Posts by seraphim

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Magnitude 5.1 quake hits in waters off Northern California coast

    01/01/2015 7:10:10 PM PST · 14 of 27
    seraphim to MeshugeMikey

    Thought Ferndale is a northern suburb of Detroit. Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman!

  • Hogan(R) leads Brown(D) 52-46 in Governor race in ........................... Maryland !!!!

    11/04/2014 9:15:31 PM PST · 24 of 27
    seraphim to the OlLine Rebel

    Hogan has it!

  • Hogan(R) leads Brown(D) 52-46 in Governor race in ........................... Maryland !!!!

    11/04/2014 9:06:48 PM PST · 23 of 27
    seraphim to the OlLine Rebel

    Percent In: 77%

    Brown 46% Votes: 666,488

    Hogan 52% Votes: 747,839

    Good point, Baltimore, PG & Montgomery are slowly going into the noise.

  • Hogan(R) leads Brown(D) 52-46 in Governor race in ........................... Maryland !!!!

    11/04/2014 8:36:12 PM PST · 17 of 27
    seraphim to 11th_VA

    69% in, Brown 579,328 ~ Hogan 687,047 45%/53%

    Unless ballot box stuffing is prevalent, Hogan has it. Know many Blacks are somewhat miffed about our famous “Rain Tax”.

  • Man Runs Car Into Restaurant After Woman Criticizes His Political Views

    01/14/2013 2:56:49 PM PST · 57 of 92
    seraphim to nickcarraway
    Ever notice that when ever a democrat leaning citizen gets involved in some violent act, no mention of political orientation is mentioned. However, when an unpleasant act is performed by someone in any resemblance to a Republican connection, “Republican” is oft the brand coloring the report.

    12/19/2012 5:24:59 PM PST · 27 of 63
    seraphim to elkfersupper

    Sorry elkfersupper, Ann HAS shamelessly supported too many RINO’s in her arguments. Political solutions involving “kicking the can down the road” RINO’s will solve very little in what needs to be done. Only a fool goes back to a dry well. She now rates as casual reading, if that.

  • Goodbye Hostess (15,000 jobs lost today not due to Sandy)

    11/21/2012 4:35:11 PM PST · 20 of 29
    seraphim to golf lover


  • Reid Statement on Nevada's October Unemployment Rate

    11/19/2012 4:48:35 PM PST · 11 of 19
    seraphim to mdittmar

    Yeah, and back to 11.8 percent or higher when all those “Santa Claus” employees are out of work after December 25th.

  • Twinkies May Find Buyer, Hostess CEO Says (Several expressions of interest on the table)

    11/19/2012 4:30:59 PM PST · 14 of 19
    seraphim to SeekAndFind

    Interesting, let El Grupo Bimbo purchases “Hostess Brands”, maybe that can be a precedent for the “undocumented” going back to Mexico for work. Perhaps boycotting union iron-fisted companies may run them into bankruptcy! If our economy is continuing into the tank, affording other such luxuries will eventually diminish. Learn to be more self-sufficient. The recipe is online, make your own.

  • Was Petraeus Forced Out To Silence His Account Of Benghazi killings? (friends say yes)

    11/12/2012 6:43:31 PM PST · 16 of 80
    seraphim to drewh

    Very dirty business. Valerie Jarrett may have ordered the stand-down. Worse than Watergate, Americans were killed. Sad, but if this came up during a Republican Administration we would see so much information.

  • Obama considering John Kerry for job of defense secretary

    11/12/2012 5:51:44 PM PST · 54 of 71
    seraphim to maggief

    Simply a reward for the Winter Soldier’s stunning assistance preparing Berry for his first Presidential Debate. Apparently during the following debates Kerry figured out how to work the volume control on Berry’s ear piece.

  • Applebee’s targeted after franchisee mulls hiring freeze in response to Obamacare

    11/10/2012 7:29:35 PM PST · 3 of 107
    seraphim to SoFloFreeper

    Gee, wonder what else they can’t see? McDonalds too toto? This ain’t Kansas anymore!

  • N.J. Gov. Chris Christie: Not my fault that Mitt Romney lost!

    11/08/2012 8:45:52 PM PST · 41 of 63
    seraphim to Behind Liberal Lines

    Yeah right! Don’t spend all of your 40 pieces of silver in one place.

  • Obama to make statement on economy Friday [showdown with congressional Republicans over....]

    11/08/2012 8:31:53 PM PST · 130 of 198
    seraphim to Sub-Driver

    Their only answers: raise taxes! Blame Bush. Yes those chickens will come home to roust, like they have in Greece, France, etc.

    Cheering the Visigoths! Rome is being sacked!

  • Obama Campaign: 'Impossible to Know' If Romney's A Criminal

    07/15/2012 4:49:39 PM PDT · 19 of 53
    seraphim to tsowellfan

    It’s impossible to Know, if Berry S. has an actual Selective Service card.

  • Time To Get Serious About Space Again

    06/28/2012 7:34:40 AM PDT · 48 of 58
    seraphim to Cincinatus

    Thank you Cincinatus, for illustrating a very important concept with respect to the phrase: “The problem with thinking outside the box is, you forget what is inside the box”. The news inside, or “focus” if you will, is inside the box with respect to this discussion; in an attempt to meander towards next steps, “Getting Serious” about space.

    The corrective purpose of your “news”, has a sent of bitter satire in it. If true, sorry that my short treatise has caused some kind of negative reaction in you. If false, can assure you that current “commercial applications” are understood.

    Yes, we have communication, surveillance & to a very limited extent, manufacturing in zero-G commercial applications. We begin the concept of teachable innovation, by the questions we ask, rather those that have been answered. Will leave that concept for your off-line contemplation.

    Also, please, be assured magic has absolutely nothing to do with science & engineering. Some would assert, things not understood are “magical”. One ignorant of truth, in and of itself may use that concept as a crutch. There is a better way.

    Suppose seeing long boats for the first time, hundreds of years ago, may be thought of as “magical”. Those seeing long boats for the first time, may have used canoes and understood the concept of water travel; so they may have been in awe & possibly able to glean some purpose of long ships. But, had virtually no idea as to the exact technology of actually building one.

    Please allow the concept of progress, entering into discussion. You may be surprised of your own growth.

    Since the late 60’s, NASA has been wrestling with the concept of “paying for itself” and came to the realization that based on current technology, it had its limitations towards that goal. You could build Earth observing technology that would monitor weather, land characteristics, identify natural resources, etc... But no individual could afford this capability.

    Yes, taxing spreads out the cost so that individuals or organizations can exploit valuable information. So maximizing tax resources should be of concern. Attempting this noble effort is “taxed” itself, by those who decide what intermediate goals are necessary. Remember, failures and successes both come at a cost. And much is learned by failure. Understanding our planet was the justification regardless of cost. But we sometimes benefit from success. We all benefit from more accurate weather forecasting, identification of natural resources, and instantaneous communications, etc...

    Problems pertaining an evolving progression towards continued commercialization of “space”, goes beyond simple Earth related ingress & egress, off the planet. Like those who saw long boats for the first time, had little idea of global commerce. Those long boat explorers did. We as “spectators” into emerging technological advancements are not unlike those observing long boats for the first time. Propulsion advancements such as “ion drive” are small steps towards chemical propulsion alternatives. And can assure you, this is not magical.

    If we limit our horizons with Earth related excursions, we are not unlike those who observed long boats for the first time, just familiar with canoe trips between islands for commerce.

    This is my opinion, and not of NASA.

  • Time To Get Serious About Space Again

    06/27/2012 4:58:04 PM PDT · 41 of 58
    seraphim to NonZeroSum

    “Launch costs aren’t high because we need “an inexpensive means of propulsion.”” ?

    Chemical propulsion is too expensive. The expense is a function of the actual cost of the chemical propellant & infrastructure enabling it’s use. And most of all, what do you do after the chemical reaction is used up?

    If we go beyond a “low Earth orbit”, where are the gas stations beyond that? You will need a “Space Station” like vehicle in orbit to send the “extra fuel”. -OR- have a means of producing fuel going beyond Earth orbit.

    Ion drive may be used to accelerate, but you may need more power either chemical or other means to overcome gravity of a destination planet & return (if required).

    Different set of logistics are required if the mission is simply a mining expedition. In either case, if we can develop a means of propulsion not needing a chemical reaction, that will greatly reduce the cost required for any chemical reaction device for thrust.

    The concept being any chemical propulsion system has cost attributed to massive containment & limited use in acceleration time. Not to mention infrastructure necessary to “create” more chemical fuel on route.

    SpaceX vehicles are a first step, but keep in mind they are heavily subsidized through NASA. Without U.S. Government intervention, how long do you suppose they would remain in business? Maybe through China, their program is progressing.

    No, we need to get away from chemical propulsion systems, if space travel is to be less expensive in monetary costs. But cost has many faces.

    This is my opinion, and not that of NASA.

  • Time To Get Serious About Space Again

    06/27/2012 4:02:59 PM PDT · 39 of 58
    seraphim to Dan Cooper

    Dan, your assertion is in need of some clarification. Yes, it is true that corporations may find ways of making things more cost effective. But there are areas of technology that overwhelm these same limited corporations. If you remember (from personal memory or from history), it took many hundreds of corporations working together in order to develop the Apollo project. Only a government with sufficient GDP may be capable of sustaining such a venture. Initial innovations are usually managed by a few (people or corporations); But, the first step towards that goal must be met. An unknown, that ultimately may require tremendous financial resources.

    The innovation of such a new propulsion technology may require resources greater than what is available in any one or group of corporations. But once that discovery is developed & understood, the innovation steps necessary to improve and make it more cost-effective may kick in. Depends on what scale is required.

    Also remember, it took over 60 years from the Wright Flyer to Apollo. The US Government became an enabler to this initial innovation by applying a need for improving the Mail delivery system. Unfortunately it took several World Wars that also aided in the development of this technology by necessity. Again it took many corporations subsidized by the US Government, making this technology flourish.

    Some suppose that cheap space flight will enable us to mine the asteroid belt for precious metals & materials that will justify and allow the technology to progress commercially. No one corporation or corporations could progress towards cooperative standards necessary for such an innovation becoming universally practical. Commercial international pilots use the English language as a means of communication during flights. A standard still used today. Standards must be regulated through a common source E.G. Federal Government. It took cooperation on a massive scale. Someone some thing needed to coordinate those enabling standards. Whom do you suppose that was?

    First comes the innovation enabler. A sigma innovation step not yet realized. If the innovation may be exploited in such a manor as to make it cost effective, step-wise improvements may be performed (your assumption with respect to corporations making things cheaper). There is a big If. This kind of breakthrough may not be possible in Steve Job’s garage, or by a Bell Labs graduate student, etc... But as will be the case, someone or some group will discover this new technology. Also remember Edison took several thousand experimental attempts before he invented the simple light bulb.

    Virgin took the first steps, but it is only a first step, not unlike the first step developing the Wright Flyer. The Wright Flyer proved the concept, but it took several decades before we had anything commercially useful. And it payed for itself by the innovative steps allowing larger payloads being transported, making it cost effective. Virgin still uses a chemical means of propulsion & is still too expensive making it practical.

    Your implication: “That is a totally different motivation than NASA” is not completely on target. Because of increasing budgetary constraints, Can assure you that there is a “make do with what you got” mentality. Successful researchers have found the fine art of scrounging necessary. Every research $ is accounted for in an attempt to make thing cost effective. But you can’t put a price on a new technology until it is realized! Yes, there are NASA projects that are over budget; but, if you knew what the Manhattan Project cost in 2012 $’s, NASA’s budget would represent “chump change”. It all boils down to necessity. And these arguments are and will be discussed by Congress, the Executive branch & ultimately by voters.

    NASA’s motivation is focusing some of it’s resources towards that inexpensive propulsion goal. But due to it’s current budgetary limitations and current work-load involvements, such research is limited. A bad economy certainly does not help these efforts.

    Lastly, your assumption “Corporations will find ways of making it cheaper...” is slightly flawed in that “it” you have implied with respect to a new propulsion technology, is not yet discovered. Chemical propulsion is too expensive regardless of any step-wise corporate improvement to a chemical based propulsion systems making it cheaper. We will need a propulsion system more robust, durable & cost effective not requiring a limited “one time use in flight” chemical reaction.

    If by chance you have that “next step” in propulsion innovation, my hat’s off to you! You will become richer than avaricious can imagine. But you may find that such a technology may require resources only available through a Government’s GDP. So an organization such as NASA may ultimately be an enabling focal point after-all.

    This is my opinion, and not of NASA’s.

  • Time To Get Serious About Space Again

    06/27/2012 12:55:27 PM PDT · 24 of 58
    seraphim to NonZeroSum

    NASA was born from an entirely different generation. Today in this generation of Power-Point engineers & scientists coming out of degree-mill universities with low academic standards, you need ask the question: “Can we do it again?”.

    With most of the Apollo blue-prints in need of reverse engineering, budget cuts, it is remarkable anything substantial can be accomplished. But it does. There are many competent engineers & scientists up for the opportunities that lay ahead.

    Three NASA pillars remain: Up-lookers (extrasolar), Down-lookers (terrestrial) & Education. But NASA is still in a search of a mission statement that will re-vitalize it from it’s previous vision.

    Those that think commercialization is the way to go, are guessing that this will be an enabling method. They are partially if not completely incorrect. Corporations can take short term risks, sometimes with billions involved. But unless they can sustain these levels of expenditure, they are doomed to failure.

    Commercialization of space can only be accomplished if we can develop a means of going beyond Earth orbit that is significantly cheaper than $20K per pound of payload.

    Therefor, if NASA is to progress under a currently dwindling budget, resources & manpower, it is necessary to focus it’s attention more towards “non chemical” propulsion system solutions.

    It will be a hard pill to swallow, because of all of the infrastructure already in place. It was proven to Dr. Vonn Braun many years ago that NASA cannot sustain it’s budget indefinitely. Making NASA “Pay for itself” cannot get there if getting beyond Earth’s orbit costs 20K, 10K, or even 1K per pound.

    Warp drive is a fantasy. But we need to invest in a practical means of inexpensive propulsion, making space flight cost effective. When an inexpensive means of propulsion is attainable, the private sector will be less at risk and therefor more of an attainable concept.

    One of Dr. Von Braun’s memorial quote’s, encapsulates marching orders needed to succeed: “Research is something I do, when I do not know what I’m doing”. Thus we need to invest in research that will enable more of a solution set towards inexpensive space travel, rather than sending balloons to Mars! Easier said than done. NASA’s earlier mantra is in need of further exploration back to it’s Apollo roots: “We do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...”.

    This is my opinion, and not of NASA’s.

  • Tabletop X-rays light up

    06/09/2012 6:03:00 PM PDT · 8 of 9