Faster than light speed

Maybe even ludicrous speed. Don't know about plaid.

Not exactly germane to the discussion, but here goes anyway

This may not be the best time and place for this, as it isn't the usual fare on this blog.

It might be better at the Version 3 location. But it will go here because I wouldn't exactly know where to put it in that blog.

The school this kid went to was pretty close to where I was being treated while in Irving Texas in 2017. It caught my eye.

 

Texans drafted this guy. Here's an interview of him when he was in high school

Check out newest Texan Febechi Nwaiwu in high school!

Dude was a beast and a great kid and interview

Rooted for him since then and so glad to have him on the squad @officialfeb_54 https://t.co/trRwqRIr0G

— Jeremy Beadling (@JeremyChuggs) April 25, 2026

SpaceX's Starship getting close to launch time

Problems with SpaceX's Raptor 3 engine?

It's been several months now since the last launch. Also, this is a brand new rocket on a brand new launch pad.

An "expensive hole in the ground" is a worrisome prospect. Hopefully, SpaceX has tested this thing six ways to Sunday, and back again.

Is this real, or just somebody's imagination?

Here's another video from AlphTech. (Ooops! Not the same folks.) The idea is the same as the one I suggested awhile back. The one I based my suggestion upon was the Saturn V model. The Saturn V model was 100% expendable. It shed mass as it went along. The first two stages did the major part of getting to lower Earth orbit. The third stage, which was called the S-IVB, finished the orbital lift, and did the trans-lunar injection burn that sent about 100k lbs of what was left towards lunar orbit.

Each part of the mission sheds mass, and thus reduces the amount of fuel needed to complete each part of the mission. By the time the lunar module set itself down on the lunar surface, there was just 1 more module left to finish the ascent back to lunar orbit. The lunar module itself was discarded, leaving only the command module to power itself back to Earth, and re-entry.

The Starship model is very fuel inefficient. That's why it needs all that refueling. With a powerful rocket, they still cannot achieve what the Saturn V did, even though the Starship system is over twice as powerful.

SpaceX has a problem on its hands. It is trying to do something the hard way. The easy way is to downsize the ship, and that is what AlphaTech is showing with this video. It isn't a radical idea. It is essentially how it was done over 50 years ago.

This tried and true method would deliver a super Apollo mission. It would carry more cargo, but it would still use the same Apollo-era methodology. Why change methodologies into something super complex like SpaceX is attempting? SpaceX needs to change their approach, but how does AlphaTech know that SpaceX is actually considering this change of methods?

Starship's Raptor 4 engines

A little too long of a video, and loses focus a bit. If it is about the engine, then stay on topic. Anyway, worth watching, but maybe not all the way through. I didn't.

Blue Origin reflies used booster, nails landing. Main mission fails, however.

 

The comparisons beg for attention...

However, the New Glenn rocket isn't as impressive as Starship's Booster. By the same token, Starship has yet to put anything in orbit yet. The landing of a big booster downrange like this is something that SpaceX MIGHT consider. But I wouldn't be the ranch on it.

Some of these news items could become far more significant going forward

Mars news that was overshadowed by the Artemis mission:

Want to remember this gadget

Vortex tube: Surely there's a way to use this thing in order to do practical and useful things

Terafab

 

Is it a trap or not?

The human factor in research

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.