Mar 052023
 

Sir Sic (the Social Inequality Crusader) mocks a “college professor” who claims to have a mechanical engineering degree and who claims that rockets cannot work in a vacuum. Because he not only doesn’t understand basic science, he thinks it’s all a conspiracy.

The original video seems to date from quite some time ago; the version I found was uploaded to YouTube in 2017, and was apparently in existence some time prior to that. Unfortunately, no information is given about who this guy is, and whether he’s *actually* a college professor. Given the accent, he’s clearly not a westerner… which is a relief. There are already quite enough shrieking morons in American academia. And while I’m appalled at anyone claiming to be an engineer talking uneducated and factually wrong smack about science, it’s much less offensive to me if they are from a competing or even adversarial land. However, since he’s speaking *English,* it’s not impossible that he’s an enemy agent come to the US in order to dumb down American college students.

Another possibility is that he not only knows he’s full of BS, he’s actually trolling. Perhaps his purpose is to confuse the kiddies, and then get them to correct him. Teach them critical thinking and skepticism. Teach them to not trust The Man, but instead to apply the lessons of science and arrive at the facts. However, “he’s a moron” is a hell of a lot simpler explanation.

The difficulty with this guys world view is that he lives in a world where rockets exist in space and perform just fine. Of course the conspiracy theorist would argue that that’s all just a scam; there are no space rockets. But then the counter to *that* is “go outside at night and look up. You’ll see satellites.” And doubtless there are terribly clever and fundamentally stupid counters to *that.* Robert Goddard encountered just this sort of dumbassery more than a century ago when the New York Times mocked him for claiming that rockets would work in a vacuum. Not only did he have the math behind him, he actually demonstrated it. On ground level, by firing a rocket in a vacuum “track.” Nothing stopping people from replicating this today. A long length of plexiglas or polycarbonate clear pipe, with a model rocket motor at one end, pumped down to very low pressure, then fire off the rocket and watch it zip down the tube. Do that a couple times, both with vacuum and with air pressure. It’s a safe bet the rockets in vacuum will move faster.

This “professor” is an exemplar of “other ways of knowing.” I fully support his ambitions… for other countries.

 

 Posted by at 11:21 pm
Feb 242023
 

A program progress film from 1959 describing the US Army’s “Saturn” rocket. This would soon be transferred to NASA, eventually becoming the Saturn I (then Ib). The basic layout of the first stage would remain, but the upper stages would change utterly; as shown here, they are derivatives of the Titan ICBM. Note that the first stage is shown being recovered. This feature lasted a surprising length of time, with components being built into the early NASA Saturns. The idea was that the stages would be parachute recovered with solid rocket motors firing at the last second to cushion splashdown. The motor firing would be set off by a trigger that would be released from the booster to dangle some distance below. As soon as the trigger hit the water, it would signal the motors to fire. The stage would splash down soft enough to be recovered, but it was assumed it’d be damaged beyond refurbishment. The idea was to examine the stage to see how it did, and introduce incremental improvements until *eventually* it was able to be recovered intact enough for cost effective refurbishment and reuse.

 

 Posted by at 11:22 pm
Feb 172023
 

I have a *pile* of books to sell; the first of them are now on ebay. More will be added as I get around to it…

An Illustrated Guide to Space Warfare by David Hobbs, 1986

TC-188 Aviator’s Recognition Manual March 1977

FM-1-88 Aviator’s Recognition Manual July 1980

The Evolution of the Cruise Missile by Kenneth Werrell

FLYGPLANS-RITNINGAR 6 SWEDISH AIR FORCE

USS Iowa BB 61 Warship’s Data 3 First Edition 1986 Robert F SUMRALL

Aerofax Minigraph #14 Lockheed F-94 Starfire by Francillon & Keaveney 1986

Warplanes of the Future by Bill Gunston

“Box Kites to Bombers: The Story of the Glenn L. Martin Company”

American Secret Projects : Bombers, Attack and Anti-Submarine Aircraft 1945…

New Earths: Restructuring Earth and Other Planets by James Oberg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 9:14 pm
Feb 152023
 

I’m selling the blueprints I’ve recently made. I can sign ’em if the buyer wants, front or back…

Saturn Ib Inboard Profile Cyanotype Blueprint

NERVA nuclear rocket engine Cyanotype Blueprint

NERVA nuclear rocket engine artwork Cyanotype Blueprint

Boeing 2707-200 SST Cyanotype Blueprint

Trident II SLBM Cyanotype Blueprint

Northrop B-2A stealth bomber Cyanotype Blueprint

A-4 (V-2) German Rocket Isometric Cutaway Cyanotype Blueprint

A-4 (V-2) German Rocket Isometric Cutaway Cyanotype Blueprint: Smaller

Wasserfall German WWII Surface to air missile Cyanotype Bluepri

 

USS Monitor Ironclad Cyanotype Blueprint

550 Central Park West Cyanotype Blueprint

Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) Cyanotype Blueprint

X-20 Dyna Soar/Titan IIIC Cyanotype Blueprint

Early X-20 Dyna Soar Cyanotype Blueprint

 

 

 

 Posted by at 4:05 pm
Feb 132023
 

It’s time to post my first batch of cyanotypes to ebay. But I ran into a conundrum… how should I categorize them? I started entering the first one, the Sat Ib, as “collectible-historical memorabilia-astronauts & space travel-etc” but then I realized that these were made by me over the last few weeks. The *sources* for the blueprints are of course historical, but the actual items themselves are brand new, hand made “art” items. Suggestions?

 Posted by at 1:58 pm
Feb 122023
 

US Shuts Airspace Over Lake Michigan, Cites “National Defense”

 

Seems the balloons are coming pretty fast.

 

 

 

Clearly if the Commies are swarming our skies with balloons, they need to be shot down. But while balloons are cheap, AIM-9X missiles are expensive as are F-15 and especially F-22 sorties. Reserving air supremacy fighters for swatting balloons over Canada or Montana means they can’t be deployed elsewhere for roles more requiring their capabilities. The ability to take out balloons *cheaply* is needed. A suggestion: instead of expendable missiles launched from advanced fighters, how about reusable missiles launched from cargo jets, or modified corporate jets? Missiles such as AQM-37C. This missile was a target, and some variants were fitted with a parachute recovery system. The AQM-37C was capable of Mach 4 flight up to 100,000 feet. The AQM-37 series is now long out of production and no longer in service, but the design has worked for fifty years and could be certainly updated. It could be rebuilt for precision command guidance or some onboard guidance; it could be meant to simply dart through the balloons envelope, or blast over it real close while spewing out small submunitions. Build them in vast numbers for economies of scale; build variants for other roles such as surface attack, recon, whatever, to spread the cost and utility around. If you’re *real* good, build them for in-flight snatching; if you are *extremely* good, build them to be snatched by the launch aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 6:17 pm
Feb 112023
 

Ummm…

 

Another Russian spacecraft docked to the space station is leaking

 

a Progress supply ship attached to the International Space Station has lost pressure in its external cooling system

 

C’mon, Russia. You used to be cool. For a time. A brief window. Back when the worst thing about y’all were your wacky likkered-up drivers on the ice.

 

 Posted by at 8:27 pm
Feb 042023
 

Now that the Chinese “spy balloon” has crossed the entire United States, the Air Force *finally* got the order from Biden to shoot the thing down. Looks like a fighter launched a missile… a missile that doubtless cost way more than the balloon. Happened over Myrtle Beach, South Carolina… you know, the far side of the country from where it entered.

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 2:53 pm
Jan 292023
 

“Creature Features,” a YouTube channel that shows less-than-spectacular movies interspersed with segments with a trio of characters (a format made popular on TV decades ago with the likes of Elvira), found a better-quality copy of the movie “Meteor.” It remains a *terrible* movie with atrocious visual effects and models that can’t even be considered half-assed. But it somehow is rather entertaining. I remain vaguely interested in the notion of someone doing a Special Edition where all the model shots are replaced with insanely good CGI, maybe even tinker with the other visual effect. Ain’t nuthin’ gonna help the plot, though.

 

 Posted by at 2:44 pm