Nov 132017
 

I was corrected on just what qualifies as “too much gun.” The .460 S&W revolver could at least actually be carried and fired without the shooter suffering sudden structural damage. But the two-bore rifle? 12,000 foot-pounds of recoil, even from a 44-pound rifle, just sounds a tad painful.

Even though the 2-bore rifle *looks* like an antique, it appears that it is a modern product that you can buy, made and sold by Stolzer & Sons Gunsmithing. I wonder if the pieces being auctioned off above are actually those shown below…

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 4:19 pm
Nov 122017
 

Not a new idea, but one sure to rile the conspiracy theorists and panic mongers:

Nasa’s [sic] ambitious plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

Basic idea: drill down towards the magma chamber, pump cool water down; water sucks heat from magma and races back up the system as 600-degree steam, which is then used to turn turbines to generate electricity. Energy is created while the risk is reduced. So goes the theory.

The basic idea is reasonably sound. The biggest problem is simply the scale of the problem:the amount of heat in the magma chamber is *vast.* And the depths they’d need to drill are equally vast… on the order of ten kilometers (which is ha-ha-ha-no level of depth). The cost of the project is estimated at $3.46 billion…. peanuts, really, compared to FedGuv spending. The power generation potential is also vast, on the scale of 6 gigawatts of thermal energy. Thousands of years would be required to actually cool the magma chamber to where it’s safe.

And there are detractors…

No, NASA Isn’t Going to Drill to Stop Yellowstone from Erupting

 

 Posted by at 11:48 am
Nov 122017
 

Anyone who has paid thirty seconds of attention to the news in the last few weeks has been unable to miss all the reports of powerful men being called out for sexual harassment on up to assault, by both men and women in lesser positions of power. Most of the complaints have been against Hollywood types, but also several political types.

It’s a sad but undeniable fact that when the accused is someone who you like or is on your side politically, you are more likely to respond with skepticism about the accusations than if the accused is someone you dislike or disagree with. A truly honest person would be skeptical of *all* claims until either the accused confesses, sufficient evidence is produced, or the accusers tales are properly vetted. But let’s be honest, it’s *really* easy to believe that some of these power-mad fantasy-land-dwellers are scumbags, and so the general response to these accusations is to just accept them at face value.

In the current political climate, it’s probably accurate to suggest that a sexual harassment accusation is more PR-damaging than an accusation of conventional physical violence. If, say, Kevin Spacey had been accused of getting drunked up and pummeling some people 30 years ago, I doubt there’d be much hoopla. How many rap stars actually *bolster* their “cred” with an actual felony rap sheet? But things are what they are; if you are suddenly announced to have been pervy decades ago, you become culturally toxic *now.*

As a consequence, we’ve got Ridley Scott rushing to replace Spacey in a movie due out in *weeks.* Netflix promptly shut down and cancelled production of Spacey’s “House of Cards.” Louis CK’s new movie “I Love You Daddy” has had its premiere cancelled, and may get stuffed down the memory hole; Louis CK was working on a new animated series with TBS called “The Cops,” this has now been cancelled. The Weinstein company may wind up going down in flames, even after they fired the guy the company is named after.

Lets assume the accusations are correct (and in Louis CK’s case, he’s confessed that they are). So you hear about this guy acting badly, and as a result his career blows up in his face, and your initial response is likely some variation of schadenfreude. “To hell with that guy, good riddance.”

But here’s the thing: these movies, TV shows and whatnot are not just the products of that one guy. The cast and crew of “House of Cards” are now SOL. There is every possibility that there was an actor or makeup artist or *somebody* in one of these now-trashed shows that that job that they busted their butts on was going to be their big break. Maybe the Weinstein Company had just signed a deal to produce some young filmmakers dream project, and now it’s vanished like a fart in the wind.

OK, here’s the ponderable. Should the bad behavior of One Guy torpedo the work of hundreds or thousands? Let’s put it in terms that readers of this blog might be more directly amenable to: let’s hypothesize that Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk is accused of the same sort of thing. Should Blue Origin or SpaceX dry up and blow away as a result? If Seth Macfarlane turns out to *gasp* convert to a Trump supporter, should “The Orville” be promptly cancelled? Heck: there is a small but non-zero chance that my own chance for fame and fortune evaporated with “Man Conquers Space,” my role as technical advisor, prop maker and vehicle designer gone due to the movie project folding because… well, reasons are unclear but claims are made and unsubstantiated in the comments section HERE.

Granted, I’m not really seeing a whole of of alternative in a lot of these cases. Hollywood is by definition all about Public Relations; when someone suddenly falls out of favor, their careers often instantly tank. Charlie Sheen, that kid who was on 2.5 Men, Mel Gibson, OJ Simpson, Bill Cosby, Paula Deen, even Fatty Arbuckle Way Back In the Friggen’ Day all found that accusations (some true, some unfounded, some on full public display) were enough to end careers essentially overnight. You tick off the public, the public may well decide to stop throwing money at you. But when these people go down, they take a lot of other folks with them.

So: when one actor or director or producer turns out to be an accused scumbag… what should happen with the work they’re doing? Work that hundreds of others rely on for paychecks, and millions of others rely on for entertainment?

 Posted by at 11:02 am
Nov 112017
 

A few weeks ago, some artwork was put on ebay showing an alternate concept for the Lunar Roving Vehicle. This one was apparently sold as being optionally manned, which would certainly be a useful feature. Especially if it could be teleoperated from Earth after the crew has gone home. Note that one of the illustrations shows the unmanned rover towing a two-wheeled cart loaded with nuclear power generator (an RTG); similar RTGs are shown hanging off the sides of an unmanned LRV, and two RTGs are shown in the distance in the illustration showing unmanned-to-manned conversion. What *may* be intended here is that the unmanned version would drive around under RTG power and charge up batteries; for manned use the RTGs are left in the distance and the things operates purely under battery power. If returned to RTG/unmanned prior to the crew leaving, then the LRV would have virtually unlimited range. With enough time, an LRV could even drive to another landing site and be there in time for a new crew to land and make use of it.

 Posted by at 10:16 pm