Jan 082022
 

Regardless of your general opinion of Tucker Carlson, he’s on the money with this monologue about the unfortunate results of the recent explosion in the US population (it has gone up about 65 percent just in my lifetime). The idea of the US reaching a *billion* people, most of whom would almost certainly be third worlders with little interest in truly adopting American ideals, culture, language, etc., is basically horrifying.

And he’s right about where people want to live. As COVID made it sot hat people worked from home, and could thus live wherever the want, people rushed to get away from high population density urban areas and flooded into low population density rural areas. Just a few months before the pandemic hit I did the exact opposite, moving from rural Utah to somewhere far less open and free. Shrug. Had I known then what I know now… dunno. Maybe if I’d waited a couple years I could have sold my place in Utah for a *fortune.*

 

As an aside: in my Zaneverse stories, space operas set about 500 years from now, the three most populace planets in human space are Mars, Atlantis and Asgard. All have a population of about 50 million. All have had that population for a few hundred years, with little prospect of the populations increasing. Because after The Fall and The Bottleneck, humans necessarily got a lot smarter. Mars, completely terraformed at this point, is seen as horribly overpopulated, while Atlantis and Asgard, roughly Earthly and also completely terraformed, are seen as optimally populated. And yet people have *large* families generally. How is this sustained? By people getting the hell out of Dodge as soon as they can. There is a constant urge to get away from massive population centers and head out for the frontier. Of course the frontier is more often than not a new Habitat, a pair of rotating cylinders miles in diameter and more miles long, floating in the asteroid belt of this or that solar system. With good AI, easy nuclear fusion power and propulsion, and five centuries worth of advancement in manufacturing technology, the resources of asteroids and comets means that *billions* of this state-sized habitats can be built, almost free of charge, in any decent solar system.

A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies, a chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure. But this time, without the cynicism.

 Posted by at 2:25 am
Dec 252021
 

The James Webb Space Telescohas successfully launched

There will be no Hubble-like servicing of this when things go wrong. Much of that is due to the fact that it is being launched towards the Earth-Sun L2 LaGrange point, about 1.5 million kilometers away from Earth (further out from the sun). NASA currently has no manned spacecraft that can reach L2. Eventually such spacecraft will become available… modified Dragon capsules, Starship or even the laughably over budget and behind schedule Orion and Starliner capsules should be able to get there. But even when such spacecraft become available, Webb wasn’t designed to be maintained, so when a part breaks and needs replacement it likely won’t actually be replacable. Consequently, much of the mission risk for Webb remains even though the launch was successful.

It will take about a month to reach the L2 point. While l2 is a stable position, it will still require perhaps 4 meters per second of station keeping per year. Total delta V budget is 150 meter per second, so if all goes well lifespan could still be as short as  37.5 years. Development began in 1996, with an initially planed launch of 2007, so it took a quarter century to actually design, build and launch; any conceivable improvement/replacement using the same bureaucracy could *easily* take far longer than Webb’s actual lifespan. There is cause to hope that if Starship is successful that the whole paradigm that resulted in Webb taking 14 or so extra years could be replaced by a much more rational world of spacecraft development. If it really does become possible to launch large and heavy spacecraft quickly and orders of magnitude more cheaply, then it will be possible to design and build spacecraft more capable than Webb, much cheaper than Webb, because they won’t need to shave off every last milligram like Webb.

 Posted by at 8:17 am
Dec 232021
 

I’m working on CAD diagrams for Book 3. As with the prior two books, this will be largely filled with diagrams of unbuilt aircraft, but also will have diagrams of real, flown aircraft. The diagrams of “real” aircraft take far longer than those of “project” aircraft for a few simple reasons: “real” aircraft have a lot more information, and a lot more accessible detail… and “real” aircraft are subject to critique by others to a higher degree than “project” aircraft. Couple that with an urge to craftsmanship, and “real” aircraft can be a real chore to diagram.

So the aircraft I’m working on now is pretty well known. Unfortunately, “well known” does not always (or even often) result in “well described and illustrated with official, large, high rez, precise and accurate diagrams” from which to work. I’m trying to reconcile official diagrams taken from blueprints and technical manuals, and it’s a massive pain in my keister: a diagram that at first seemed spectacular – showing the structural frames *and* their fuselage stations – turns out to be a mess, because the fuselage stations aren’t anything like to scale. None of the diagrams agree with each other or photos of the aircraft as far as the exact shape of the canopy. Gah.

So I hope y’all appreciate what I have to go through…

Buy my books!

Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird – Origins & Evolution.

B-47 Stratojet and B-52 Stratofortress: Origins and Evolution.

Subscribe to the Monthly Historical Documents Program!

 Posted by at 7:38 pm
Dec 212021
 

Around March of 2020, when the panics and lockdowns and whatnot began, someone asked me how long I thought it would last. I figured that we’d be dealing with masks and lockdowns for perhaps 18 months. This answer was met with unhappiness, but as it has transpired I was glitteringly optimistic in my estimate.

History might provide a basis to estimate the future. There have been a *lot* of pandemics through the ages; some, such as the Justinian Plague, might have wiped out half the human population of the then-known world. But these occurred in a very different world… one without fast intercontinental transport, one without anything resembling modern medicine, one without  instant communications. There have, however, been pandemics in the modern world. Some, like AIDS, are not that relevant: AIDS, unlike the Wu Flu, is a *very* difficult disease to pass on; for all intents and purposes you have to actually *try* to get it. The Commie Cough, on the other hand, can be caught be simply walking past the wrong person.

Three pandemics spring to mind as being relevant: The Spanish Flu, the Asian Flu and the Hong Kong Flu. Note that these are all based on an influenza virus, not terribly dissimilar to the China Flu corona virus. note also that these are all named after places; those who screeched that calling COVID 19 the “China Virus” was racist are historically ignorant jerks. So what do these earlier pandemics suggest:

1) The Spanish Flu – which may well have originated in Kansas, and almost certainly not in Spain, sprang up in 1918. Due to the “Great War” and the international transport of millions of troops, it spread quickly across the planet, killing an estimate 1 to 2% of the entire planetary population. However, in this case it really did burn out in about 18 months. We would be done with the Pinko Pox by now if history had repeated. Maybe.

2) The Asian Flu broke out in late 1956 or early 1957 in southern China (a few hundred km from Wuhan of COVID 19 fame). It reached the US by summer of 1957, with a second wave in January of 1958. A vaccine began trials in July of 1957, and started to reach Brits by October of 1957. it seems the vaccine did its job, and the pandemic began to subside at about that time ending in 1958, with around 100,000 American deaths, 33,000 British death and about 30,000 West German deaths, with a worldwide total of around 1.1 million. While the pandemic seemed to end less than two years after it began, the virus itself was not exterminated. It continued to mutate, and thus in 1968 we got…

3) The Hong Kong Flu appeared in July of 1968 in, obviously, Hong Kong. It was the same virus as the Asian Flu, but with genetic changes due to antigenic shift: several genetically different strains of virus coming together to form a new one. By September of 1968 it had gone worldwide; in October it became widespread in the US. As before a vaccine was quickly produced, within four months. The Hong Kong Flu wreaked havoc in Europe, killing some 60,000 in the Germanies. It lasted until at least early 1970, with a worldwide total mortality of 1 to 4 million.

These earlier pandemics show the virus going through its course in around two years. Were the current pandemic to follow that timeline, we’d be nearing completion. But… that doesn’t seem to be happening. Instead, it keeps dragging on. Why, and for how long?

One of the main differences between now and 1918, 1957 and 1968 is the prevalence not just of high speed jet travel for the modestly well to do, but *reasonably* fast travel for refugees and colonists from the third world. In the 50’s and 60’s there were not millions of Chinese people enriched by the Chinese Communists embrace of state capitalism; indeed, the 1968 outbreak was sometimes referred to as the Mao Flu, referring to the Chinese dictator whose policies had extended the impoverishment of his people. The Chinese were pretty well locked in China. Europe was not being overwhelmed with military-age male colonists from the Middle East and Africa; the United States still had something resembling border controls. Additionally, there does not appear to have been quite as much distrust of the government, and thus distrust of the vaccines available at the time; it appears that there was much less “vaccine reluctance.”

And further: the population of the planet was far lower. In 1957 the US population was about 170 million, in 1968, about 200 million; today it is about 330 million. All these additional people are parked in the same area, in the same cities. Population densities are higher; chances are in many places you’d encounter more people in a day today than you might have 50 or 60 years ago. This will aid in transmission of any disease.

So long as vaccine reluctance is a major force, international transfer of millions of “refugees” is largely unchecked and unquarantined, and population densities are high, there’s little reason why the virus, which has shown itself to be quite capable of mutating, should grind to a halt. Had the US had enough vaccine from Day One to completely vaccinate the entire population, and had in fact done so, the US would of course have been better off. But the virus has shown itself capable of infecting and sickening the vaccinated; further mutations might well make this worse, to the point where existing vaccines are near useless. And had the US been fully vaccinated on Day One, without strict border controls and limits on international travel, as well as actually useful checks against Chinese  (and other) efforts at biological warfare, the virus would have gotten in anyway, and would have continued to play havoc.

So how long will we have to deal with COVID 19? I don;t know. It doesn;t seem to be anywhere near over *now,* and a good rule of thumb in engineering is “if it has lasted this long, it could last this long into the future.” So I see not reason to suppose that it *will* be over by the beginning of 2024. Check back at that time. Maybe I’ll be wrong and the pandemic will be a memory, mask mandates will be over, Australia will be a nation of free people again. Maybe I’ll be dead, an unburied corpse among hundreds of millions of others.

 Posted by at 3:28 pm
Dec 192021
 

One of the more tiresome conspiracy theories of recent years says something along the lines of “the political leadership class are a bunch of vampiric pedos, running vast trafficking rings and performing Satanic rituals.” There is no need to bump up the perceived evils of socialists, authoritarians, grifters, pervs, collectivists, commies and the other degenerate genetic defectives who populate the halls of power… the banal realities are awful enough to negate any excuse to keep the majority of them in power.

So a day or two ago a video started making the rounds seeming to show Gropey Joe getting kinda handsy with a little boy who secretly slips him a vial full of what looks like blood. Turns out the video is doctored; the original video is from July 2021 and shows Biden giving the kid something, probably a face mask (*why* he does that is unclear since the kid is already wearing a mask). Sure, a kid handing blood to a man who looks about 15 minutes in a Hollywood studio makeup chair from a starring role on “What We Do In The Shadows” is creepy… but as propaganda, it’s not necessary. The original video is creepy enough. Any other context an old man pressing this much child flesh would result in a media freakout, and perhaps deservedly so. Witness the compare/contrast between the doctored video and the original, with minimal but appropriate commentary:

 Posted by at 11:25 pm
Dec 152021
 

A news story came out a few days ago that had a robber at a Philadelphia pizza joint strangling the woman who owned the place… and the robber getting shot in the face by the womans 14-year-old son (who had retrieved a pistol from under the counter) as a result. Video footage has come out and…. that’s not what happened. There was a robber to be sure; he was digging into the till for money and *not* strangling anyone when the kid pulled the pistol from his waistband (possibly) and capped the thief. The other employees at the store signed off on the original story, as did the cops, and no charges were filed.

“The Amazing Lucas,” who sadly has been getting sucked into the social justice rabbithole and losing his amazingness in the process, discusses this in the video below… and includes the security camera footage of the incident. The incident is, to be blunt, a thing of beauty. A worthless human decides to rob a place, rather than get a job; he catches a bullet to the face for his troubles. And nothing of value was lost except, undoubtedly, a whole lot of taxpayer dollars since he *didn’t* actually die and will now be patched up on the public dime rather than yeeted across the border (*any* border) with a trebuchet. Reasonable people will look at the video and conclude that the kids actions are entirely justified; indeed, he should be rewarded by the city government for good citizenship and *reasonably* good aim, as well as remaining functionally calm under pressure. But Philadelphia  seems unlikely to be a reasonable place. The fact that the pizza joint was brazenly robbed like this fully explains and justifies the kids decision to pack heat (the video is hard to parse just before the actual shooting; the kids hands flash about wildly and he *may* have grabbed the pistol from under the counter, and what looks like him pulling it from his waist is actually him futzing with the holster the gun was kept in), but doubtless the local DA would view that as an opportunity for a show trial of the *kid* rather than the actual criminal.

It seems the kid, his mom, the other employees and the cops all lied in order to protect someone who *should* have been lauded. This is where we are. Sigh.

 Posted by at 5:09 pm
Dec 142021
 

Back in the 80’s if you wanted some high-quality censorship, you had to look to the Right… at least, the Christian Fundamentalist part of it. Church and parent groups freaked out about Dungeons and Dragons, and heavy metal music, and video games, and just about anything else that might be seen as fun, and those groups tried to ban or restrict them. Starting in the 90’s, though, the censorship pendulum began to swing *hard* the other way and for decades we’ve been dealing with power-mad Leftists trying to scrape society clean of the things they don’t like.

The “progressives” have had their shot… and they pushed too hard. Now it appears that on local and some state levels, right-wingers are pushing, with some success, for censorship of their own. So far, these are efforts to ban schools from mandating or even having certain texts. In many cases, these make sense: the drive to get rid of fraudulent racist agitprop like CRT and 1619 Project stuff. For the same reason children aren’t allowed to wander into R-rated movies, children should be guided through controversial or difficult subjects, and schools should *not* be teaching factually flawed topics, never mind factually flawed topics designed to psychologically harm the kiddies.

And in many cases, the individual works being banned are only faintly relevant, but it is understandable why they’ve been targeted. For too long the progressives pushed too hard; I suspect history might well show that “Drag Queen Story Hour” was the point where a whole lot of parents said “ok, I’m done pretending, that’s too much perversion for me,” and decided to just sweep the decks of anything remotely resembling that sort of nonsense.  And in some cases, the books being banned don’t make any sense whatsoever apart from someone having simply read the title or done a keyword search.

The pendulum has not of course fully swung. These right-wing efforts are aimed at keeping these books from the libraries of publicly-funded schools. Progressive censorship, on the other hand, is aimed at preventing their targeted books from being published *at* *all,* to maintain a grip on the entirety of permissible thought. “Yeah, but both sides” does not really apply here given the massive disparity in goals and reach; let’s not forget that it was BLM that burned book stores.

There are limited hours in the day, and in the school year. There are subjects that schools should teach, and skills and knowledge that they *need* to impart. And then there are things that would be *nice* to teach, time and resources permitting. And then there’s “what the hell is this nonsense” that there’s really no good place for in school.

 Posted by at 8:56 pm
Dec 012021
 

So, Ridley Scott’s film “The Last Duel” opened in late October. So far it has raked in nearly $29 million ($11M domestic, $18M foreign)… on a budget of about $100 million. This is by any metric a disaster. It’s odd: both critics and audiences seem to like it according to Rotten Tomatoes. So why did it fail? I dunno. I haven’t seen it; I saw the trailers and they’re… ok, I guess. Didn’t really inspire me to get off my keister and into a pandemic infested theater where five cents of sugar water costs six bucks and a handful of kerploded corn is another seven.

But Ridley Scott know exactly why it failed. Those darned kids!

Ridley Scott Pins ‘The Last Duel’ Bombing on Apathetic Millennials

“I think what it boils down to — what we’ve got today [are] the audiences who were brought up on these ᚠᚢᛍᚴᛁᚿᚵ cellphones. The millennian [sic] do not ever want to be taught anything unless you’re told it on a cellphone,” Scott said.

Yeah, uh-huh.

Personally, while I don’t *know* why it failed, I would *guess* that after a year of lockdowns and panic mongering, people have kinda lost the thrill of the moviegoing experience. Yes, “No Time To Die” apparently made bank, but Ghostbusters has so far only made $118 million worldwide… another disaster, though obviously not as bad of one. Going to the movies is more of a hassle than it once was (fewer theaters, for a start) while being more expensive; if you’re going as a family or a group of friends, you could *easily* spend more for a couple hours than for a whole month of some streaming service. TV’s these days are *huge* and the resolution is greater than the human eyeball can take in; easy to have quite a number of people over to watch some movie or show, all with cheap snacks and no mask mandates or shrieking Karens. Going to the theater  was probably always going to go into decline thanks to streaming and 4k wall-sized TVs, but the Commie Cough only sped that along.

Looking at the top worldwide movies of 2021 on box Office Mojo, it looks like if Ridley Scott wants to make the big money he needs to go straight to the Chinese market. Top two grossing movies of the year were Chinese flicks, with the highest grossing being a movie about the Chinese military “volunteers” sent to fight at Chosin reservoir during the Korean War.

 Posted by at 12:55 pm
Nov 282021
 

A nearly universal good idea is to actively avoid wokeness at all times. However… I’m wondering about the value of flipping that from time to time. Consider:

And then:

And there are doubtless many more examples of corporations and educational institutions who made available “counselors” to deal with the self-important snowflakes who couldn’t handle the fact that the justice system actually recognized that being attacked by violent murderous criminals is a valid excuse for defending oneself. My first reaction would be to avoid these counselors like the plague that they are; a grift that has proven successful at extracting a pretty substantial pile of cash from companies either too woke or too cowardly to tell them to bugger off. But I wonder if a better approach would be for the rational, sane employees to, in fact, take full advantage of them. If your company offers you time off in any way to deal with the Rittenhouse verdict… *take* *it.* If they offer you counseling service with an actual human counselor (as opposed to an AI counselor), take advantage of it. And get as many of your co-workers to join in. Flood the lines. Clog up the works, slow down the assembly lines. Drown the company in the results of its own wokeness.

One can approach the counselor with a false face. Pretend to be woke and upset. But one can also approach them openly and honestly, mocking them and deriding their very reason for being. However, while that’s the more honest approach it’s also the one more likely to get them to simply shut you out. A third option: Abe Simpson the hell out of them. Start off with the fake wokeness, then ramble off into random irrelevant directions. Recite the full and accurate story of what happened in Kenosha, decrying the unfairness of killing a pedophile who only wanted to touch a minor, then diverge into a tale about how this one time, at band camp… Keep it up for as long as possible. Drown the counselor with unhinged tales of woe. Don’t just waste their – and your companies – time, but bore them to tears. If you can, lay upon them emotional distress. If you have any *actual* problems – alcoholism, drug addiction, terminal cancer, your dog just died, you’re in debt to the mob, whatever – lay that on them thick and hard. Make their job a nightmare.

This would serve two purposes. If done well, it will make life unpleasant for the grifters, and that’s morally praiseworthy. And if done on a large enough scale, it will make the whole thing incredibly costly for the company. And no matter how insanely woke a company or its board of directors are, they’re still in it to make money. If wokeness can be made to be seen as the drag on profit that it truly is, perhaps companies such as Best Buy and Levis will start to rethink this nonsense. instead of providing counseling services for insane, child molester-worshipping freaks, they can do the more appropriate thing and simply fire them.

 Posted by at 10:11 am