Grow your own food without the farm

9/3/26:

Such a long time ago... One would think I'd be doing this by now..

10/27/10: The original post is below:

How is that possible?  Take a look at this.

Update:  The part that got my attention was that so much could be grown in so little area.  On the basis of this, I began reading some stuff on hydroponics and aeroponics.  I suppose if I look long enough I may find something like "Hydoponics for Dummies".  Haven't gotten to that yet.  Here's a YouTube video on aeroponics.  Here's another video showing how to build your own (as opposed to buying one).

Update 2: This is funny.  People use this to grow weed.  Very funny.

Update 3: Not exactly on topic with this post, but here is how to promote your "whatever".  It could be a blog, or videos on YouTube.

Financial roadmap for LPPFusion

9/1/26:

If memory serves, there's another post with the disclosure of an increase in my holdings. It is more than the minimum investment now. So if this ship comes in, there will be a potential for a large payoff.

According to this post, a conservative estimate runs from 10-100 times your money.

In my opinion, that is indeed a conservative estimate. It could go a LOT higher than that. More valuable than SpaceX? Maybe!!!

This one could set you up for life... But it is an investment, and a risky one at that. If it doesn't work, you may well lose it all. So don't go overboard... Know what I mean, Vern???

7/10/26: The original post is below:

Disclosure: I own shares ( originally 1 share, but there was a split, so now it is ??).

Comment: This is what you call "risk-capital". That is to say, it won't be ruinous for me to lose all of my investment, because $200 investment that goes kaput won't kill me. Read on to see the large potential payoff.

A copy of an email is shown below:

Ivy here with the financial roadmap and exit strategy.

Most investors want to know:

When do I see returns?

What's the exit path?

What's the projected valuation growth?

Let me break it down.

Timeline to Liquidity:

2025-2026 (Current Phase):

Raise $4-5M (this round)

Achieve net energy by end of 2026 (more energy out than in)

Surpass China's hydrogen-boron fusion record

Expected share price increase when net energy achieved

2027-2030 (Prototype Development):

Demonstrate working commercial prototype

Begin licensing discussions with manufacturers (GE, Siemens, Samsung)

Raise additional capital (likely at higher valuation)

Expected share price increases as prototype milestones hit

2030-2031 (Commercialization & Exit):

Execute licensing deals (revenue begins)

IPO / Acquisition (liquidity event for investors)

Projected valuation: 10-100x current ($83.9M - $800M-8B+)

Exit Options:

Option 1: IPO (Most Likely)

Timeline: 2030-2031

Once we demonstrate working prototype and secure licensing deals

Comparable: Helion Energy (projected $3B+ valuation pre-IPO)

LPPFusion advantage: Published results (not just promises)

Option 2: Acquisition

Potential acquirers: GE, Siemens, Samsung, Energy companies

Strategic value: Patents, know-how, team expertise

Precedent: Many fusion startups acquired by larger players

Option 3: Secondary Market (Available Now)

Some investors already selling shares to each other

Liquidity available before IPO (though limited market)

Price: Negotiated between buyer/seller

Financial Projections:

Revenue Model:

Licensing fees: $10-50M per manufacturer

Ongoing royalties: 3-5% of generator sales

Target: 10-20 licensing deals by 2035

Market Capture:

Goal: 25% of global energy market by 2040

100,000 generators deployed globally

Each generator: $5-10M manufacturing cost, powers 4-5K homes

Investor Returns (Hypothetical):

Scenario 1 (Conservative):

IPO valuation: $800M (10x current)

Your $50K investment @ $25/share = 2,000 shares

At 10x: $500K value = 10x return

Scenario 2 (Moderate):

IPO valuation: $4B (50x current)

Your $50K = $2.5M value = 50x return

Scenario 3 (Aggressive):

IPO valuation: $8B+ (100x current)

Your $50K = $5M+ value = 100x return

Disclaimers:

Projections are estimates, not guarantees

High-risk investment (R and D company, technical execution risk)

Past performance (10x share price growth since 2003) doesn't guarantee future results

But here's what we DO guarantee:

Published, peer-reviewed science

Transparent financial audits (SEC-required)

Mission-driven team (refused VC control)

Capital efficiency (proven track record)

Ready to discuss your investment strategy?

Book a call to explore:

Detailed financial projections (Excel model)

Risk factors and mitigation strategies

Large investor perks ($100K+: advisory board seat, lab tours, etc.)

Timing your investment (now vs. waiting for milestones)

BUTTON: deleted

Or invest now:

BUTTON: deleted

The math works. The science works. Let's build it together.

Ivy

P.S. - Investors $100K+ can negotiate custom terms (board seats, advisory roles, preferred reporting). Book a call to discuss.

Don't reinvent the wheel revisited

8/29/26:

The goal of the Shuttle system was reusability. It really did not reach that goal. Why not?

Private enterprise works better. There were too many chiefs, and not enuff injuns. You need one chief who runs the show. Then the injuns fall into line. The caveat is that the chief has got to know his business.

Elon Musk has the same goal, which is reusability. He is very close to achieving that. The shuttle wasn't all that close, but with the government, as it is set up in the USA, cannot make such a system work. Once they get into a program, the chiefs change, and the program is revised. That won't really work, ya'll.

Anyway, the Shuttle didn't, and now it is gone. The Shuttle derived system is designed to be expendable. So they've given up.

The "wheel" in the case of the Shuttle, didn't get invented.



Nov 21,2010: The original post is below:

I didn't know this before I wrote the original post- that the shuttle external tank reaches 98% of orbital velocity.  With a little more power, it can get into orbit instead of being sent back to a fiery doom during reentry from space.  So, why not use this as a resource as opposed to wasting it?  That's what I was writing about before, so I'll return to that subject again.

The Augustine Commission considered a Shuttle derived system as one of the possible heavy lift vehicles that will replace the Shuttle.  With a little less mass, as would be the case without a shuttle to put into orbit, the Shuttle derived system could reuse its external tank.  Since the tank already has 98% velocity with more mass, the reduction in mass (from not having to lift the shuttle) should make virtually the entire system  reusable.  But not as it is.  Once it arrives in space, it will need a little work to set it up as a permanent facility in space.

The external tank can be remodeled into a useful bit of machinery that could save a lot of money and do something useful.  Instead of putting extra rocketry on its sidemount, it could carry equipment and supplies that would be transferred to the inside of the tank so it can do the remodeling job.  How can you do that?  Well, I think that it would take a few modifications to the external tank in order to make this possible.  You would need to make a large door at end of the tank so that stuff could be put inside the tank after its launched into space.  Think of it as a hood and/or trunk type setup.

Each subsequent launch would add more equipment and supplies, but not a duplicate of what was sent earlier.  Instead, after the first tank was finished, launch the next tank into space.  Transfer the equipment that was no longer needed on the first, and equipment from the second is tranferred to the first for further work on the first.

In such a manner, an assembly line could be set up in space which would build a fleet of large habitats in space for future missions.  All that would be required after construction of one habitat is for a crew to come up in a separate vehicle and transfer to the large habitat.  Not only would the big external tank be a habitat, it would still have a large powerful rocket that could take it on missions back and forth.

 

AI discussion: BECNF and Cold Fusion

AI discussion of Cold Fusion II Question:

This question relates somewhat to the Cold Fusion post. With respect to the theoretical foundation, or shall we say, proposed theoretical foundation for the alleged phenomenon of Cold Fusion, there was mention of a term called "quasi-particles". My question is this: What exactly are quasi-particles? Do they actually exist? If so, can such particles behave in any comparable way with plain old particles?

Answer:

To understand quasiparticles, it helps to step out of high-energy particle physics (where people smash things together in a vacuum) and step into condensed matter physics (where trillions of particles interact in a solid, liquid, or lattice).

Here is a breakdown of what quasiparticles are, whether they "actually exist," how they compare to fundamental particles, and why they frequently show up in theoretical discussions like Cold Fusion / LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions ). 1. What Exactly Is a Quasiparticle?



A quasiparticle is an emergent, collective excitation inside a many-particle system (like a crystal lattice) that behaves mathematically and physically as if it were an independent, free-moving particle.

Instead of tracking the mind-bogglingly complex quantum interactions of 1023 electrons and atomic nuclei simultaneously, physicists noticed that the collective disturbances in the medium can be treated as single, localized entities with their own mass, charge, energy, and momentum.

The Stadium Analogy

Think of "The Wave" moving through a crowded sports stadium:

Comment: Cool!  Didn't know you could be a quasi-particle, didja?



- You can measure the wave’s speed, its direction, its wavelength, and the energy it carries.

- It can bounce off an empty section of seats or crash into another wave.

- Yet, there is no physical "wave particle." There are only individual people standing up and sitting down. The wave is an emergent phenomenon—a quasiparticle of the crowd.

Common Physical Examples

- Phonons: Quantized packets of sound or vibrational energy traveling through a crystal lattice. When atoms vibrate together, quantum mechanics quantizes that vibration into a particle called a phonon.

- Electron Holes: When an electron leaves its position in a semiconductor's valence band, the empty spot leaves an excess positive charge. Surrounding electrons jump into the void, making the "bubble" or empty spot move. Instead of tracking all the moving electrons, physicists treat the empty space as a positively charged particle called a hole.

- Polarons: An electron moving through a dielectric crystal pulls surrounding positive ions slightly toward itself, creating a cloud of local polarization that travels with it. The electron plus its surrounding distortion field behaves as a single, heavier quasiparticle called a polaron.

- Magnons: A quantized ripple in the magnetic alignment (spins) of electrons in a magnetic material.

- Cooper Pairs: Pairs of electrons bound together by interactions with phonons at low temperatures, responsible for conventional superconductivity.

2. Do They "Actually Exist"?

It depends on how you define "exist":

- If "real" means fundamental: No. If you take a crystal into deep space, smash it to dust, and vaporize it into a vacuum, the quasiparticles vanish. You cannot put a phonon or a hole in a jar and take it home. They cannot exist outside their host medium.

- If "real" means physically measurable and causally active: Yes, absolutely.

In modern physics, quasiparticles are not just convenient mathematical fictions; they are real physical entities within their environment: 1. You can collide things with them: If you shoot a neutron or an X-ray photon into a crystal, it will physically collide with and scatter off a phonon, exchanging measurable energy and momentum according to the exact same conservation laws that govern billiard balls.

2. They dictate real-world technology: Every modern semiconductor, computer chip, solar panel, and LED operates entirely on the physics of electron quasiparticles and holes. Superconductors and MRI machines rely on Cooper pairs.

3. Can Quasiparticles Behave Like "Plain Old" Particles?

Yes, almost completely. Inside their host medium, quasiparticles mirror fundamental particles in nearly every way:

A. Quantum Statistics (Bosons and Fermions) Quasiparticles strictly follow the rules of quantum mechanics:



- Fermionic Quasiparticles (like holes or polarons) have half-integer spin, obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and follow Fermi-Dirac statistics.

- Bosonic Quasiparticles (like phonons and magnons) have integer spin and can condense into the same quantum state via Bose-Einstein statistics.

B. Effective Mass (m*)

Inside a crystal lattice, an electron feels forces from all surrounding nuclei. Because of these interactions, the electron accelerates differently under an applied electric field than it would in empty space. It behaves as though its mass has changed:

- In some materials (like heavy fermion systems), electron quasiparticles behave as if they are hundreds or thousands of times heavier than a normal electron.

- In graphene, electrons interact with the honeycomb carbon lattice such tha t their effective mass becomes zero, causing them to move like massless relativistic particles (Dirac fermions) at a fraction of the speed of light.

C. Charge and Exotic Properties

Quasiparticles can even do things that isolated fundamental particles cannot:



- In the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, two-dimensional electron gases produce quasiparticles that carry fractional electric charges (such as e/3 or e/5), something completely impossible for isolated fundamental particles in standard field theory (quarks have fractional charges, but cannot exist freely).

- Majorana quasiparticles act as their own antiparticles inside topological superconductors.

Why Do They Come Up in Cold Fusion / LENR Theories?

Standard nuclear fusion requires extreme temperatures (millions of degrees) to overcome the Coulomb barrier (the electrostatic repulsion between positively charged nuclei). In a vacuum or standard plasma, two deuterons simply push each other away until smashed together with violent kinetic energy, releasing high-energy gamma rays and neutrons.

Cold Fusion / LENR theorists invoke quasiparticles to propose alternative mechanisms:

1. Screening the Coulomb Barrier: If electrons inside a metal lattice (like palladium or nickel) form heavy quasiparticles or collective electron-cloud states, their high effective mass or density might theoretically "screen" the positive charges of deuterons/protons, allowing them to get close enough to fuse at room temperature.

2. Energy Dissipation Without Gamma Rays: If fusion were to occur in a solid, where does the mega-electron-volt (MeV) energy go without lethal radiation? Theorists (such as Peter Hagelstein at MIT) have suggested that the nuclear energy is transferred directly into trillions of phonons (lattice vibrations) through coherent quantum coupling, turning nuclear energy directly into heat rather than dangerous radiation.

While mainstream physics remains skeptical about whether these lattice mechanisms can realistically bridge the massive energy gap between chemical solid-state physics (electron-volts) and nuclear physics (mega-electron- volts), quasiparticles are the primary theoretical bridge proposed.

Follow up question suggested by the GAB AI:

How do they relate to Cold Fusion?

Answer:

To understand how quasiparticles relate to the proposed mechanisms of Cold Fusion (now more commonly referred to in technical circles as LENR or Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), you have to look at the "Energy Gap Problem."

If you want to fuse two deuterium nuclei, you are fighting a massive electrostatic wall (the Coulomb Barrier) and you are trying to deal with a massive energy release (the Q-value). Mainstream physics says this requires extreme temperatures (stars/tokamaks) to bypass the barrier and typically results in high-energy neutrons.

Proponents of LENR argue that the condensed matter environment—the solid crystal lattice of a material like Palladium—changes the rules of the game via quasiparticles. Here is how they apply the concept:

1. Screening the Coulomb Barrier

The biggest hurdle to fusion is that positive nuclei repel each other. In a vacuum, two deuterons need immense kinetic energy to get close enough for the "Strong Nuclear Force" to take over.

- The Quasiparticle Theory: In a metal lattice, the electrons are not just sitting still; they are part of a dense, collective "electron sea." Some theorists argue that the deuterium atoms inside this lattice interact with polarons or high-density electron quasiparticle states.

- The Effect: If these quasiparticles can "bunch up" or create a high-density negative charge cloud around the deuterons, they could effectively "screen" or neutralize the positive charge of the nuclei. This would allow the nuclei to approach one another much more closely than they could in a vacuum, potentially allowing fusion to occur at room temperature.

2. The "Energy Dumping" Problem (The Phonon/Lattice Coupling)

In traditional "hot" fusion, the energy released (mostly as fast neutrons and gamma rays) is carried away by the products of the reaction flying apart at high speeds. This is why fusion reactors are so radioactive.

- The Quasiparticle Theory: One of the most common criticisms of Cold Fusion is, "If it were fusing, where is the radiation?" Proponents argue that the energy isn't being released as high-speed neutrons.

- The Mechanism: Instead of the energy going into kinetic motion, they propose that the nuclear reaction is coupled to the crystal lattice. In this scenario, the energy is transferred almost instantaneously into a massive number of phonons (quantized lattice vibrations).

- The Result: By "shunting" the energy directly into the vibrational modes of the metal lattice, the energy is converted into heat (lattice heat) rather than radiation. In this view, the crystal acts as a giant "heat sink" that absorbs the nuclear energy via quasiparticle excitations before it can manifest as dangerous gamma rays.

3. Coherent Quantum States

Some

- These theories suggest that instead of two nuclei fusing in isolation, the entire lattice acts as a "quantum system."

- Through the collective behavior of quasiparticles, the lattice can effectively "mediate" the nuclear reaction. This is often compared to a Maser or Laser, where a vast number of atoms act in unison rather than as individuals. If you can force a large number of particles to occupy a collective quantum state, you can potentially manipulate the energy levels of the reaction in ways that individual particles would never allow.

The Skeptical Viewpoint

To provide a balanced perspective, it is important to note why the mainstream scientific community remains highly skeptical of these quasiparticle models:

1. Energy Scales: There is a "10-order-of-magnitude" problem. Chemical/lattice effects (quasiparticles) operate at the level of electron-volts (eV). Nuclear reactions operate at the level of mega-electron-volts (MeV). Converting a million eV of nuclear energy into phonon excitations without producing intermediate high-energy particles is theoretically extremely difficult to justify.

2. Experimental Reproducibility: While the math of quasiparticles is rigorous and well-understood in semiconductor physics, applying it to nuclear fusion requires assuming that these collective effects can scale up to influence the nucleus. To date, no experimental data has demonstrated this "coupling" in a way that is universally accepted by the nuclear physics community.

In summary: Quasiparticles are the "glue" in these theories. They are the proposed mechanism that allows the environment (the solid metal) to reach into the heart of the atom (the nucleus) to either lower the barrier to entry or catch the energy on the way out. Whether this actually happens in nature, however, remains one of the most controversial topics in modern physics.

Boots and Oil Blog: What are magnons?

8/29/26:

This subject really won't die. There's going to be another government study of the issue of Cold Fusion to put it to bed for all time.

That might be a mistake. You cannot kill this thing unless you have a wooden stake.

Anyway, a search of the blog mentioned reveals a Rice University Professor's blog---NanoScale News. I did a search of his blog for posts on the subject of Magnons... Here's the search and results.

1/16/20: The original post, which in itself is a re-post of a 2010 post:

Boots and Oil Blog: What are magnons?: Good morning. This BECNF theory is on my mind this morning, so I'll start with that as my first post. I found the blog below in my qu...


I've seen a lot of clicks on the old cold fusion posts.  Here's a video that discusses Kim's BECNF theory.  It relies upon Bose-Einstein condensate ( BEC ) theory as a foundation for a theory on how cold fusion takes place.

DIY Wind Turbine for $32

8/28/26:

Your automobile's 12 volt charging system will put out a surprising (at least to me) amount of power. At idle, my van uses about 3/5ths of a gallon per hour.

It wouldn't be cheap nor efficient, but why buy anything? Keep the energy requirments low, and just hook up your 12 volt system in your car to your off-grid battery, and let the car's alternator charge her up.

I've already tried it out on the ranch, so it works. But of course it does, otherwise, how could you drive your car?

It may be a bit better to upgrade the voltage to 24 volts. I've tried that too in my experiments. There's a 24 volt inverter just collecting dust.

That reminds me, I haven't worked on my solar power trailer for awhile. Something wrong with the wiring. Always is. Anyway, you don't have to complicate things too much to have a workable scenario. Remember the KISS method--Keep it Simple, Stupid.

4/3/19: The original post follows below:

Retired at 40


He says that it works, but offered no proof.  It may have a weakness that even I can see.  Nevertheless, I am putting it up because it might actually be worth an attempt.  Someday, maybe.






A test of an actual out - of - the - box system rated at 400 W, but actually it got only about half that, he says.





Why bother with this???  Maybe for the exercise???

It generates about 10 amps according to his test.  A couple of solar panels will do that much, and would cost less.

Wind could be used if you want something of a backup in cloudy weather, which also has wind.

Also wind is 24/7, while the sun is only half a day.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another dude, John Daniel, who has a video showing his set up.  He is enthusiastic about his stuff, so maybe this would be worth another look some fine day.









Here's an older video below, which is probably the same turbine a year later above ^^^^^^




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

Installation of the wind turbine:

Shows how to do some welding.  Interesting.

Whatever happened to "cold fusion"?

The blog covered the topic for awhile, but moved on.

There seems to be an interest in the topic, so here's what GAB AI had to say about it.

GAB AI chat about cold fusion

There was a sensational claim in the eighties about "cold fusion". What happened to that? Were there new developments? Please give the history of this topic up until this very day.

Answer:

The story of "cold fusion" is one of the most famous controversies in modern science, beginning as a global sensation and settling into a long-standing stalemate that persists even today.

The 1989 Sensation

In March 1989, two reputable electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann (University of Southampton) and Stanley Pons (University of Utah), announced in a press conference that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature.

They claimed their "tabletop" apparatus—a glass cell filled with heavy water and a palladium electrode—produced more heat than could be explained by any known chemical reaction. They hypothesized that deuterium nuclei from the heavy water were being forced together within the palladium lattice, releasing energy. Because fusion (as seen in stars and hydrogen bombs) typically requires millions of degrees of heat, the scientific community was initially stunned and then deeply skeptical.

The Immediate Backlash (1989–1990s)

The global attempt to replicate the results yielded a series of failures. Within months, independent laboratories—including MIT and Caltech—reported that they could not detect the "excess heat" or the nuclear byproducts (such as neutrons) that should accompany fusion.

- Methodological Flaws: Critics identified significant errors in the duo's calorimetry (heat measurement) and nuclear monitoring.

- DOE Review: In November 1989, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) panel concluded there was no convincing evidence for the phenomenon, effectively halting federal funding and labeling the research as "pathological science."

- Academic Isolation: Fleischmann and Pons left the University of Utah for France in 1992, and the field largely disappeared from mainstream academic journals.

The "LENR" Transition and Continued Research

Despite the scientific consensus, a small, dedicated group of researchers continued the work, often renaming the field Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR),

Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS), or Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) to move away from the stigma of "cold fusion."

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, this community continued to publish in niche journals and advocate for funding, claiming they had identified repeatable experiments, though none achieved the level of rigorous validation required for acceptance by mainstream physics.

Developments and Current Status

The scientific establishment has revisited the topic periodically, but rarely with a change in outcome:

- 2004 DOE Review: A second DOE review, which looked at new data, again found that the evidence was not compelling. The panel was evenly split on whether "excess heat" occurred, but the majority remained unconvinced that a nuclear reaction was taking place.

- The "Break the Stalemate" Effort: As of August 2026, the field has seen a notable, if cautious, injection of interest. In February 2026, the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy) announced $10 million in funding for eight new projects. The specific goal of this initiative is not to "prove" cold fusion, but to finally "break the stalemate" and determine—once and for all—whether LENR holds any scientific merit or if it can be definitively debunked using modern, state-of-the-art materials science and diagnostic tools.

Summary

Today, cold fusion remains a fringe subject. While it is no longer considered a "hot" topic for mainstream physics, it has not been fully extinguished. The current scientific position remains that there is no accepted theoretical model for how such a reaction could occur at room temperature, and historical claims have not been robustly replicated. The ongoing ARPA-E projects represent the most significant formal scientific engagement with the topic in two decades, reflecting a desire to move beyond the 1989 controversy toward a final, data-driven conclusion.

Comment:

Some things never change. However, one thing that does puzzle me... Why didn't Fleischman and Pons not get any neutrons? There should've been neutrons in that reaction.

I'll ask GAB AI again as a follow-up.

I understand the scientific position, but what did Fleishman and Pons have to say about the absence of neutrons in their original experiment?

Answer:

Fleischmann and Pons were aware that the lack of detected neutrons was a major problem, as conventional fusion theory dictates that deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion should produce neutrons as a primary byproduct. Their response to this discrepancy evolved as they faced increasing scrutiny:

1. Initial Claims of Detection

In their initial March 1989 announcement, they claimed to have observed neutron emission. However, this was almost immediately challenged by the scientific community. When MIT researchers analyzed the data Fleischmann and Pons had published, they found the "neutron peak" in their data was statistically indistinguishable from background noise and that the detector used had been calibrated incorrectly.

By May 1989, as reported by the Washington Post, Fleischmann openly admitted that the neutron graph in their published work was inaccurate due to a malfunctioning detector, though he insisted the fundamental phenomenon (excess heat) remained real.

2. The "Nuclear Transmutation" Hypothesis

Once it became clear that the expected neutron flux was not present (or was at best several orders of magnitude too low), Fleischmann and Pons were forced to hypothesize a different, non-standard mechanism for their results. They suggested that the fusion occurring in the palladium lattice was fundamentally different from the fusion occurring in high-energy plasma (like in stars or tokamaks).

Their primary arguments included:

- Alternative Channels: They proposed that the reaction might be proceeding via a "neutroless" path. They speculated that the energy was being transferred directly into the palladium lattice as heat through a process they could not fully explain, rather than being released as high-energy particles (neutrons or gamma rays).

- Helium-4 Production: Because they were not seeing the expected neutrons, they hypothesized that the product was not a neutron and Helium-3, but rather Helium-4. They suggested that the extra energy was being carried away by the lattice itself in a "multi-body" reaction. This was highly controversial because, in standard physics, Helium-4 production requires the emission of a high-energy gamma ray, which they also did not observe.

- Screening Effects: They speculated that the dense electron cloud within the metallic lattice of the palladium might "screen" the positive charges of the deuterium nuclei, allowing them to approach one another more easily, though this theory never gained traction among nuclear theorists who pointed out the massive energetic barriers still involved.

3. The Shift to "New Physics"

Ultimately, to justify the absence of radiation, the pair and their subsequent supporters moved away from standard nuclear physics. They argued that the lattice environment was a unique "condensed matter" system that altered the behavior of the nuclei, essentially creating a "black box" where traditional conservation laws of radiation were bypassed by the metal's structure.

The critical issue remained:

The scientific community viewed these explanations as post-hoc justifications designed to save a failing hypothesis. If the reaction did not produce the energetic particles predicted by known physics, critics argued it was more likely that the "excess heat" was simply the result of flawed calorimetry (e.g., uneven temperatures within the electrolysis cell or chemical energy being mistaken for nuclear energy) rather than a novel, unknown type of nuclear reaction.

In short, Fleischmann and Pons' pivot to "neutroless" fusion was the point at which their work moved from being a "controversial physics claim" to being viewed by most of the scientific establishment as a "pseudoscientific error."

Final comment:

It appears to me that a concerted effort was made to discredit the two scientists who came up with this theory.

If Cold Fusion ever does make it to scientific orthodoxy, it wouldn't be the first time that a scientist was treated as being wrong, but eventually confirmed as being right.

Just human nature, I suppose.

ant killer borax!

8/24/26:

Insects in general do not like anything with boron in it. Borax has as one of its ingredients the element of boron. Seems like I've seen videos showing how to kill off wasps with a mixture of boron mixtures. Lately I've got an idea of using borax detergent to clean my clothes, and then using the waste water therein to spread around the perimenter of the joint. Over time, it will concentrate and form a natural barrier against ants, wasps, roaches and other of these nasty critters. In short, anything with boron in it will kill off insects. Probably not too good for people or pets either, so use common sense.

10/25/19: The original post follows:

Comment:

Updated:

10.25.19:

More ways to get rid of the ants in your pants.  Actually, the borax mixture with honey seems to work.  Ants are really attracted to the honey.



7.22.19:

It should be no surprise, but it is.  Mix up some hot water, borax, and put something sweet in the mixture.  The sweetness to the mixture attracts the ants, and they consume the poison.  It is slow acting, but it will kill them in a few days.

It reminds me of how well that stuff works with roaches.  However, the methods differ somewhat.  Roaches will die by crawling on it, but ants will consume it.  Will roaches consume the borax mixture?

Warning!  Do not let kids, pets, or other creatures to consume the stuff.  Not good.  Other than that, it is better and cheaper than bug spray.

Gobsmacked!

8/23/26:

It looks pretty danged real. I've seen videos of model planes that could land. But it is also possible that it is a CGI fake. In any case, it is pretty danged realistic looking.

Having seen the real thing, of course this is not IT. The noise from the real thing is so loud that you can FEEL it miles away.

This video is almost 7 years old, too. Something like this might be possible. Just look at how Ukraine is stalemating Russia with drones. Remote controlled vehicles are a real thing. The difference between this and the real thing is in the scale. SpaceX's machines are freaking huge and freaking powerful.

10/25/19: The original post follows:

Comment:

Is this real? If so, it is an RCS controlled device.  People do mess around with RCS planes and such. ( But I haven't seen rockets, especially ones like this.)

GAB AI chat about beavers

Here's another stab at the Beaver question, through AI:

... Recently, I became interested in beavers. It seems that those creatures can help in restoring degraded land into thriving oases. In particular, I was wonde- ring about any introduction of beavers into West Texas in the trans-Pecos region. Has anything been proposed or even implemented along those lines? Thank you.

Answer: 

 The idea of using beavers as "ecosystem engineers" to combat land degradation is a concept gaining significant traction in arid-land restoration. In the Trans- Pecos region of West Texas, the conversation is active, though the implementation faces unique challenges compared to wetter climates.

The Beaver's Role in Arid Restoration

As you noted, beavers are powerful restoration agents. By building dams, they:

- Slow the flow: They turn flashy, erosive streams into a series of interconnected ponds. - Raise the water table: This rehydrates riparian zones, bringing back native vegetation like willows and cottonwoods. - Filter sediment: They trap nutrient-rich soil that would otherwise be washed away during flash floods, which are common in the Trans-Pecos.

The Situation in the Trans-Pecos

There is no widespread "reintroduction" program in the Trans-Pecos, primarily because beavers have historically been present in parts of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. However, their populations were decimated by over-trapping in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and they have not naturally recolonized many of the smaller, intermittent streams where they could do the most good for restoration.

Current Initiatives and Proposals:

1. Beaver Dam Analogues (BDAs): Because introducing live animals into remote, arid, and often private lands is logistically and legally complex, many conservationists in Texas are currently favoring "Human-made beavers." BDAs are structures made of wooden posts and woven willow branches that mimic the effect of beaver dams. Organizations like the Texas Riparian Association and various soil and water conservation districts have been encouraging landowners to build these structures to jumpstart the restoration process.

2. The Rio Grande Advocacy: There are ongoing efforts by groups like the Rio Grande Joint Venture and academic researchers at institutions like Sul Ross State University (in Alpine, TX) to study the impact of riparian restoration. They recognize that if the water table is restored through beaver-like structures, it creates the necessary habitat for the beavers to potentially return or be reintroduced safely later.

3. Private Landowner Engagement: The Trans-Pecos is almost entirely privately owned. Implementing any program requires buy-in from ranching communities. Some progressive ranchers are experimenting with these methods to increase water availability for cattle and wildlife, viewing the beaver as a partner rather than a nuisance.

Obstacles to Implementation

- Water Rights: In the West, water law is notoriously rigid. Some opponents argue that beaver ponds might "consume" too much water through evaporation or unauthorized usage, potentially infringing on the rights of downstream water users.

- Extreme Flashiness: Unlike the perennial streams in the Pacific Northwest where beaver research is most famous, Trans-Pecos streams often run dry for months and then become raging torrents during "monsoon" thunderstorms. There is legitimate scientific debate about whether a beaver dam can survive a major West Texas flash flood.

- Legal Classification: In many parts of Texas, beavers are classified as "furbearers" or sometimes as nuisances that can be trapped or hunted with few restrictions. This makes it difficult to establish protected "colonies" where they can work undisturbed.

Summary

While you likely won't find a state-sponsored "Beaver Release" program in Alpine or Marfa today, the region is currently in the "proof of concept" phase. Through the use of Beaver Dam Analogues, conservationists are testing whether the landscape can support the return of the creatures. If these man-made structures prove successful in stabilizing the streams and raising the water table, you may see more formal proposals to reintroduce actual beaver populations to help maintain those systems in the future.

If you are interested in local efforts, the Borderlands Research Institute at Sul Ross State University is the primary hub for research on Trans-Pecos ecological restoration and would be your best resource for tracking specific local projects.

Every part of Elon Musk's empire just started connecting...

Brian Wang of NextBigFuture is in this interview, which is on the YouTube. It seems like Elon Musk has now gotten into medicine as well. It involves using AI to make customized drug treatments to cure cancer. Huge hopes are running on this.

That's just the opening of the video. It is close to an hour long.

BFR's potential

8/20/26:

Interesting to review this in light of what actually happened. SpaceX didn't call it the BFR, but renamed it the Starship/Heavy. The cost of development of the rocket itself came in at about the number mentioned below (if memory serves of one estimate I saw).

A moonbase will likely be constructed, as a return to the moon is now a NASA priority. Elon Musk wants to develop the Moon too.

I would favor a new ship be constructed that would launch from the moon to an EML collection point. It would be huge and capable of transporting thousands of colonists in relative comfort and safety. It would likely be a torus that could be rotated, and would have ample shielding from the deadly cosmic rays in interplanetary space.

The lunar base could supply some of the materials for the ship. The rest could come from the Earth. The "Battleship Galactica" would launch from an EML spot, which would require a minimum of Delta V to get into a Martian Capture orbit. From there, the crew could disembark via the Starship on multiple visits to the Martian surface. It could refuel there as many times as needed in order to bring all the colonists to the surface of Mars.

One hundred thousand colonists could traverse the distance from the EML location to Mars on each Holman cycle of about two years. Thus it would take about 20 years to get a million colonists on Mars.

10/30/18: The original post:

There was an article on NextBigFuture,  mentioned courtesy of Free Republic, which was about the BFR's development cost.  It is estimated to be anywhere from $2 billion to $10 billion.
Given the great potential of this rocket, it would be of the utmost national importance for the government to grant enough business to SpaceX so that they can have the necessary funds to develop the rocket.

You could do this with a moonbase project. It was estimated by NASA to be a project that was doable under the current NASA funding scheme.  The actual numbers ran out to about half of the Apollo project.

If a moonbase was turned into a commitment, such as with Apollo, it could be done in ten years at a price that should be even less than the NASA number.  Of course, SpaceX would have to win a competitive bidding war.  But it should be done as a national priority.

The government is not likely to do this however, as funding tends to get spread out over a number of states.  This doesn't work well with one company getting the lion's share of the business.

What purpose would a moonbase serve?  It could process lunar regolith into fuel.  The fuel could be used for deep space missions.

The most likely fuel from the moon would be oxygen.  Oxygen is not a fuel, but is a reaction mass.  For all intents and purposes, it is the same thing.

For the raptor engine, which uses methane, oxygen would be close to 80% of the reaction mass.  In such a scenario, it would be profitable for the BFR to land on the moonbase, load the oxygen, and transport it to a refueling depot at the L1 Lagrange point.

The advantage of using these points is that it takes less energy to get to the Lagrange point than to the moon itself.  Morever, the big rocket could be mostly fueled up for a trip outbound to Mars and other destinations.  One big rocket can service the Lagrange point, and provide extra for more ambitious missions.

Almost all of a rocket's launch mass is fuel and oxygen, so if you can get it elsewhere as opposed to the Earth, you can vastly improve access to the Moon and points beyond.

Best part of the show was this part

8/20/26:

It is odd that this kind of post is in this blog. What was I thinking???

Nostalgia... memories of things past... Well, in life, there are no "mulligans". You pass through just one time. Whatever you want to do, you better do while you have the chance.

12/11/25: The original post is below:

A bit of nostalgia about the 70's nostalgia period that produced this show--"Sha na na".

The Fly in the Ointment argument against anti-matter propulsion

8/18/26:

Civilization should be much further along than what it is. It's a shame.

12/24/24: The original post is below:

There's always a "but", isn't there

The stuff you need for this kind of rocket doesn't exist yet. It has to be invented. The fly in the ointment is the chicken and the egg too. If there's no bucks, there's no Buck Rogers.

The problem is that the Luddites have managed to convince us that economic growth is bad. It's called "Limits to Growth". It grew into the so-called environmentalism that has choked off economic growth in the West, and encouraged it to take place in the East.

In other words, the communists did it. We let the commies talk us into sabotaging our own economies. They'll lie about politics being downstream from culture, but amongst themselves they tout the reverse, which is described by Gramscii. Gramscii held that if the commies grabbed all of the high ground of the culture, they can seize the power. And so they have.

The cure is to take it back. But the fly in that particular ointment is that you can vote your way into communism, but you'll have to shoot your way out.

The issue hasn't been decided too much in favor of the commies yet. But they are really close. We have but a few years to turn this around.

Off-grid post 2.19.19 ; cinematic woes

8/15/26: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In French, according to google translate, it is: Plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les mêmes

But things do change. No more trailer. Plans may change because of circumstances. But I haven't given up on my off-grid project. It is still on the back burner. I think about it, but action is not in the cards at this time.

If the Focus Fusion device works, I may be coming into some money. It's always about the Benjamins. Even for me. I try not to, but there's no getting around it.

2.19.19, the original post is below:
A study of the videos reveals that my cinematic skills leave something to be desired.  I
resolve to do better in the future.

However, I do have a lot of video to look at now, which is of some comfort.

The attention recently has been in terms of maneuvering the trailer into a suitable spot.

The general area is decided, but details, details, details...

In addition to that, I am giving thought about a construction procedure for the foundation
pods.

For some reason, I am already running out of words.  But I wanted to put something up
anyway, so here it is.

"Cold Fusion" Facts Page

8/13/26:

Obviously, I haven't kept up on the news in this topic. Since nothing really big happened in the news, I suspect that not much is going on.

The website linked to is still good, by the way. I haven't reviewed the info. Perhaps it has been updated in the last decade. It's a little hard to tell. A bit of speculation: It may well be the case that the reactions do not produce enough energy to make electricity. If it does produce heat, and is economical to run, then perhaps the problem is in extracting what value that there may be in it. The production of heat for climate control may be a possible application. Quick update: Some of the old sites are still up. It isn't dead. Rossi is still out there.

5/28/11: The original post follows below:

Frequently Asked Questions About Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as "cold fusion")

Pretty good summary of what is known.  However, it hasn't been updated since 2009.

I support this project, please join me today!

8/12/26:

This has been 14 years. I don't recall if I made any kind of donation or anything.

The molten salt project was still alive, so far as I know. Perhaps when I have more time, I can check in with Gordon McDowell and see what he's up to these days.

Quick update:

Here's his video channel on YouTube

2/25/12: The original post was a video embed that no longer displays:

Using gravitational lens to image exoplanets. What a concept!

Raising the level of civilization may be a pipe dream

8/9/26:

Some say the internet is forever. But these old links go dead a lot. It's a good practice to check the old posts on a regular basis and see if they're still good. This one has a link that is still working, but the article link isn't there, or it wasn't good to begin with.

As for the title of this post, the level of civilization will rise, but not evenly. There is always the possibility of collapse, though.

The original post was on 2/15/12:

After getting back into the world for the last few weeks, I realize the difficulty of the concept of raising the level of civilization. Progress doesn't come easy, and it is also not guaranteed to continue with the gains that have been made.

People are not that civilized. I see it every day.

Are people really just smart apes after all?

Civilization has outraced biology. Human beings may not be ready for the high tech living we now enjoy, nor for any further advances.

This is not in any way considering the Luddites as correct. I would prefer continued progress, but progress may not be easy against the headwinds that also exist.

Docudharma ...blogging the future

8/8/26:

As Yogi Berra once said: "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

The hydrogen economy didn't materialize. It looks like the world is going to go for the batteries. But how to charge the batteries? It still takes hydro-carbons to power the world.

So-called "renewables" won't cut it. If that was going to work, it would've by now.

Nuclear power yields the most power, but that is being blocked for various reasons. Perhaps molten-salt reactors? Perhaps aneutronic fusion? It's still a waiting game after all these years.

11/6/11: The original post:

Marrying Stranded Wind and Freight Rail Electrification

The darker the blue, the windier it is- that's better for power generation

excerpts:

• It should, I hope, be clear that much of the best resource is in areas that do not have the highest electricity consumption.
• That right of way is used to establish long distance High Voltage DC trunk lines to bring sustainable energy from the places that have it to places the need it [ comment:  What if you can do away with high voltage trunk lines?  What I'm saying is, why does this have to be necessary?  Couldn't you make your fuel "in situ" and use it on the spot?  That is, synthesize fuel from wind power.  You can synthesize methanol and then use the methanol in a fuel cell, or use the methanol to make diesel.  How to build the synthesis plants?  You could possibly use airships to bring in the construction equipment and supplies to build the plants.  After finishing construction, the airships could bring raw materials for the synthesis of the fuel.  The fuel can be also be transported to fuel depots in a like manner.]

The next step is to see if airships can operate in high altitudes. That might be a problem, as most of these windy areas are in high altitudes.  This may be achievable if the effort needed was deemed to be worthy.

Update:

Strolling through memory lane.  Here's a post almost a year old which describes how methanol can be synthesized in a nuclear reactor.  Substitute wind power for nuclear power and you can synthesize methanol that way.  It is all a part of the master plan to switch to the hydrogen economy.

The Morning Summary, April 25, 2011

8/6/26:

Folks may want to know some stats. This blog was cross-posted from the original blog, and so this post was on the original blog. It should still be there, but this update won't be. Different blog now.

I'll give some general stats for this blog starting now.

All time views, per Google's Blogger Platform: 361464

April 25, 2011 : The original post:

The statistics:

Time approx 4:30 am

Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun

Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.

Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon.  Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.

New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.

YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.

It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.

Update:

I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.


Update:

One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.

Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.

Update:

It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this.  It is all an education, just like yesterday.  I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show.  It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.

If I may interject a thought into these discussions.  Everybody is going at this in their own way.  But what if no single way exists?  That's a question that should be considered.  Take fusion, for example.  The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute.  The problem is getting it to do what we want.  But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach.  Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth.  But I don't think anyone is thinking that way.  Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power.  Maybe that isn't even necessary.  That's my point. 

The human factor in research

8/6/26:

I'll take this opportunity to disclose that I've increased my position in Focus Fusion. This took place more than a month ago, but I've kept it quiet. Not sure about what to say about it. Let's say it's a hope and a prayer that this ship comes in soon.

4/16/26:

Today is an oldies kind of day. I'm reviewing posts for those which gathered the most attention. This one and the one previously posted this morning caught my eye. So I wrote an update for each.

What could be more human than finding something and then forgetting it? Then finding it again? The same is true on the historic scale as it is on the personal. I'm thinking of the Roman era, which was more advanced than some may have thought. Roman life may have been like living in nineteenth century, but it was a very long time ago--in ancient times. When Roman civilization collapsed in the Western half of Europe, there was an era called the Dark Ages. Life became primitive for centuries. It took a long time to recover.

There are lessons in history if you bother to notice. It is a lot like studying this blog and rediscovering posts like these. A question comes to mind: what does the future hold? As of now, there is no solution to the energy problem. There seems to be a war in Iran that is closely related to the problem of energy. If the energy problem were solved, would that help bring about world peace? It's a thought.

5/20/11:

Not too long ago, I did a number of posts on the subject of Rossi Focardi fusion research.  Then, yesterday, I came across the energy from Thorium proposition.  Both are attempting to do the same thing: generate energy from the atom.  The difference between the two is that one is fusion while the other is fission.  The similarities are that both had a lot of promise at one point, but seemed to fall by the wayside and recently rediscovered.

There has been a great deal of fear about nuclear energy.  Not to mention the worry about the wastes.  This did not concern me as much as others may have been because of what I read in Dixy Lee Ray's book  Trashing the Planet.  I suspect that a lot of the fear has to do with a lack of understanding which is exacerbated by the way that mishaps get reported in the news.  Hence, the Three Mile Island incident effectively shuts down the nuclear industry here.  A few years later, Chernobyl reinforced that fear.  Now Fukishima just adds to the climate of fear of things nuclear- these things just don't seem safe.  Now, Germany abandons nuclear power.  All of this is an overreaction.  Sadly, it may be unavoidable.  People will fear something they don't understand.   What to do?

The star crossed history of fission has been the impetus for fusion research.  But fusion is much harder.  After all these decades, we still don't have a fusion reactor which is net energy.  But people are looking and looking hard.  As for me, I've been looking closely at the energy issue for several years now.  I came across Dr. Bussard's Polywell concept.  It was one of the first things I wrote about on this blog.  Lately, two other concepts have caught my attention- Focus Fusion and Rossi Focardi's "cold fusion".   My own experience studying these ideas has brought something else to my attention- the human factor.  People fall in love with their ideas.  It is entirely human, but it is also hazardous in its own way.  It may blind us to other paths that we may take.  That's because to fall in love means the exclusion of all other choices.

To fear and to love are all too human.  But it is also possible to learn and keep an open mind.  Unfortunately, when emotions take over, the mind tends to close down.  Reason and logic go overboard and big mistakes can be made.  The reaction to this may draw the reaction- who do you think you are, Spock?  Yeah, maybe you weren't thinking that at all, and the Spock reference turns you off.  I've described times when I got turned off by something only to reconsider.  Sometimes to reconsider can be helpful.  Jumping to conclusions can't be good.  But it is easy to fall into that trap.  I try to avoid that as well as avoiding "drinking the Kool Aid."  I wrote about this Kool Aid stuff on this blog too.  I won't be drinking anybody's Kool Aid.  I'm keeping an open mind.

I haven't fallen in love with any one way of solving the energy problem.  It may turn out that the best way will get overlooked when something else is found.  Such has been the case of fission.  Just looking at the way we generate electricity now may look foolish in the future in comparison to how it might be done better with Thorium reactors.  Thorium reactors are smaller, cheaper and safer.  That is not a mere theoretical possibility.  They have already been built.  They weren't commercialized because it was thought better to be able to make bombs.  Thorium is not useful for making bombs.

However, Rossi Focardi may be right around the corner.  This idea may get the lead on Thorium and it may be back to the sidelines for Thorium.  Frankly, it doesn't make any difference to me who wins.  I think we all win when we solve the energy problem.  If it gets solved by fission or fusion- who cares, as long as it works.

Hydrogen peroxide & baking soda

8/6/26:

Ah, yes. It was about that time when I tried growing tomatoes, but it failed. Obviously, I haven't tried again.

The original post: 8/11/19: ... can help you grow your tomatoes.

It is cheap stuff and it probably works.  But I wouldn't know yet, because I haven't tried it.

It is useful to stockpile videos like these because one of these days...

Why go back to the Moon?

8/5/26:

The nation is now committed to going to the Moon again.

Not only the nation, but Elon Musk.

There are practical reasons for going there. There is an abundance of oxygen bound up in the rocks. Oxygen makes up roughly 80% of the reaction mass for the Raptor engines. This reaction mass can be sent to lunar orbit with relatively little cost through the use of propulsion devices on the surface. That could consist of the same kind of technology that flings jets off the new Ford class of Supercarriers--no fuel needed. Not only oxygen, but methane could be produced from the water recycling process used on the ISS. Methane is vented off the ISS, but methane could find some useful purposes on the lunar surface as well. One of these purposes could be in the manufacture of rocket fuels.

The Moon could also be a launching point for the trip to Mars, since its gravitational pull is much less than Earth's. Since the Ship would be full, it could develop a lot more delta-v for a faster trip. A faster trip could lower the exposure of the crew to microgravity and radiation.

The moon could also be developed for its other resources. This and the reasons above could make it economically profitable in its own right. In other words, there's money to be made.

11/19/18: The original post follows: Let's look back at why President Kennedy wanted to go to the Moon.




An analysis of the speech is here.

Key points of the analysis:

• Fear of Sputnik, and the breakneck speed of advancement of that time prepared the audience in advance for the ambitious undertaking that the President advocated.  America must lead that effort, he said.
• The march of progress will go on whether we lead it or not.
• Framed within the context of the Cold War, and inextricably linked to it, it was hard for opponents to be critical of the President's goal.
• Need to be challenged--- "We go to the moon not because it is easy, because it is hard."
• There will be sacrifice of life and treasure, but the sacrifice will be worth it.
• It is like the reason given for climbing Mt. Everest, "it is there".
• Finally, the speech was said to be well executed and effective.

How does that speech compare with the present?  There is no Cold War, but there could be a conflict of some kind on the horizon with China.  The march of progress has gone on indeed, and is much more broad based than just space.  The US is in danger of being left behind across the board, in my opinion.  As for the need for a challenge, it is probably more necessary now than ever.  This country has become too inured to the easy way out.  We need the challenge so that we don't become too soft.  

Mt. Everest is still there, and so is the Moon.  Why not go?  We may be surprised at what we find.

How to use Shotcut in order to make videos

8/4/26:

Almost have forgotten that I have this installed on the computer. Here's another how to video in order to remind me.

7/6/26: The original post is below:

Where does this blog go for the future?

8/2/26:

The future is now, as far as yours truly is concerned. Whatever I do, I must do soon. Know what I mean, Vern? This is not being morbid, but at this age, anything can happen at any time.

The original post follows:

7/24/24:

Not only will off-grid posts go here, but also cutting edge tech. Not much else to say on the subject right now. Politics has the floor, so to speak.



Correction to right sidebar when I get around to updating it. In the link described as up to date spacex mission info, substitute this link. Still going through the list, so bear with me.

Hot Air: Bad news from NASA: If we don’t reduce carbon emissions, the aliens might come and kill us; Update: Not a NASA report

July 31, 2026:

It seems like a joke to me. Whatever.

August 20, 2011: The original post follows below:

The bad news is, they might not find them. The good news is, the resulting alien invasion will inspire the Keynesian orgy of Paul Krugman’s wettest dreams.

Krugman gets slammed pretty good there, ha ha.   Unfortunately, the incompetence is out there.  The story here is of that very thing.  It has gotten pretty darned bad.  At least NASA isn't that far gone, they have disavowed the report, but the perps are "affiliated" with NASA, nonetheless.  It is really sad that people could write such nonsense.  Even sadder still is that there's people who may believe it.

So will this... (water purification)

Always interesting to rediscover what was already known for hundreds or even thousands of years.

This will work

Yours truly discover boric acid decades ago. I used it to get rid of roaches. Later on, I heard that boric acid will kill any insect. Given that it is in Borax, and Borax is a soap, its additional potential applications should be self-evident. It is also true that it should be respected. It won't be helpful to swallow any of this stuff yourself. Nor any of your children nor pets.

Speculation about various mission profiles to the moon using what's already out there or being developed

If Starship lander doesn't work on the moon, what could take its place, while still using its massive capabilities? This is what I speculated upon with the AI vetting my ideas. The best response seemed to be in using the Blue Origin lander inside of the Starship.

Blue Origin also wants to go to the moon. Would a moon lander fit inside of the Starship cargo area?

Yes, an entire Blue Origin lunar lander—specifically their Blue Moon architecture (such as the MK1 cargo variant or the larger MK2 human-landing system being developed for NASA's Artemis V mission)—could fit inside the Starship cargo area, provided it is engineered to respect the dimensional limits of the bay.

Blue Origin's Moon Landers vs. Starship's Cargo Bay

Blue Origin has two primary lunar lander concepts in development:

1. Blue Moon MK1 (Cargo Variant): Designed to deliver up to 3 metric tonnes of payload to the lunar surface. It has a diameter of roughly 7 meters and stands around 10 to 12 meters tall.

- Fit Test: Because its diameter is around 7 meters (fitting within Starship's 8-meter dynamic envelope) and its height is well under the 17–22 meter length of the cargo bay, the MK1 lander can easily fit entirely inside Starship's cargo hold.

2. Blue Moon MK2 (Human Landing System / Artemis): This is a much larger vehicle designed for crewed descents. It utilizes a BE-7 engine powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. While its exact fully-outfitted dimensions are tightly guarded, the descent stage diameter and height are tailored to fit inside traditional commercial heavy fairings (like New Glenn's 7-meter fairing).

- Fit Test: If a MK2 lander (or a scaled version of it) is designed with a diameter under 7.5 to 8 meters and a length under 15 meters, it could be packed into Starship's cargo bay and deployed in Low Earth Orbit or lunar orbit. However, because hydrogen tanks are notoriously voluminous (due to hydrogen's low density), a fully assembled human-class hydrogen lander might push right up against the absolute limit of Starship's volumetric capacity.

The Irony of Competitors Utilizing Starship

While Blue Origin and SpaceX are fierce commercial rivals in the new space race, the math of heavy-lift logistics creates a fascinating scenario: SpaceX's Starship is essentially the only vehicle currently operating or in development with a cargo bay large enough to swallow a competing company's heavy lunar lander whole.

If an agency or private entity wanted to launch a Blue Origin-style lander into Earth orbit or onto a trans-lunar trajectory using a vehicle other than New Glenn or SLS, Starship's 1,000-cubic-meter volume and 150-tonne capacity make it the ultimate universal heavy-lift delivery truck. Instead of building a custom, multi-billion-dollar rocket to launch their lander, a competitor could theoretically buy a Starship ride, pop the lander out of the side-door "PEZ dispenser" in LEO, and send it on its way to the Moon.

Here's another idea: What about the Falcon 9 and Dragon? What is the masses and dimensions of the second stage Falcon 9 rocket and dragon capsule?

If a second stage of Falcon 9 and Dragon were to be launched on a Starship, what could that combination do? Could it get to the moon?

Launching a Falcon 9 second stage and a Dragon spacecraft inside of Starship’s cargo bay as a secondary payload combo sounds like a wild sci-fi concept, but purely from a rocketing and delta-V perspective, it opens up some fascinating orbital mechanics.

The Setup: What You're Deploying

If you eject the Falcon 9 second stage and the Dragon capsule out of Starship's cargo door in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), you essentially have a completely independent, highly capable orbital stack.

- The Falcon 9 Second Stage brings its single Vacuum Merlin engine and roughly 111.5 tonnes of RP-1/LOX propellant.

- The Dragon 2 brings its own Draco thrusters, SuperDraco abort engines, life support systems, avionics, and a pressurized cabin.

Could It Get to the Moon?

Short answer: Yes, but with some heavy modifications and severe operational caveats.

If the Falcon 9 second stage were fully fueled in LEO (which would require Starship to act as a gas station to pump propellants into it, or launching the stage pre-fueled inside a pressurized/safe Starship bay), let's look at the delta-V math:

1. Delta-V Budget: The Falcon 9 second stage with a lightweight payload like Dragon has a massive vacuum specific impulse ($I_{sp} \approx 348\text{ seconds}$) and a great mass ratio. Unloaded from Earth's deep gravity well (since Starship did the heavy lifting to LEO), that second stage sitting in orbit possesses roughly 4,000 to 5,000 m/s of delta-V.

2. Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI): To get from LEO to a lunar intercept requires roughly 3,100 to 3,200 m/s of delta-V. Mathematically, the F9 second stage has more than enough energy to push Dragon out of Earth orbit and onto a trajectory toward the Moon.

The Massive Engineering Hurdles

While the raw math works out, executing this in reality would be an engineering nightmare for several reasons:

- Propellant Boil-Off and Compatibility: Falcon 9 uses RP-1 (refined kerosene) and Liquid Oxygen (LOX). While LOX requires cryogenic cooling, RP-1 is stable at room temperature, which is nice. However, the Falcon 9 upper stage avionics, batteries, and pressurization systems (helium tanks) are not designed for long-duration coast phases in deep space. Falcon 9 upper stages typically burn out within hours of launch; keeping one alive and functional for a multi-day lunar transit would require completely rewriting its electrical and thermal control systems.

- Thermal Protection for Lunar Reentry: Dragon is engineered to survive reentry from Low Earth Orbit (returning from the ISS at roughly 7.8 km/s). If Dragon is sent to the Moon and comes back, it will hit Earth's atmosphere at trans-lunar return speeds of roughly 11 km/s. Dragon's PICA-X heat shield is fundamentally not designed or certified to handle the extreme thermal and radiative flux of a lunar return without burning through.

- Redundancy: Dragon lacks a deep-space habitation environment, heavy radiation shielding, and long-duration life support for a crew to travel to the Moon and back safely outside of Earth's magnetosphere.

Why Do It When Starship is Already There?

The ultimate irony of this thought experiment is that Starship itself is already a vastly superior vehicle for the job.

If Starship has already hauled the Falcon 9 stage and Dragon up to LEO, Starship itself has 1,000 cubic meters of volume, life-support capabilities, and with orbital refueling, enough delta-V to land on the Moon and come back directly (as seen in the Artemis HLS contract). Using a Falcon 9 second stage as a makeshift lunar kick-stage for a Dragon capsule would be like packing a smart car inside the back of a semi-truck, only to hitch a lawnmower engine to the smart car to finish the trip.

Still, it highlights the sheer scalability of Starship—the fact that you can fit an entire traditional orbital launch vehicle inside of another rocket's payload bay proves just how much the paradigm of spaceflight has shifted.

How much payload could it land on the Moon?

If you were to use a fully fueled Falcon 9 second stage as a lunar kick-stage to push a Dragon capsule toward the Moon, how much payload could it actually land on the lunar surface?

The short answer is: Zero, because neither the Falcon 9 second stage nor the Dragon capsule is designed to land on the Moon.

Unlike Starship (which has its own heat shield and massive Raptor engines for a propulsive touchdown) or a dedicated lunar lander, neither piece of this hardware has landing legs, surface engines, or a descent guidance system.

However, if we adjust the thought experiment—turning the Falcon 9 second stage into a lunar orbital insertion and landing stage, or assuming we strap a makeshift landing frame to it—let’s look at what the math says about its mass limits on the lunar surface.

1. The Mass Budget in LEO

Once delivered to Low Earth Orbit by Starship, your stack looks like this: - Falcon 9 Second Stage (Dry): ~4,000 kg - Falcon 9 Second Stage Propellant (RP-1/LOX): ~111,500 kg - Dragon 2 Capsule + Trunk (or equivalent payload): ~12,000 kg (max) - Total Stack Mass in LEO: ~127,500 kg (~127.5 tonnes)

2. The Delta-V Journey to the Moon

To take that entire 127.5-tonne stack from LEO, inject it to the Moon (TLI), capture into lunar orbit, and de-orbit/land, you need a staggering amount of delta-V:

1. Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI): ~3,150 m/s

2. Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI): ~900 m/s (assuming you go into orbit first)

3. Powered Descent & Landing: ~2,000 m/s (since the F9 engine cannot throttle down low enough to hover a heavy vehicle on the Moon, you would need an entirely different landing engine, but let's assume ideal rocket math).

Total required delta-V from LEO to the lunar surface is roughly 6,050 to 6,500 m/s.

3. Running the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation

The Falcon 9 second stage's single Vacuum Merlin engine has a specific impulse ($I_{sp}$) of about 348 seconds in a vacuum.

If you burn the entire 111,500 kg of propellant available in the second stage to push the dry stage (4,000 kg) and a payload all the way to a lunar landing:

- With a total initial mass of 127.5 tonnes and a total delta-V requirement of ~6,200 m/s, the exponential mass ratio eats away at your capacity very quickly.

- By the time the second stage performs TLI and decelerates into a lunar landing trajectory, the remaining payload mass you could safely set down on the lunar surface is roughly 2 to 4 metric tonnes—assuming you added landing legs, guidance computers, and a secondary low-thrust landing engine to handle the final touchdown.

The Ultimate Reality Check

While you could theoretically squeeze 2 to 4 tonnes onto the Moon using a hacked-together F9 upper stage, it highlights why this approach is completely impractical:

1. Dragon Can't Land There: Dragon relies entirely on Earth's atmosphere for parachutes and a water landing. On the Moon, it's a dead brick with no air.

2. Merlin Can't Hover: The Merlin 1D Vacuum engine is optimized for high-thrust space burns; it cannot throttle down low enough to soft-land a vehicle on the lunar regolith without digging a crater and destroying itself.

3. Starship Does It Better: Starship HLS (Human Landing System) is designed to land 100 metric tonnes directly on the Moon and lift crew back off, all using a single vehicle that launched from Earth (with orbital refueling).

So, while putting an F9 upper stage and a Dragon inside Starship is a fun geometry puzzle, trying to turn them into a lunar lander is like trying to turn a speedboat into a submarine—it's the wrong tool for an entirely different ocean!

What if we add landing legs and engines?

Isn't the Dragon used as an escape stage if something goes wrong with the launch? If that's true, then how does dragon land?

You are thinking of the Launch Abort System (LAS), which is a critical safety feature for crewed spacecraft. However, how the Dragon handles aborts and how it lands are two different mechanisms, and there is a unique twist with how SpaceX designed the Dragon 2.

How Dragon's Abort System Works

Unlike older spacecraft (like Apollo or Orion) that use a giant tower with solid-propellant rockets on top of the capsule to pull it away from danger, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon does things differently.

- Integrated SuperDraco Thrusters: Crew Dragon has 16 SuperDraco engines built directly into the side walls of the spacecraft's hull.

- The Abort Sequence: If the Falcon 9 rocket suffers a catastrophic failure on the pad or during ascent, the SuperDracos instantly fire with immense thrust (pushing the capsule away at over 400 miles per hour in seconds) to tear the Dragon clean away from the exploding booster.

- The Trunk Separation: Once the capsule is safely clear of the danger zone, the unpressurized "trunk" (which houses the solar panels and grid fins) is jettisoned, and the capsule orients itself for a safe parachute descent.

How Dragon Lands

Despite early plans by SpaceX to have Dragon land propulsively on solid ground using those same SuperDraco thrusters and deployable landing legs, that concept was scrapped.

- Water Landings: Today, every operational Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon lands exclusively in the ocean (the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida).

- The Parachute Sequence: After reentering Earth's atmosphere, the capsule deploys two drogue parachutes to stabilize itself, followed by four massive main parachutes to slow its terminal velocity down to about 16 to 18 mph (25 to 29 km/h).

- Splashdown: The capsule splashes down into the water, where recovery ships scoop it up. The water acts as the ultimate shock absorber, eliminating the need for heavy landing legs or propulsive landing engines.

What About Cargo Dragon?

It is also worth noting that Cargo Dragon (Dragon 2)—the version used to resupply the International Space Station—does not even have SuperDraco abort engines. Because there are no humans on board, it doesn't need a launch abort system. It relies purely on the Falcon 9's normal flight safety systems during launch, and it returns to Earth using the exact same parachute and ocean-splashdown method as the Crew Dragon.

Why was propulsive landing scrapped?

SpaceX’s decision to scrap propulsive landing for the Crew Dragon capsule—originally designed to touch down on solid ground using its SuperDraco thrusters and deployable landing legs—was one of the toughest engineering pivots in the company's history.

Elon Musk announced the cancellation in 2017, and it came down to a combination of regulatory roadblocks, engineering complexity, and the realization that the juice simply wasn't worth the squeeze.

Here are the primary reasons why propulsive landing was dropped:

1. NASA’s Certification and Safety Requirements

When SpaceX signed its Commercial Crew contract with NASA to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, safety was the absolute non-negotiable priority.

- Unproven Tech for Human Return: Landing a capsule propulsively on land had never been done before in human spaceflight (the Soviet/Russian Soyuz uses parachutes and soft-landing solid retrorockets right at the ground, but it still lands under a canopy; Apollo splashed down in the ocean).

- The "Factor of Safety": NASA's safety panels were deeply skeptical. Proving that a propulsive landing system would work with a 100% success rate under every conceivable failure mode (such as an engine failing to ignite, guidance software glitches, or high crosswinds at touchdown) required mountains of paperwork, testing, and risk analysis that threatened to delay the program for years.

2. Qualification of the Landing Legs

Designing structural landing legs that can fold tightly into the aerodynamic contour of a spacecraft, survive the blistering heat of atmospheric reentry (up to 1,600°C), and then successfully deploy and lock in place right before touchdown proved to be a brutal engineering challenge.

If the legs failed to deploy, the capsule would essentially crash onto its side, risking the lives of the crew. Qualifying those mechanisms to NASA's standards was a massive hurdle.

3. The Path of Least Resistance (Parachutes Already Worked)

SpaceX had decades of historical precedent and existing data showing that parachutes and ocean splashdowns work reliably.

- While parachutes require naval recovery teams, ships, and a bit more logistical turnaround time than touching down on a concrete pad at Cape Canaveral, they are fundamentally simpler and have a predictable physics profile.

- By dropping the propulsive landing requirement for Dragon, SpaceX could focus its engineering talent and capital entirely on perfecting Falcon 9 and Starship booster landings (where propulsive landing does make immense economic sense).

The Ultimate Irony

While propulsive landing was scrapped for Dragon, the lessons learned from trying to make it work directly fed into Starship.

SpaceX took the core concept—using heavy retro-propulsion to land a spacecraft vertically without runways or parachutes—and scaled it up to the massive Starship vehicle. So, while Dragon settled for a traditional ocean splashdown, the ghost of propulsive landing lives on in every Starship test flight today.

Two launches versus up to 16. Which would you prefer?

There's a criticism of the Artemis configuaration as Starship HLS module would require a large number of launches. Is there a way around this? There just might be, but will that be the way it goes? Let's explore that with an AI dialogue...

Let's discuss SpaceX's Starship once again... Do you have the specifications of the Starship? That is, how much of the interior volume is reserved for cargo and crew? Is it possible to draw that in a schematic which would show how much of the ship's length is available for cargo and crew?



Yes, SpaceX’s Starship is an absolute engineering marvel, designed from the ground up to completely transform humanity's access to space and enable deep-space colonization.

Starship Specifications & Internal Volume

When looking at the overall vehicle dimensions, the Starship upper stage stands approximately 50 meters (164 feet) tall with a diameter of 9 meters (30 feet).

Within that upper stage, the total internal volume—often referred to as the payload bay or combined crew/cargo volume—is roughly 1,000 cubic meters (though some older or more conservative estimates place the pressurized/usable volume around 614 to 825 cubic meters depending on the specific block configuration and whether it's outfitted for cargo or crew). For comparison, that is roughly equivalent to the total pressurized volume of an entire wide-body commercial airliner like an Airbus A380.

- Cargo Configuration: Features a massive payload bay that is roughly 17 to 22 meters in length (with an 8-meter dynamic envelope diameter), capable of hauling up to 150 metric tonnes to Low Earth Orbit in a fully reusable mode (and over 200 tonnes if expended).

- Crew Configuration: Replaces or integrates the cargo space with a pressurized section designed to hold up to 100 passengers, complete with private cabins, large communal areas, centralized storage, solar storm shelters, and life-support systems that recycle air and water.

Length Schematic Representation

While I cannot directly output an image file, we can visualize the breakdown of the Starship upper stage's 50-meter length through a text-based structural schematic.



+-------------------------------------------------------+ <- Nose Cone / Tip (0m) | | | FORWARD FLAPS / AERODYNAMICS | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ <- Approx. 10m - 12m mark | | | | | CARGO BAY / CREW SECTION | | (~1,000 m³ Total Volume) | | Length available: ~17 to 20 meters | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ <- Approx. 28m - 32m mark | | | COMMON BULKHEAD / LIQUID METHANE (CH4) | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ <- Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Tank | | | COMMON BULKHEAD / LIQUID OXYGEN | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ <- Approx. 44m mark | | | ENGINE BAY & RAPTOR ENGINES | | (3 Sea-Level + 3 Vacuum Raptors) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ <- Aft Heat Shield / Base (50m)



As you can see from the breakdown, roughly one-third to two-fifths of the upper stage's total height is dedicated entirely to the payload and crew zone at the top, sitting cleanly above the massive propellant tanks (liquid methane and liquid oxygen) and the heavy Raptor engine bay at the base. This layout keeps the center of mass optimized for atmospheric reentry and landing maneuvers.



Looking at the text based schematic you provided, it looks like the nose cone/tip along with the forward flaps and aerodynamics take up about 10 meters of the total length. What would happen if the cargo/area was moved here, and the aerodynamics/ flaps were moved down? I am thinking of the possibility of making this a 3 stage vehicle, which would separate from each other after attaining orbit. The lower stage would return to the ground as usual. The upper stage would be outfitted with its own engines and control surfaces for returning to Earth.



Rearranging the layout of Starship by moving the cargo bay up into the nose cone and shifting the forward flaps and control surfaces down presents some fascinating aerodynamic and structural trade-offs. While exploring novel staging concepts is a hallmark of aerospace innovation, doing this to turn Starship into a 3-stage orbital vehicle introduces severe engineering hurdles.

1. Moving the Cargo to the Nose Cone (Mass and Center of Gravity)

If you relocate the cargo or crew compartment all the way up into the forward tip of the nose cone, you are shifting the dry mass center of gravity (CoG) significantly forward.

- Atmospheric Reentry and Skydive: Starship relies heavily on a precise center of mass during its supersonic "skydive" descent. It enters the atmosphere belly-first at a high angle of attack, using the forward and aft flaps to control its pitch, roll, and yaw. If the heaviest components (cargo/crew or a dedicated upper-stage propulsion system) are packed into the extreme nose, the aerodynamic moment arm changes drastically. The vehicle would tend to want to "dart" nose-first rather than stabilize in its flat, drag-inducing belly-flop posture.

- Structural Loads: The extreme tip of a rocket experiences immense aerodynamic bending moments during Max-Q (maximum dynamic pressure). Placing a heavy payload volume right at the apex would require reinforcing the nose cone with much heavier, thicker materials, eating directly into your payload capacity.

2. Moving the Aerodynamic Flaps Down

Shifting the forward flaps downward—closer to the middle or lower section of the ship—disrupts their primary aerodynamic function.

- Control Authority: The forward flaps act as canards to keep the nose pitched up during descent. If you move them too far down toward the middle of the vehicle, they lose their leverage over the pitch axis.

- Thermal Protection: The lower half of the Starship experiences the most intense plasma heating during reentry. Putting delicate actuation mechanisms, hinges, and control surfaces further down means they would be subjected to harsher thermal environments, requiring even heavier heat-shield tiles and active cooling.

3. Turning Starship into a 3-Stage Vehicle

Your idea of a 3-stage vehicle—where the booster (Super Heavy) launches, and the upper stage splits into two separate orbital sub-stages—changes the operational paradigm completely. Currently, Starship is a 2-stage-to-orbit (2STO) architecture (Super Heavy + Starship).

- The Staging Penalty: Every time you add a stage, you add another set of interstage hardware, separation mechanisms, pneumatic pushers, and an entirely new engine ignition sequence in the vacuum of space. While staging helps maximize delta-V for deep space missions, the dry mass penalty for a third stage on a vehicle this size can quickly outweigh the performance gains.

- Operational Complexity: SpaceX's entire philosophy revolves around rapid reusability and minimizing points of failure. Managing three separate returning vehicles from a single launch (the booster, a mid-stage/upper-stage 1, and an upper-stage 2) would multiply the logistical and recovery complexity exponentially.

That said, looking at alternative configurations is how aerospace engineers test the boundaries of what is possible. If you were designing this 3-stage variant, how would you handle the propellant distribution across those separated segments once they are in orbit?



Let's set that 3 stage idea aside. Let's look at what could be put inside of the cargo area and deployed to space after reaching orbit. It looks to me that the cargo area may be limited to how big of an object can be placed there. How much of that cargo area can be utilized if the doors are limited in how wide it can open? Can an object close to the full size of the cargo area be deployed into space, or would something need to be downsized a bit in order to deal with the limitations?



You have hit on one of the most critical real-world design constraints of the current Starship cargo architecture. While the interior volume of the cargo bay is roughly 1,000 cubic meters, what you can actually fit and deploy is strictly governed by the "dynamic envelope" and the physical geometry of the payload door.

The Starship Cargo Door Limitation

Unlike a traditional rocket fairing that splits entirely in half and falls away (exposing the entire circumference of the payload), Starship uses a longitudinal "peel-back" clamshell-style cargo door that runs along one side of the cylinder.

- Door Dimensions: The opening is roughly 8 meters in diameter and about 17 to 22 meters long, but because it is a side-opening hatch rather than a full separation fairing, payloads cannot simply be pushed straight out radially without clearance, nor can they match the full 9-meter outer diameter of the ship's hull.

- The Dynamic Envelope: SpaceX specifies a payload envelope diameter of roughly 8 meters to account for structural walls, internal mechanisms, and clearance during deployment.

Can You Fit an Object Close to the Full Size?

The short answer is no, you cannot deploy an object that fills 100% of the cargo bay's internal dimensions. You always have to downsize or segment payloads to deal with several hard geometric and mechanical limitations:

1. Clearance and Translation: To eject a large satellite, telescope, or habitat module out of the side-opening door, the object must be translated (pushed out) using a mechanical deployment arm, pneumatic pushers, or a specialized rail system. If an object completely fills the cross-section of the bay, it will jam against the edges of the door frame as it tilts or moves outward.

2. Length vs. Turning Radius: If a payload is close to the maximum 17 to 22-meter length of the bay, clearing the door is an even bigger geometric challenge. The object has to pivot or slide out linearly without clipping the lips of the hatch.

3. Internal Infrastructure: A portion of that 1,000 cubic meters is taken up by mounting points, deployment mechanisms, avionics, and plumbing.

How Large Payloads Are Handled

To get massive structures into space using Starship without hitting these door and volume bottlenecks, engineers rely on a few specific strategies:

- Modular Assembly: Instead of one monolithic object that fills the entire bay, payloads are built as interlocking modules that are deployed separately and assembled in orbit (using robotic arms or EVAs).

- Deployable/Inflatable Structures: Just like the James Webb Space Telescope had to fold up to fit inside an Ariane 5 fairing, Starships will rely heavily on unfurlable solar arrays, telescoping trusses, and inflatable habitat modules that expand exponentially after clearing the cargo door.

- The "Gateway" Evolution: There have been continuous discussions within the aerospace community about whether future iterations of Starship might need a full nose-cone separation or a wider-opening mechanism for truly out-of-spec deep space infrastructure, but the current side-door layout remains the baseline for operational efficiency and structural integrity during reentry.

Given your answer above with regards to the largest sized object that Starship could deliver to space, what would that look like in terms of dimensions and mass possibilities? I am thinking of delivering separate modules that could be assembled in space for deep space missions-- like the Moon or Mars.

Delivering large, modular components to build deep-space infrastructure for the Moon or Mars is precisely the mission profile Starship was built for. Because you cannot deploy a monolithic structure that completely fills the internal dimensions of the cargo bay, any deep-space module must be engineered around the ship's practical deployment limits.

Maximum Practical Dimensions of a Single Module

To ensure a module can safely clear the side-opening "PEZ dispenser" style door without jamming against the hull or the doorframe, the absolute maximum practical dimensions for a single deployable unit are:

- Maximum Diameter / Width: 7.5 to 8 meters. (Leaving a small clearance buffer inside the 9-meter hull and 8-meter dynamic envelope).

- Maximum Length: 15 to 17 meters. (Leaving enough margin at the top and bottom of the roughly 17 to 22-meter bay for deployment rails, pusher mechanisms, and clearance as the module pivots or slides out).

- Usable Volume per Module: Roughly 500 to 700 cubic meters per single launch, leaving room for the deployment hardware.

Maximum Mass Possibilities

In terms of mass, the limits are defined by Starship's performance envelope rather than volume:

- To Low Earth Orbit (LEO) - Reusable: Up to 150 metric tonnes. This is your baseline for heavy cargo heading to an orbital staging depot or assembly node.

- To LEO - Expendable: Up to 250+ metric tonnes, if you decide not to recover the ship (though this is rare for standard operations).

- To Deep Space (Trans-Lunar Injection or Mars Transfer): If Starship is refueled in LEO by tanker flights, it can deliver that entire 100 to 150-tonne payload capacity directly to the lunar surface (as seen with the Artemis HLS variant) or inject it onto a direct Mars transfer trajectory.

What These Assembled Deep-Space Modules Look Like

If you are designing a deep-space habitat or a surface base for Mars or the Moon using Starship as the delivery truck, the strategy relies on a "Lego-brick" approach utilizing these maximal dimensions:

1. Rigid Cylindrical Segments: A single Starship launch can carry a rigid habitat cylinder roughly 8 meters wide and 15 meters long—weighing upwards of 80 to 100 tonnes fully outfitted with internal decks, life support, and shielding. Multiple ships can land these on Mars or the Moon, where robotic cranes or astronauts link them end-to-end or side-by-side using standardized docking collars.

2. Expandable/Inflatable Hybrid Modules: To maximize the internal living space once on the surface, engineers often pair an 8-meter rigid structural core (housing the heavy avionics, airlocks, and life support) with outer layers that inflate or telescope outward. This turns a single 1,000-cubic-meter cargo delivery into a much larger multi-room surface habitat.

3. Truss and Power Infrastructure: For solar farms, nuclear surface reactors, or communication arrays, components are packed flat or folded radially against a central support spine, pulled out of the cargo bay via robotic winches, and unfolded in zero-G or on the regolith.



What were the dimensions of the SIV-B rocket stage of the Saturn V rocket that carried astronauts to the moon?

The S-IVB (Stage IV-B) was the third stage of the Saturn V rocket, and it played a critical dual role: it fired to push the Apollo spacecraft out of Low Earth Orbit and onto a Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) trajectory, and its instrument unit and forward area also housed the Lunar Module adapter (SLA) during launch.

Here are the exact physical dimensions of the S-IVB stage:

- Diameter: 6.60 meters (21.6 feet)

- Length / Height: 17.81 meters (58.4 feet)

- Empty Mass: Approximately 13,300 kg (29,300 lbs)

- Loaded Mass (Propellant): Approximately 123,000 kg (271,000 lbs) of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.

- Engine: A single J-2 engine producing about 103,300 pounds-force (459 kN) of thrust in a vacuum.

Comparison to Starship's Cargo Bay

Putting the S-IVB's dimensions side-by-side with what we just discussed regarding Starship's cargo capabilities reveals a fascinating historical parallel:

- S-IVB Dimensions: 6.6m diameter × 17.8m length

- Starship Practical Cargo Envelope: ~7.5m to 8m diameter × ~15m to 17m length

The S-IVB stage is actually remarkably close in length to Starship's cargo bay limit, and its diameter is only slightly smaller than the 8-meter dynamic envelope of Starship. This means an entire Saturn V upper stage—complete with its massive propellant tanks and rocket engine—could fit entirely inside Starship's cargo bay with room to spare.

It highlights just how massive SpaceX's vehicle is; a single Starship can haul a payload volume and mass class that rival or exceed the upper stages of the greatest heavy-lift rocket of the 20th century.



Along the same lines as above, could a second Starship launch fill in the rest? It doesn't look big enough to house the command module and lunar module. Could those two modules fit into a second Starship launch?

You have hit on the exact scaling difference between 1960s architecture and modern heavy-lift capability. You are entirely correct: the Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM) and the Lunar Module (LM) together with the S-IVB stage could not all fit inside a single Starship cargo bay at the same time.

However, looking at this through the lens of a second Starship launch changes the equation entirely, and it reveals why Starship is such a disruptive paradigm shift.

What Apollo Packed into a Single Launch

On the Saturn V, the entire Apollo stack—the S-IVB stage, the Lunar Module (tucked into the SLA adapter), the Service Module, and the Command Module—was launched together in one monumental stack, standing about 111 meters tall.

Can a Second Starship Launch Fit the Rest?

If we use Launch #1 to deliver a massive structural component, propellant depot element, or a precursor habitat (like a heavy-lift payload comparable to or larger than an S-IVB stage), what can Launch #2 carry?

A second Starship launch gives you an entirely separate 1,000 cubic meter volume and up to 150 metric tonnes of payload capacity.

- Fitting the CSM and LM: Absolutely, yes. The Apollo Command/Service Module combined was about 11 meters long and 3.9 meters wide. The Lunar Module in its deployed landing configuration was about 7 meters wide and 7 meters tall (though it folded up tightly to fit in the 6.6m SLA). Both of these spacecraft together could easily fit inside a single Starship cargo bay, with plenty of room left over for extra supplies, rovers, or scientific equipment.

- Mass vs. Volume: While the Apollo CSM and LM combined weighed only about 45 metric tonnes fully fueled, Starship's 150-tonne capacity means you wouldn't just be launching a replica of Apollo—you could launch a spacecraft three times as massive, completely fully fueled, with heavy radiation shielding and vastly superior life support.

The Modern Deep-Space Playbook

Instead of trying to cram an entire moon mission into one fragile, highly complex single-launch stack like the Saturn V, SpaceX's architecture allows for orbital assembly and refueled modularity:

1. Launch 1: Send up a massive infrastructure element, propellant node, or a heavy cargo lander variant.

2. Launch 2: Send up the crew, habitat modules, or the equivalent of the CSM/LM stack (or use the Starship HLS variant directly, which eliminates the need for separate CSM/LM architectures entirely by landing the massive Starship cabin straight onto the lunar surface).

3. Refueling: Use a series of Starship tanker flights in Low Earth Orbit to top off the main vehicles before they burn for the Moon or Mars.

So, while a single Starship cargo bay can't swallow a whole 1969 Apollo stack in one go, a second Starship launch doesn't just "fill in the rest"—it provides an entirely redundant, heavy-lift powerhouse that dwarfs the entire capability of the Saturn V system.