DAMS system?

Is this for real? It seems to be the kind of configuration that I favored in an earlier post. No, it is the brainchild of an individual who may or may not be associated with SpaceX. Actually, I asked a series of questions of GAB AI, and posted it here not that long ago. The DAMS system won't work. But something like it might.

It uses "pods" to land on the moon, and to be recovered for return to the Earth. If you can carry a "pod" in a Starship, then it MIGHT work. The Starship will have to be like a tug. It wouldn't land on the moon. Just the pod, which can take off from the moon and meet the Starship in orbit.

Now THAT might work.

Fusion energy isn't 30 years away anymore

It's no longer a joke, says this video.

One of the themes of this blog is the mastery of energy. If fusion energy is mastered, so many other things will begin to fall into place. Namely, the mastery of space. With fusion, space colonization becomes feasible. You can take your own sun along with you anywhere you go.

So I've studied various strategies to master fusion energy. There was Bussard's Polywell. Then there's Lerner's Focus Fusion. That's only two of the approaches. Many others are in this race.

This video mentions Helion. It seems to me that I've written about it before, or if not, I am aware of the company.

Here's the video. I haven't watched all of it yet, so I'll watch it before I post it.



Comment on what the rest of the video was about:

The narrator mentions other companies besides Helion. But he doesn't mention Lerner's company. Lerner's company is seeking to perfect an approach the video DOES mention. Funny that he didn't mention Lerner's company.

Is there a problem with Lerner's approach? Maybe. His approach isn't to go with the BIG MONEY. He went with the LITTLE MONEY. It's a people's plan. The trouble with that, as I've been mentioning, is that the people have become dull-witted. I don't necessarily agree with Lerner. It may be naive.

So, either I'm wrong about investing in Focus Fusion, or this narrator is right. Like all things, we will see. Lerner's approach may be wrong in that he doesn't want to go with the BIG MONEY. Or Lerner may be right about the approach, but wrong about the people. Too many dumb-asses.

Addendum:

I didn't read through Lerner's link, and I'm really sorry to have done so. What a total loon.

His ideas are a disaster.

But his machine might work. Or it might not. If his machine is anything like his politics, he will fail miserably. Oh, well. It wouldn't be the first mistake I've ever made. However, note that Lerner DEPENDS upon this free enterprise to make his plan meaningful. Does he have enough snap to understand what he is undermining with his stilly political nonsense?

He should stay out of politics and stick with science. What he suggests is socialism, which is HUGE mistake.

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.