Saturday, February 15, 2014
Unlimited Accessible Water in Space Means Unlimited Expansion for Humanity
After I had completed it I found this which Brian kindly allowed me to add. On my site I highlighted it.
The reason a relatively small asteroid can hold more water than Earth is because all our water, being lighter than rock, is on the surface which, if you compare our planet to an apple would be no thicker than the skin, whereas with virtually no gravity field asteroid or cometary water can be all through it.
The reason I think it important is that some years ago I did a Big Engineering about mass production of O'Neill space colonies. In that I said that because building such settlements are endlessly scalable so long as there is lunar soil left, and automatable or run by remote handling from earth, we could build hundreds of millions of them, enough, as I said, to make a Ringworld.
"A recent paper in Nature says that there are enormous amounts of water in Ceres the 2nd largest asteroid in the belt beyond Mars perhaps more than in all Earth's oceans. If so, particularly since this is just 1 asteroid, we have enough water to supply a virtually unlimited human population in space, certainly larger than Earth's population."
But I was wrong. I assumed lack of water (back in 2008 we didn't know how much water there was on the Moon) would be a constraint, even if we brought it in from the Asteroids. This discovery, which since it is only 1 asteroid of thousands means the amount of water is only slightly short of incalculable. Being closer (much closer in terms of the energy needed to change orbits) than comets or the outer planets) it is easily available. "Easily" for a spacegoing civilisation that is - but we can have that anytime for a fraction of what we spent owning Afghanistan.
That means we could build billions, very many billions, of such settlements. Far more than 1 for every human now living. At the time I said that at 10% annual growth there could be a Ringworld by 2195AD. That means 1 dozen Ringworlds (put them each 3 million miles further out than the last and we still fit them within the orbit of Mars) by 2022. Actually the traffic congestion would probably make it longer but you take the point.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Wythenshawe By Election - UKIP Thrash Tories, LDs, Greens, BNP - Labour Do Well But Only Because Of Their Postal Vote "Invitation to Fraud"
Obviously that is a remarkably good result for UKIP. It strongly suggests that across the North of England (and points north) UKIP are the opposition and the Tories the "splitters". Their entire propaganda against UKIP has been, not that there is anything they can criticise in our policies, but that we are slotting the anti-Labour vote. Presumably,
This is how Electoral Calculus had previously said this seat should go at a general election
Actually that would not have made it a marginal for the Tories but at 7,500 difference, it is not a no-hoper either. At the beginning of the campaign Tories were ahead of UKIP
The by election turnout was poor but then it normally is at by elections, particularly when the result is expected not to be close.
It also looks like a good result for Labour (they got 58% when the equivalent in 2010 was 44%) but there are 2 major reasons, one ethically dubious and the other worse, why this is not so.
The ethically dubious one is that, as with almost all other by elections recently, they went for the shortest possible campaign (presumably also an influence for a low turnout). That means the voters don't get a true political debate, which is particularly damaging for UKIP since we are censored from the "legally balanced" BBC
The worse one is that 40%, yes 40% of votes cast were by postal ballots (9,200). Even when they are carried out honestly postal ballots favour established political machines, who have the likes of our Fascist friend O'Hare from yesterday's post to set them up. At the best it also means that these votes were cast 3 days into the campaign.
But most seriously, the words of the judge in the Birmingham Vote Fraud trial cannot be ignored particularly in present circumstances. He said that the evidence was "overwhelming", that " There are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated", that "Frauds of this magnitude require a considerable degree of organisation and manpower, not to mention supervision and co-ordination. It would be unthinkable for them to be the work of a few hothead activists", & of Prescott's reforms which made fraud possible on this scale that this was "positive assistance to fraud "...... "Short of writing 'Steal Me' on the envelopes, it is hard to see what more could be done to ensure their coming into the wrong hands".
Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an electoral commissioner in Birmingham, found evidence of fraud in last year's city council elections that would "disgrace a banana republic". The elections, where several Labour candidates bucked the trend to win, were dogged by claims of intimidation, bribery, "vote-buying', impersonation and even the creation of a "vote-forging factory".
The Labour cabinet was subsequently widely described as having considered making the system more secure but decided against it because they would lose votes. The Tories and LibDems (later shown in Eastleigh) also have long established political machines and aren't all that much more interested in stopping fraud than Labour. Originally postal votes were only available to those who were provably incapacitated and there was no corruption problem.
Postal votes will not be nearly as important during general elections because the political machines are spread much thinner and also because there will be a longer and genuine campaign. We cannot know exactly how many of these votes went to which parties. If all of them had been Labour their ballot box vote would have been 4,000, putting them just behind UKIP but, attractive though that is, I don't think it can be so. Labour won fair and square. But they cannot take much heart because had it been a general election, as it will soon, it would have been much closer. And had it been conducted as honestly as elections used to be, closer still.
* For those Beeboids who prefer picking up politically incorrect phrases by UKIP members to broadcasting any actual discussion of real political issues I would point out that the description of our electoral system as "would disgrace a banana republic" was not mine but the judge's.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Osborne's 4 Conditions Represent Economic Reality - The SNP Must Decide What They Are Willing To Pay For
He outlined the four criteria that would be needed to make a currency union work, based on analysis published today by the Treasury, and said neither the Scottish or British public would accept the reality of such an arrangement.
While this is being reported here as a vindictive threat that fact is that economically he is quite right. A common currency would mean England was liable if Scotland couldn't pay (technically Scotland too in the opposite circumstances but it would we couldn't pay.
Those 4 conditions are perfectly reasonable, considering their liability, and it is unlikely that even if they offered such a union future English governments would get elected if they promised to maintain it.
There is always the option that the SNP could publicly accept that these conditions are inevitable and seek to prove they could meet them.
(1) would mean the Bank of England running Scots fiscal regulation - this is not a bad idea and Scotland's banks might well prefer this to being subject to SNP fashions. It would certainly help keep Scotland's reputation as a financial centre and for this industry reputation is everything.
(2) How does Scotland prove we are taking on as much risk AND in a position to pay it. The only way I can think of would be by mortgaging North Sea Oil as a common property. Anybody think the SNP will do that.
(3) That means virtually all financial policy would be subject to a Westminster veto. That all Scottish borrowing be subject to London agreement. This largely makes us more dependent than we are now since now we at least have the Scotland Act to say what we control.
Indeed there is an extra problem. 18% of our gdp is oil - but its price goes up and down like a yo-yo and, because Scottish oil is relatively expensive to get out, the profit on it is even more variable. That means if the Scottish government is to spend consistently sometimes it will be borrowing extensively and sometimes it will be in large surplus (at least in theory because I'm not sure I trust any of them not to find something to blow the surplus on.
(4) This is a tough one, at least for an SNP government. A few years ago they were going to sign Scotland up to the Euro - but that went down the tubes for reasons which make it obvious why currency unions take more than hope. Worse, and I am surprised nobody has made an issue of it, the SNP have already made noises about repudiating Scotland's share of the national debt. Worse, our future Chancellor, John Swinney, has said it. It is a general rule that Chancellors do not threaten defaults - it gives potential lenders a bad impression. Any Scottish government led by the SNP has already given away a lot of financial credibility simply by making that threat. And has give away much of the credibility of being committed to a long term currency union.
Nothing prevents the current UK money continuing to circulate in Scotland. As a number of countries use the US $. No London government could, or would want to prevent that. Holyrood could also print its own currency - making sure it is only a fairly small share of the currency in circulation. That would work - it would mean that our trade was still largely in UK £s so no extra transaction costs.
So long as Holyrood was financially sensible they would be able to have a Scottish £ in circulation that matched the UK one.
But then almost any financially sensible policy will work. It is only if Holyrood borrow more per head than the UK, print more and spend more and/or grow the economy more slowly that there will be any financial problem. But spending more while cutting taxes is exactly what they want independence to do. Well no, a financially destructive policy destroys - and will do so wherever the seat of government is.
Independence does not make an SNP government independent of reality. In fact it makes us much more closely connected to reality, without a big neighbour to provide a cushion. With independence comes responsibility for our own future. The SNP's entire history has been of blaming the English for everything and threatening to throw our toys out of the pram if they don't get more money from Westminster.
That probably stops, one way or the other, with this referendum.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Labour Sock Puppet Is A Nationalist Thug - Our Ruling Cartel In Action
The extent of state funding of apparent opposition groups and jobs for the boys qangos is one of the most important of the many things you aren't going to see reported on the state funded BBC and most of the press.
It also means we get to pay an enormous amount. UKIP previously calculated that useless qangos we could get rid of without damage cost the UK £60 bn. On a population basis, after adding 25% because everything government does costs 25% more here, that means Scots are paying an extra £6,400 million a year.
But worse is the way it corrupts political life.
And by happy accident the Scottish Daily Mail have come up with this scoop (or story the more approved papers simply won't publish) about a Fascist street thug who turns out to be a government paid Fascist street thug.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
2% Support SNP Immigration Policy - BBC Desperately Seek Somebody Approvable Who can Say A Few Words For The Majority Opinion
Alex Salmond wants more immigration but in a poll 69 per cent of Scots said immigrant numbers should be cut and a meagre two per cent said immigration should be increased.
I wonder how the 200,000 unemployed Scots feel about Alex Salmond’s immigration plans?
I wonder how those Scots on long social housing waiting lists will feel?
Then there is the growing hatred of wind turbines which do nothing but increase our energy bills despite what the spin doctors, developers and landowners would have us believe.
He got a phone call, mid afternoon while he was out playing golf, saying they wanted him to speak and indeed he did get about 2 minutes on & was described by the BBC as a Migrationwatch "supporter". Obviously, for the sake of their legal duty of "balance" they had Malcolm Bruce (LudDim) & Hamza Yousaf (SNP) on for nearly 10 minutes supporting the official view.
I am sending this to the Scotsman
Congratulations to regular Scotsman/Evening News letter writer, Clark Cross for his defence of his criticism of SNP immigration policy, on Newsnight and Reporting Scotland, from his recent letter (10th Jan) here. Followed by 2 heavyweight politicians given far more time by the BBC to repudiate him.
It is interesting that despite opposition to the SNP's policy running 69%:2%, so detached from ordinary people are all 5, nominally separate, Holyrood parties that it was clearly impossible to find a professional politician to put the popular view. Or anybody at all among the 10s of thousands of political activists working for qangos or political charities (invariably ultimately funded by the taxpayer).
Well when I say it was impossible to find a single party politician who could have given the argument I mean it was impossible to do so without BBC Scotland breaking its policy of censoring any appearance from Britain's 3rd (& Scotland's 4th) party, UKIP who everybody knows oppose the SNP enthusiasm for mass immigration.
There is a legal requirement for "balance" in BBC reporting, at least in party political issues. Is this one of these laws that those in power are allowed to ignore? What sort of referendum campaign is it when the state broadcaster is censoring dissent?
In theory this should be a no brainer. Competently written. Under 250 words. More importantly every paper lives for stories about local heroes. And when it is also showing the other media picking up something the Scotsman published first.
So if it doesn't get published it is unequivocally because of deliberate censorship. I'll let you know if it does,
I'll also send out an edited version to other papers.
It is not widely known and certainly not widely reported but there is an SNP plan, if they get the power after independence, to import enormous numbers of farmers, presumably from the 3rd world, to resettle the Highlands.
Monday, February 10, 2014
A NeW Way To Hide The Decline - Destroy Your Own Measuring Instruments
Here are 3 new examples, all from the latest SEPP Newsletter. Anybody interested in whether we are experiencing alleged catastrophic global warming or whether it is a totalitarian lie promoted by state parasites (I don't think there is a 3rd option) should follow SEPP. You can sign up for it on
The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Last week, TWTW reported that the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean array of buoys is failing for lack of maintenance. These buoys monitor the warming and cooling events in the equatorial Pacific, known respectively as El Niño and La Niña, which are important natural for climate change. About 50% of the NOAA-maintained buoys are not reporting. The budget for maintaining the buoys fell from about $10-$12 million to $2-3 million. Somehow Washington can spend $22.6 billion in 2013 on climate change but not maintain critical instruments on understanding weather and climate change. The amount for buoys is tiny compared to DOE spending on renewables.
TWTW Reader Timothy Wise reminded us of a GAO report last February, which stated that there is a significant timing gap between the end of scheduled life existing satellites, and replacement with new satellites. The US has two complementary sets of satellites, polar-orbiting ones, and geostationary ones. They are used by weather forecasters, climatologists, the military, etc. According to the GAO report, the timing gap between end of scheduled life and replacement with new satellites could span from 17 to 53 months or more, depending on how long the current satellite lasts and any delays in launching or operating the new one. As reported in past TWTWs, based on three separate, but somewhat overlapping government reports, the US has spent some $165 billion on climate change since 1993, but the US cannot spend the money needed to maintain critical instrumentation. Another source for funds is the $8 Billion in "Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions in the FY 2013 Federal Climate Change Expenditures. A new report will not come out until early 2015. See link under Measurement Issues.
+++Government abandons temperature records+++
By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Feb 4, 2014
Carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas of course, but it is startling to realise that the government has effectively abandoned the temperature records as evidence for global warming. Everything comes down to the climate models.
[SEPP Comment: If the data does not agree with the models, discard the data?]
That does indeed look like it - even the alarmist pseudo-scientists & political parasites do not not expect that future measurements will support their claims and would rather have absolutely no evidence, even evidence they "collate and interpret", than what they expect to come out.
Note, in particular that the only explanation they have for zero warming over the last 18 years is that, in some manner not explained by the Laws of Thermodynamics, all the heat has been going into the oceans. If they believed that they would certainly want the buoys to remain in place so that they could prove it. On the other hand if they believe their explanation is a lie they would certainly wish to nbe able to let the measuring system fail by not paying for maintenance.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Big Engineering 61 Vertical Take Off Electric, Possibly Supersonic, Aircraft
[Elon] said that supersonic air travel in an electric-powered aircraft that could take off and land without the need for a long runway was the “ultimate form of transport”.
He said that although his hands were full with his other projects, which include developing a mission to Mars, he wanted to set up a company to build such an aircraft in the future.
Musk is due to reveal plans to another of his projects, an intercity transport system called the Hyperloop, on Monday.
Speaking during an online Google "Hangout" event with Virgin founder Richard Branson, Musk said envisaged long journeys over 1,000 miles being done in a supersonic plane.
He said: “If I were to start another company in the future, which I don’t think is going to be anytime soon, it would be to create an aircraft that is a supersonic, vertical take off and landing electric jet.
“I think that is the ultimate form of transport.
“I wish someone would do that. If somebody doesn’t do that then maybe at some point in the future I will.”....
He added that a vertical take-off electric-powered plane would be quieter than conventional aircraft and would be environmentally friendlier.
He added: “As it is supersonic it would be fast. If you fly high enough and have the right geometry of plane, you can make the sonic boom no louder than current planes.
“The vertical take-off and landing part means you could land much closer to your destination instead of landing at these huge airports with super long runways.”
However, for anyone hoping that Musk will be turning his attention to this project in the near future he added that he still had his hands full with his other companies, Tesla and SpaceX.
I probably wouldn't go for making the first version supersonic - lets go step by step, though I will accept he knows what he is talking about when he says it is possible to make supersonic craft no louder than conventional ones now. That is a game changer.
Making them electric is not something I would have thought possible up to now, but again, am willing to learn. Indeed I intend to expand on this inn a few days..
Electric planes could be expected to be much cheaper (& safer) on lift off which makes vertical take off from extensive city centre airports practical and ultimately common. That on its own would be revolutionary.
I am a little concerned that Elon Musk may become a challenger to my own title of Greatest Technological Innovator Of The 21st century. He has been responsible for Paypal; SpaceX commercial space travel; the Tesla car (currently a rich man's toy but looking likely to break into mass market); Hyperlink & now VTOL electric supersonic craft. All of these are fit to be included in my Big Engineering list as world changing. I have always acknowledged that that list was largely of other people's ideas and only
#50 Remote handling working
#48 World campaign against malaria , #43 Hibernaculum
#42 SPACE ELEVATORS NOT JUST ON THE EQUATOR
#41 Using 1 nuclear pulse rocket to create a Space Elevator
#40 Prize for computer programme to judge international law #37 Colonising the Oort cloud & beyond
#30 A Ringworld #29 Greening the Arctic #28 An O'Neill Cylinder factory
#27 Greening Palestine #26 Reversing sea level rise
#24 Greening Central Asia #22 An international grid
#15 Draining the Solway Firth
#9 Greening the Sahara plus launching nuclear pulse rockets from Antarctica, Ascension Island as Atlantic spaceport and arguably the Scottish Tunnel Project are essentially original to me. Giving Musk some brownie points for actually doing these rather than just blogging them and assuming he keeps coming up with ideas at the most recent rate he could be some competition.