted by at 1:14 pm