Nov 272021
 

If you look back to NASA in the mid-1960’s, it certainly seems like it was an organization filled with people who thought that the future was wide open. Apollo was merely going to be the first step; after some landings would come longer-term “camps” on the moon, with stays of a few weeks in temporary habitats; then would come bases that could be visited by multiple crews. Nuclear powered space stations with artificial gravity. There would be manned flyby missions to Venus and eventually manned landings on Mars; as propulsion systems inevitably grew vastly more capable, manned missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would follow in due course.

By the time Apollo 11 actually landed on the moon, though, it was becoming clear that the future was not going to be what it should have been. As noted previously, the production line of the Saturn V was shut down a year before Apollo 11, not only limiting the possible missions of the Apollo program but ending hope for missions that would expand upon Apollo. Shortly after Apollo 11, it seems that morale at NASA was already in decline as the engineers, scientists, technicians and so on could see the writing on the wall. Not only was Saturn dead, but funding was in decline and it was becoming clear that there was minimal political interest in carrying Apollo forward… the job of beating the Soviets to the Moon was done, and the important scientific work, not to mention the prospect of carrying western civilization to the stars, was not that important to the political class who were far more interested in the “Great Society” spending programs. So in September of 1969 a “Seminar on Manned Flight Awareness” was held at the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, to deal with the issue:

The successful lunar landing and completion of the flight of Apollo 11 achieved a national objective in this decade and is a significant milestone in man’s continuing progress in space exploration. Historically, achievements of such magnitude, requiring concentrated efforts over an appreciable time period, are followed by a letdown and general relaxation of the personnel involved. In addition, this letdown may be amplified by a serious morale problem when funding cutbacks are experienced. The result is n decline in the required attention to detailed workmanship which can cause a rise in accident rates and potential loss of life.

To counter these potential morale and complacency  problems in the spaceflight program, this Government/Industry Manned Flight Awareness Seminar is  being conducted. The objective of this seminar is the  maintenance of high quality workmanship through effective awareness and motivational programs. We  intend to do this by outlining NASA’s plans for future  programs and the resources being made available to  successfully conclude these programs. In addition,  executives of various industrial firms deeply involved  in space work will present their views of the future.  In this way we can get the message from NASA Management to the individuals responsible for doing the  work that is vital to assuring a high quality of workmanship in the aerospace force.

Not having been born yet, I don’t have any firsthand information on just what was going on at the time in NASA. However, one thing I *do* have firsthand information on was the end of the United Technologies Center/Chemical System Division facility south of San Jose, California, circa 2003-2004. That company was a manufacturer of solid rockets such as the booster separation motors for the Space Shuttle, booster rockets for the Tomahawk cruise missile, Minuteman ICBM stages and so on. It was a vital part of the rocket industry of the United States. And in 2003-2004, it was *obvious* to everyone there that the company was doomed. Things were going wrong left and right to the point that a lot of us were wondering if it was active sabotage; in reality it was merely management and unions working together to make things as ridiculous as possible. Coupled with the fact that the company could, at best, turn in a profit measured at a handful of millions of dollars a year while sitting on *billions* of dollars of prime Silicon Valley real estate, everyone there knew that the companies time was strictly limited. So, what did the USAF and NASA do about it?

The USAF/NASA told the rest of the United States aerospace industry to *not* hire any of us. We were embargoed from seeking employment elsewhere, at least at companies that received federal contracts. So we stayed on the job. Until, of course, the embargoes were lifted, then we fled like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

It seems that NASA in September 1969 was facing a similar predicament. Everyone there – scientists, engineers, technicians and subcontractors of all kinds – could see the writing on the wall. And when you know that the project you’re working on has a near-term end date, you look for somewhere else to be, preferably before all your co-workers get the same idea. This is sensible, but it’s also a problem. Yes, Apollo/Saturn had a distinctly limited lifespan. But the program still had a number of years left, and it would need the bulk of the staff to stay on the job to make sure that the spacecraft and launch vehicles were finished, maintained and prepared for their missions. If everyone at NASA fled for brighter opportunities elsewhere, the missions still funded would be unable to be completed. So NASA held a seminar that seemed to have the singular goal of convincing people just how bright NASA’s future really was. A space shuttle would be available by 1976 and a space station by 1979… as well as a polar orbit station and one in geosynchronous. A lunar orbiting station around 1976. Nuclear powered inter-orbital shuttles. Manned missions back to the Moon and on to Mars.

It was all wrong. Yes, the Shuttle finally arrived in the early 1980’s, greatly delayed and vastly and permanently over budget, each flight costing one to two orders of magnitude more than originally projected. yes, a space station did eventually arrive… in the 1990’s, handicapped by international politics, small, undermanned, under-capable. None of the rest of it even *tried* to happen. The seminar reads like desperation, or a rah-rah session at some multi-level marketing scheme; I had flashes to scenes in the recent Hulu series “Dopesick” where Oxycontin sales reps are getting the latest BS about how great the next dosage of the pill will be, so go out there and sell more.

*A* future does not mean *A* *GOOD* *FUTURE.*

No. It was the end, and apparently everyone involved could see it.

You can download a PDF of the 80-page seminar publication HERE.

 Posted by at 5:25 pm
Nov 262021
 

This critter in some ways reminds me of Raedthinn… color, fuzziness, looks like size. But Raedthinn *never* got this stoned.

Nevertheless, this made me laugh *real* hard, one of the few TikTok videos that isn’t clearly part of the ChiCom plot to destroy the west.

@felinefunnies

Duncan says this is what it chews like to feel 5 gum on catnip! 😵‍💫😼🍃 #catnip #cats #5gum

♬ original sound – kohlmann

 Posted by at 5:38 pm
Nov 252021
 

A few days ago i posted some Chinese dashcams and noted that it seemed to me that the people in these videos seemed indisposed to rendering aid. A commenter pointed out that this in fact the case, a result of Chinese law on the matter. Well, here’s support for that position:

China’s Bad Samaritan Crisis

Until 2017, however, China had no national law providing legal protection to good samaritans. Instead, the law made being a good samaritan extremely risky, allowing people to sue their rescuer to recover medical bills, and scammers frequently took advantage of this rule. Under the eyes of the law, the assumption became that you would only help someone if you were responsible for hurting them, resulting in a bad samaritan crisis. According to the South China Morning Post, this was something that happened frequently. In 2006, for example, a university student was required to pay the medical bills of an injured elderly woman whom he helped, because she sued him and claimed he pushed her. If a good samaritan is painted as evil, it is no wonder so many people are unenthusiastic about helping those in need.

Yikes. Once again, this shows that there’s no situation so awful that getting Communists involved can’t make it worse.

In 2017, the Chinese law was changed to provide protections to good Samaritans. But being Communists, they don;t know how to pass *sane* laws, an the new law goes overboard, saying that a rescuer can never be held liable for *anything,* no matter how stupid the rescuers efforts are. Still, that’s preferable to making sure that nobody ever tries to render aid. But the fear of reprisal has been ingrained into the Chinese people; it could well take many years before the culture changes substantially.

But there’s more:

In fact, there’s even a saying in China that translates to, “It’s better to hit to kill than to hit and injure.” This is because of a terribly convoluted law requiring motorists to pay for the care of the person they injured for the rest of their life, while the payment required for killing someone outright is a one-time fee, usually associated with the cost of burial.

Spectacular. There are several gruesome tales of people repeatedly rolling over pedestrians they hit in order to make sure they’re dead in this article. Coupled with a culture of corruption, where the cops and courts are readily bought off, this legal nonsense seems to have made a whole of lot regular people into wholly heartless monsters, as thoroughly devoid of empathy and conscience as supporters of Antifa riots. This is the culture in charge of manufacturing all the electronic devices that have infiltrated our lives and which are at this very moment watching you.

 Posted by at 9:13 pm
Nov 252021
 

You don’t see these too often…

I hope that civilization will last long enough for 3d metal printing to advance to the point where entire aircraft such as this can be produce at the push of a button (and the loading of bins of various metal powders, and the firing up of a small nuclear reactor to provide the juice to run the lasers and CNC cutters).

 Posted by at 8:50 pm
Nov 252021
 

Kyle Rittenhouse *should,* if this was a rational world, emerge as one of the richest men in America and a media mogul, owning several news outlets outright, after all the lawsuits are done. Of course this *isn’t* a rational world, so who knows. Celebrities, media corporations and politicians *should* be held financially to account for slander, libel and outright lies… but how about “lesser” folks who still have followers? For example, Bearing tears apart a doctor who repeats several lies about Kyle *after* the verdict came down. It’s an entertaining ripping apart of a man (there is some question about that; any man who feels the need to include his pronouns seems likely to be uncertain about it) who could benefit society by shutting the hell up, but would it be possible or practical for some lawyers to look at folk like this with a critical and lawsuit-happy eye?

Behold this little bit of “alternative facts:”

At the very least his license to practice medicine should be under serious question. A man who lies like that seems unlikely to make for a reliable and safer doctor.

 Posted by at 6:38 pm
Nov 242021
 

A few weeks ago SpinLaunch managed to spin up their demonstrator and lob a projectile into the sky. I did not give it a whole lot of thought; it just doesn’t impress me a whole lot. There are easier ways to accelerate a projectile to the speed of sound.

However, Thunderf00t *did* give the concept a lot of thought, and he’s anti-impressed. One detail that I’d noticed was that the projectile emerges from the “muzzle” of the launch tube crooked. One thing I *didn’t* do was closely examine the faint and blurry in-flight footage of the projectile. And I should have, because the projectile is *tumbling.* In retrospect this makes sense: while attached to the rotating arm, the projectile is rotating at about three revolutions per second. Once released, it will retain that angular momentum; since it’s not touching anything – it’s not riding rails, or sliding down a barrel, nor at its fins reacting against air since it’s in a vacuum – there is nothing to arrest that rotation. So it leaves the “barrel” tumbling. This would be *disastrous.* Even if the fins could stabilize the projectile in flight, a massive amount of launch energy would be wasted in the process, the trajectory would be virtually randomized, accelerations would be massive and all over the place.

In short, this thing seems to be a whole lot of nothing as far as being practical.

 Posted by at 10:49 pm