Video: How NASA Will Build The Artemis Moon Base

It's a plan alright, but all plans are subject to that little something called uncertainty. None of this is certain. HOWEVER, if there is a will to do this in spite of the difficulties, then one thing IS certain. They will succeed.

The missing ingredient is this: Is there a will to do it?

It seems highly doubtful to me. Since this plan came from the Trump administration, a will a Democrat administration follow it? Don't bet on it. It hasn't been happening in recent history. Every change of party leads to a change in NASA priorities.

Making a homemade refrigerator that runs on fire

..cools down to 18 C. (about zero Farenheit)

A question is this: what practical use would this device have?

I can think of possibilities. However, for this to be practical, you'd have to know just how much cooling in terms of BTU, can be expected.

A clue is that he uses a 12 oz. soda to show that it can cool it down (for a summer day).

Cooling down one soda at a time doesn't sound like much.

Starship Flight 14 is taking shape, but pad is empty

NASASpaceflight Youtube channel

Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces

9/8/26:

How interesting..

There was a comment made in 2012 here too. I didn't even notice it. So sorry about that.

I am curious about the results of his research. I presume it is a "he". Who knows these day, eh?

There may be a plausible scientific explanation for the lack of neutrons offered as a reason to doubt that any nuclear reactions are taking place.

A question arises: Do the critics actually WANT to know what is going on? They presume that it is a measurement error. What if that is not the case?

As written in an earlier post, this question is going to be researched again. Hopefully, it is a fair examination, and not a stacked deck against finding a new phenomenon that can be useful to mankind. There are those who have much to lose if that turned out to be the case!

Sept 2nd, 2011: The original post is below:

via New Energy Times ( Widom-Larsen )

If low energy neutrons can be detected, does that prove the Widom Larsen theory?  After all, where do they come from?  I scanned the file and looked for evidence of such an observation.  A few excerpts from the file:

• These will rarely be experimentally
  detected. In this regard, ultra low momentum
  neutrons may produce “neutron rich” nuclei in substantial
  quantities. These neutrons can yield interesting reaction
  sequences [19, 20]. Other examples are discussed below in
  the concluding section.


• In summary, weak interactions can produce neutrons
  and neutrinos via the capture by protons of heavy electrons.
  The collective motions of the surface metallic hydride
  protons produce the oscillating electric fields that
  renormalize the electron self energy, adding significantly to
  the effective mass.

Along with the slow neutrons, you may want to find heavy electrons.

• laser light fields can “dress” an electron in
  a non-perturbation theoretical fashion with an additional
  mass as in (5). Such mass modifications must be applied
  to electrons and positrons when pairs can in principle be
  blasted out of the vacuum [9, 10] employing colliding laser
  beams. The mass growth in the theory appears in a classic
  treatise on quantum electrodynamics [8]. 


• The classical equation (21) holds true in the fully quantum
  mechanical theory if the electron density ˜n represents the
  electron density at the proton position [ comment: emphasis in the original] 

 One explanation applies the analogy of a single goose flying through an atmospheric disturbance as opposed to a flock of geese.  The flock has a better chance of making it through.  Think of it as a flock of electrons trying to get to the proton in order to form the low energy neutron.

There may be a problem verifying this.  How do you observe neutrons of this type that are rarely observed.  And how do you find the heavy electrons?  It may not be easy, but it doesn't say it is impossible.

Anastasi in Tech: New chip factory terrifies TSMC

Elon Musk is building a huge chip fab in Texas. Will it work?

Aquaponics

9/5/26:

This is very similar to another post about that time. Such a long time ago. Going on 16 years.

11/7/10: The original post follows:

How do you stay alive for two years in outer space?  NASA will have to learn how if they are going to send a crew of astronauts to Mars.   The study of Aquaponics may show a way to do this.

Aquaponics is the simultaneous cultivation of plants and aquatic animals in a symbiotic environment where the animal effluents that accumulate in the water are used and filtered out by the plants as nutrients, after which the water is recirculated back to the animals.

Nothing can get wasted in outer space.  There is no room for pollution either.  It must be kept clean.  Water and carbon dioxide must get recycled continuously.  Food must be produced that includes a balanced diet of meat and vegetables.  This system looks like it can do this.  What can go wrong?

Aquaponics systems can have multiple 'single points of failure' where problems such as an electrical failure or pipe blockage can lead to a complete loss of fish stock

In practice, that's how it can happen.  Clearly, there needs to be backup systems in order to recover from times when things go wrong.  But this is true in all space flight systems.   Perhaps the system can be productive enough so that, in case of failure, reserves of food can be produced that will be enough to sustain a crew until a new crop can be grown.  Perhaps this is not the most critical of worries for NASA.

Update:  Not only can you grow food, you can cultivate yeasts which can produce plastics.  Hat tip: Instapundit.

SpaceX is in transition??? No more Falcon 9 flights? Starship will take over??

How to classify this video? That is to say, which blog should it go on--this one, or the main blog? I decided that it should go here, because these are still experimental. They are not operational as yet, therefore, there is a speculative quality about them. On the other hand, they are like current events, and therefore news. It could easily go on the main blog because the main blog is more like current events, and this one is more like futurism.

Does that mean the future has arrived??

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.