The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Newly Revealed Russian Weapons Systems: Political Implications
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_14964970

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For those interested in the military implications of the recent revelations by Vladimir Putin about new Russian weapon systems I would recommend the excellent article entitled “The Implications of Russia’s New Weapon Systems” by Andrei Martyanov who offers a superb analysis of what these new weapons mean for the US and, especially, the US Navy. What I want to do here is something a little different and look at some of the more political consequences of these latest revelations.

The first two of the five stages of grief: denial and anger

Right now, the AngloZionists are undergoing something very similar to the first two of the Five Stages of the Kübler-Ross Grief model: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Mostly this manifests itself in criticisms of the quality of the videos presented by Putin and by simple incantations about “these weapons only exist on paper”. This is absolutely normal and will not last too long. That kind of denial is a normal coping mechanism whose primary function is to “soften the blow”, but not something one can base any actual policy or strategy on. However, it is worth looking into why exactly these revelations triggered such a powerful reaction as things are a little more complicated than might first appear.

First, a stunning revelation of sorts: the deployment of these weapons systems does not fundamentally change the nuclear balance between Russia and the US, at least not in terms of first strike stability (for a detailed discussion see here). Yes, it is true that the US nuclear arsenal is becoming increasingly antiquated, especially when compared with the Russian one and, yes, it is true that in an entire family of technologies the Russians are now clearly many years ahead of the US. But no, this does not mean that Russia could get away with a first strike against the US (neither could, for that matter, the US could get away with a first strike against Russia). Both countries possess more than enough nuclear warhead delivery capabilities even if their forces were to be reduced by a full 90% in any putative disarming (counterforce) strike. The point of Putin’s warning was not at all to threaten the West or to suggest that Russia could prosecute a successful nuclear war, far from it! First and foremost, his speech was a much-needed case of public psychotherapy. You could say that his intention was to force the Empire to eventually enter the next, more constructive, three stages of grief: bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

Bringing a sense of reality to a deeply delusional Empire

The leaders of the Empire, along with their brainwashed ideological drones, live in a world completely detached from reality. This is why Martyanov writes that the US “still continues to reside in her bubble which insulates her from any outside voices of reason and peace” and that Putin’s speech aimed at “coercing America’s elites into, if not peace, at least into some form of sanity, given that they are currently completely detached from the geopolitical, military and economic realities of a newly emerging world ”. Martyanov explains that:

American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force. They simply have no reference points. Yet, being a product of the American pop-military culture, also known as military porn and propaganda, these people—this collection of lawyers, political “scientists”, sociologists and journalists who dominate the American strategic kitchen which cooks non-stop delusional geopolitical and military doctrines, can understand one thing for sure, and that is when their poor dears get a bulls-eye on their backs or foreheads.

The fact that in the real world these elites have had a bulls-eye on their backs for decades doesn’t change the fact that they also managed to convince themselves that they could remove that bulls-eye by means of withdrawing from the ABM treaty and by surrounding Russia with anti-missile launchers. The fact that some (many? most?) US politicians realized, at least in the back of their minds, that their ABM systems would never truly protect the US from a Russian counter-strike did not really matter because there were some uniquely American psychological factors which made the notion of an ABM system irresistibly attractive:

1) An ABM system promised the US impunity: impunity is, along with military superiority, one of the great American myths (as discussed here). From Reagan with this “weapons which kill weapons” to the current crisis in Korea, Americans have always strived for impunity for their actions abroad: let all countries drown in an ocean of fire, murder and mayhem as long as our “homeland” remains the untouchable sacrosanct citadel. Since WWII Americans have killed many millions of people abroad, but when 9/11 came (nevermind that it was obviously a false flag) the country went into something like clinical shock from the loss of about 3’000 innocent civilians. Soviet, and then later, Russian nuclear weapons promised to deliver many tens of millions of deaths if the USSR/Russia was attacked and that is why spinning the fairy tale about an ABM “shield” was so appealing even if it was technologically speaking either a pipe-dream (Reagan’s “Star Wars”) or an extremely limited system capable of stopping maybe a few missiles at most (the current ABM system in Europe). Again, facts don’t matter at all, at least not in American politics or in the US collective psyche.

ORDER IT NOW

2) An ABM system promised a huge financial bonanza for the fantastically corrupt US Military-Industrial Complex for which millions of Americans work and which made many of them fantastically rich. Frankly, I suspect that many (most?) folks involved in the ABM programs fully realized that this was a waste of time, but as long as they were getting their bank accounts filled with money, they simply did not care: hey, they pay me – I will take it!

3) The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or self-sacrifice (for obvious reasons). The various variations of the ABM fairy tale make it possible for Americans to believe that the next war would be mostly fought by pressing buttons and relying on computers. And if real bombs start falling, let them fall somewhere else, preferably on some remote brown people who, well, ain’t quite as precious to God and humanity as us, the White “indispensable nation”.

Add to this a quasi-religious belief (a dogma, really) in the myth of American technological superiority and you understand that the Russian leaders began to realize that their US counterparts were gradually forgetting that they did have a bulls-eye painted on their backs. So what Putin did is simply paint a few more, different ones, just to make sure that US leaders come back to reality.

The goal of Putin’s speech was also to prove both Obama (“the Russian economy is in tatters”) and McCain (“Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country”) wrong. The Russian message to the US ruling elites was simple: no, not only are we not lagging behind you technologically, in many ways we are decades ahead of you, in spite of sanctions, your attempts to isolate us, the dramatic drop in energy prices or your attempts at limiting our access to world markets (the successful development of this new generation of weapons systems is a clear indicator of the real state of fundamental research in Russia in such spheres are advanced alloys, nanotechnology, super-computing, etc.).

To the warmongers at the Pentagon, the message was equally clear and tough: we spend less than 10% of what you can spend on global aggression; we will match your quantitative advantage with our qualitative superiority. Simply put, you fight with dollars, we will fight with brains. US propagandists, who love to speak about how Russia always uses huge numbers of unskilled soldiers and dumb but brutal weapons now have to deal with a paradigm which they are completely unfamiliar with: a Russian soldier is much better trained, much better equipped, much better commanded and their morale and willpower is almost infinitely higher than one of the typical US serviceman. For a military culture used to mantrically repeat that everything about it is “the best in the world” or even “the best in history” this kind of new reality will come as a very painful shock and most will respond to it by going into deep denial. To those who believed in the (historically completely false) narrative about the US and Reagan bankrupting the USSR by means of a successful arms race, it must feel very strange to have sort of “traded places” with the bad old USSR and being in the situation of having to face military-spending induced bankruptcy.

Nothing will change in the Empire of Illusions (at least for the foreseeable future)

Speaking of bankruptcy. The recent revelations have confirmed what the Russians have been warning about for years: all the immense sums of money spent by the US in ABM defenses have been completely wasted. Russia did find and deploy an asymmetrical response which makes the entire US ABM program completely useless and obsolete. Furthermore, as Martyanov also points out, the current force structure of the US surface fleet has also been made basically obsolete and useless, at least against Russia (but you can be sure that China is following close behind). Potentially, this state of affairs should have immense, tectonic repercussions: immense amounts US taxpayer money has been completely wasted, the US nuclear and naval strategies have been completely misguided, intelligence has failed (either on the acquisition or the analytical level), US politicians have made disastrous decisions and this is all a total “cluster-bleep” which should trigger God knows how many investigations, resignations, and numerous sanctions, administrative or even criminal ones. But, of course, absolutely nothing of this, nothing at all, will happen. Not a single head will roll…

In the “Empire of Illusions,” facts simply don’t matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. And, in a way, that is true. The zombified US general public won’t be told what is going on, those who will understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have way too much at stake to throw in the towel. In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down. So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by “patriotic” “Congresspersons” (my attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized public that they are “taking a firm stance” against “the Russian dictator” and that the proud US of A shall not cave in to the “Russian nuclear blackmail”. These colors don’t run! United we stand! Etc. etc. etc.

As for the USN, this won’t even be a topic. So some Russian guy (I mean Martyanov) wrote some stuff for the Unz Review. Who cares? That is just more “Russian propaganda” of course. It will be dismissed even before it is actually parsed and inevitably the reassuring conclusion will be, as always, “we are #1”, “America rules the waves” and all the rest of the usual jingoistic nonsense US admirals have been feeding the public for decades. Also, keep in mind that the smart folks in the USN, and there are plenty of those, knew what was going on all along, but they either had no influence or kept their silence for obvious career reasons.

The reality is that what Martyanov calls “the American myth of technological superiority” is so deeply ingrained in the US collective psyche that it has become part of the national identity and it cannot, ever, be successfully challenged. Even if Putin decided that videos and speeches simply aren’t enough and decided to make a live firing demonstration, the flag-waving zombies in the media, government and public will find a way to deny it all, pretend it did not happen, or put a mysterious smile on their faces and reply something along the lines of “yeah, cute, but if you only knew about the super-weapons we are not showing you!!” (as one drone actually wrote, “ there has to be weaponry up the US’s sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack.”). So, for the foreseeable future, expect the collective denial to continue.

When your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air”

And yet, reality exists. No matter how US propagandists have tried to spin it, deny it, obfuscate it or dismiss it, something very fundamental has changed for the United States. One such element of reality which, with time, will start to slowly seep into the minds of the people of the US is that their beloved “homeland” and they themselves are now personally and directly at risk. Indeed, for the first time in history, the United States is now targeted by powerful conventional weapons which can reach any target inside the United States. Not only that but unlike the bad old ICBMs, the launches of the weapons systems, which can now strike anywhere in the United States, the cruise missiles, are extremely hard to detect and can give the US little or no warning time. We already knew about the Russian cruise missiles 3M-54 Kalibr and the KH-101/102 with ranges of 2600km and 5500km (or more). Vladimir Putin has now announced that Russia also has nuclear-powered cruise missiles whose range is essentially infinite. Keep in mind that these missiles are very hard to detect since their launch does not generate a strong thermal signal, they fly most of their trajectory at subsonic speeds (only accelerating at the end), their thermal signature is therefore very low, their shape results in a very low radar cross-section and they can fly very low (nap of the earth) flight courses which further conceals them. Best of all, however, is that they can be launched from what externally appears to be a regular commercial container. Please take a look at this short propaganda video showing how such missiles could be concealed, deployed and used:

What Putin has now officially added to this arsenal are cruise missiles with an infinite range which could, in theory, destroy a command post in, say, the US Midwest, while being fired from the southern Indian Ocean or from the Tasman Sea. Even better, the launching platform does not need to be a Russian Navy ship at all but could be any commercial (cargo, fishing, etc.) ship, even a cruise ship. Russian heavy transport aircraft could also deliver such “containers” to any location in, say, Africa or even Antarctica and strike downtown Omaha from there with either a conventional or a nuclear warhead. That is also a fundamental game changer.

Conversely, you can think of the new nuclear-powered torpedo as a kind of “underwater cruise missile” with similar capabilities against surface ships or coastal installations. Except that this “underwater cruise missile” could “fly” under the polar ice cap. Needless to say, all of these cruise missiles can, if needed, be armed with nuclear warheads.

But it is not only the US mainland which is now targetable. All US military installations worldwide can now be attacked leaving the US very little or no reaction time.

It is not an exaggeration to say that this is truly a radical change, even a revolution, in modern warfare. I hate to admit it, but this is also an undesirable development from the point of view of first-strike stability as this places a good segment of the US nuclear triad in danger, along with almost all vital US military and conventional sites. Having said that, the entire blame for this situation is to be placed upon the arrogant and irresponsible policies of the United States since its disastrous US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002. Furthermore, I am confident that the Russians will gladly sit down with the Americans and explore any reasonable means to come to a mutual agreement to restore first-strike stability between these two countries. Nobody, besides the corrupt leaders of the US MIC, of course, needs any kind of arms race between Russia and the US or the immense costs associated with such an endeavor. But since this arms race will probably continue (as said above, Neocons always double down), Russia has a huge advantage in this race for two key reasons

1) Unlike Russia, the US will, for absolutely idiotic prestige reasons, categorically refuse to scale down its useless ABM and carrier centered naval procurement programs and all the monies allocated to actually trying to counter these Russian capabilities will be spent on top, not instead of, these useless and obsolete programs. Russia, in contrast, will spend her money on programs which actually make a real difference.

ORDER IT NOW

2) The US is now dramatically lagging behind in many key areas all of which have long development cycles. Frankly, I can’t even begin to imagine how the US is going to extricate itself from such design-disasters as the littoral combat ship (LCS) or, even the worst of them all, the F-35. Just like Russia in the 1990s, the US is nowadays ruled by corrupt incompetent cowards who simply don’t have what it takes to embark upon a real, meaningful, military reform and, as a result of that, the US armed forces are suffering from problems which are only going to get much worse before they get better again. For the time being the difference between Putin’s Russia and Trump’s US is as simple as it is stark: Russia spends her money on defense, the US spends its money on enriching corrupt politicians and businessmen. With that set of parameters, the US doesn’t stand a chance in any arms race, irrespective of the talent and patriotism of US engineers or soldiers.

Russia and the US are already at war and Russia is winning

Russia and the US have been at war since at least 2014 (I have been warning about this year, after year, after year). So far, this war has been about 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But this could very well change, and very suddenly. Russia has therefore embarked on an immense effort to prepare against both a conventional and a nuclear atack by the AngloZionist Empire. Here are some of the measures which have been taken in this context: (partial, non-exhaustive list!)

In response to the conventional NATO threat from the West:

  • Putin has ordered the re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army. This Tank Army will include two Tank Divisions (the best ones in the Russian military – 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division and the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division), and a total of 500+ T-14 Armata tanks. This Tank Army will be supported by the 20th Guards Combined Arms Army (in progress). This will be what was called a “Shock Army” during WWII and the Cold War.
  • The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (completed)
  • The doubling of the size of the Russian Airborne Forces from 36,000 to 72,000 (in progress).
  • Creation of a National Guard: which will include troops of the Interior Ministry (about 170’000 soldiers), personnel from the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the OMON riot police forces (about 40,000 soldiers), the SOBR rapid-reaction forces (about 5000+ soldiers), the Special Designation Center of the Operational Reaction Forces and Aviation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs including the Special Forces units “Zubr”, “Rys’” and “Iastreb” (about 700+ operators) for a total of about 250,000 soldiers which will probably reach the 300’000 men figure in the near future.
  • The procurement and deployment of advanced multi-role and air superiority fighters and interceptors (MiG-31BM, Su-30SM, Su-35S and, soon, the MiG-35 and Su-57).
  • Deployment of S-400 and S-500 air defense systems along with very long range radars.
  • The adoption of about 70% of new, modern, systems across all the armed forces.

In response to the ABM “encirclement” of Russia by the US:

  • The deployment of the RS-28 Sarmat ICBM with hypersonic maneuverable reentry vehicles
  • The deployment of conventionally armed very long-range cruise missiles
  • The deployment of a nuclear powered cruise missile with a basically unlimited range
  • The deployment of a nuclear powered unmanned submersible with intercontinental range, very high speed, silent propulsion and capable of moving a great depths
  • The deployment of the Mach 10 hypersonic missile Kinzhal with a 2’000 kilometer range
  • The deployment of a new strategic missile Avangard capable of Mach 20 velocities

This list is far from being exhaustive, there is much more missing from it including new submarines, (air-independent propulsion, conventional diesel-electric, nuclear attack and SSBNs), strike aircraft, new armored vehicles of various types, new advanced (high tech) individual soldier equipment, new artillery systems, etc. etc. etc. But by far the most important element in the Russian readiness to confront and, if needed, repel any western aggression is the morale, discipline, training, and resolve of Russian soldiers (so powerfully illustrated in several recent examples in Syria). Let’s just say that in comparison US and EU servicemen (or their commanders, for that matter) are not exactly an impressive lot and leave it at that.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

The reality is, of course, that nobody in Russia plans for a war, needs a war or wants a war. In fact, Russia as a country needs many more years of (even relative) peace. First, because time is obviously on Russia’s side and that the military balance with the US is very rapidly shifting in Russia’s favor. But no less important is the fact that, unlike the US which strives for conflicts, wars, and chaos, Russia badly needs peace to deal with her still very numerous internal problems which have been neglected for all too long. The problem is that the entire US political system and economy are completely dependent on a permanent state of war. That, combined with an imperial hubris boosted by an increasingly vocal russophobia is a potent and potentially dangerous mix leaving Russia no other options than “bare her fangs” and engage in some saber rattling of her own. So will Putin’s speech be enough to wake up the Empire’s ruling elites from their delusional slumber?

Probably not. In fact, in the short term, it might have the opposite effect.

Remember when the Russian’s deflected Obama’s planned attack on Syria? The US reaction was to trigger the Maidan. Sadly, I expect something very similar will happen soon, most likely in the form of a full-scale Ukronazi attack against the Donbass this Spring or during the World Cup this summer. Of course, regardless of the actual outcome of such an attack (already discussed here), this will not in any way affect the actual correlation of forces between Russia and the Empire. But it will feel good (Neocons love revenge in all its forms). We can also expect further provocations in Syria (already discussed here). Hence and for the foreseeable future, the Russians will have to continue on their current, admittedly frustrating and even painful course, and maintain a relatively passive and evasive posture which the Empire and its sycophants will predictably interpret as a sign of weakness. Let them. As long as in the real world the actual power (soft or hard) of the Empire continues to decline, as long as the US MIC continues to churn out fantastically expensive but militarily useless weapon systems, as long as US politicians are busy blaming everything on “Russian interference” while doing nothing to reform their own, collapsing economy and infrastructure, as long as the US continues to use the printing press as a substitute for actual wealth and as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working.

Russia needs to continue to walk a very narrow path: to act in a sufficiently evasive manner as to avoid provoking a direct military confrontation with the US while, at the same time, sending clear enough signals to prevent the Americans from interpreting Russia’s evasiveness as a sign of weakness and then doing something really stupid. The Russian end-goal is simple and obvious: to achieve a gradual and peaceful disintegration of the AngloZionist Empire combined with a gradual and peaceful replacement of a unipolar world ruled by one hegemon, by a multipolar world jointly administered by sovereign nations respectful of international law. Therefore, any catastrophic or violent outcomes are highly undesirable and must be avoided if at all possible. Patience and focus will be far more important in this war for the future of our planet than quick-fix reactions and hype. The “patient” needs to be returned to reality one step at a time. Putin’s March 1st speech will go down in history as such a step, but many more such steps will be needed before the patient finally wakes up.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Neocons, Russia 
Hide 279 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Giuseppe says:

    Saker at his best, a panoramic examination of geopolitical reality.

    This gives hope to all who long for a multipolar world where the USA can be a normal country again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ll
    Anyone else react to this statement?

    "the White “indispensable nation”."

    -Kinda suggest he says that USA is a white supremacist state bombing brown people in the interests of white people
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Kiza says:

    A few quick thoughts.

    Firstly, Saker wrote another good political analysis with some minor misses. But I am exceptionally glad to see some initial alignment between The Saker and Andrei Martyanov, which I have been arguing for here at unz. These two guys have a great complementary expertise and could contribute a wholistic view of the political-military situation (whilst staying out of each other’s speciality area).

    Secondly, in all the deep, deep fluff surrounding it the core of the Putin’s recent revolutionary speech could be truly summarised as a paradime shift: the US trash (primarily the AngloZionist owners of the World) has finally got targets on their foreheads. It has been my long argued point that the key problem of the World is that US has been granted immunity and impunity from its actions by the geography (e.g. two large oceans), history (selling weapons whilst the Europeans were blasting each other out) and (low) technology of its opponents. This established war in the primitive US brain purely as a war porn (a la The American Sniper etc), encouraging the dishing out violence liberally and gratiotously without even risking a broken nail in return (oh the 911 end-of-the-World). Now no more: imagine one of those container launched cruise missiles, with conventional propulsion and conventional warhead lobbed into a Ziocon meeting room anywhere in the US. No more owners and bosses of the World, ey? They will deny, they will obfurscate, they will do BMSM (bullshit through their MSM), they will double down, but the unease of a target already painted on their foreheads will remain.

    Finally, my first thought when listening to Putin’s speech about the forthcoming deployment of the nuclear propulsion torpedoes and cruise missiles was – my God, imagine if the minds which came up with those weapons were employed to develop rocket propulsion for launching humans towards other stars instead of spending their time on countering this declining idiocratic shithole full of drooling Russiagate imbeciles called US. When will humanity as a whole manage to solve its US problem?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Saker has made more than a few minor misses. Putin has done some wishcasting, and that's about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test. The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems. Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don't exist either.

    Putin is a KGB thug. In spite of what most people thought, the primary function of the KGB in the west was spreading disinformation. In spite of what grinning, drooling morons Putin told about these "weapons" think, the probability of such things existing are nil.

    The Russophobia thing is another bit of idiocy Saker is in love with. The Collusion thing the DimoKKKRats are taken with doesn't exist. The Dims are simply trying to neutralize Trump, who would like to normalize relations with Russia, but can't because of the criminality that is rampant in Putin's regime. The business in Ukraine is only a symptom. The internals of Russia, however, will destroy the country.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Lizards, I had exactly same thoughts but in more laconic form ;-)
    , @isthatright
    Hey no fair! , I came up with "Ziocon" haha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @Kiza
    A few quick thoughts.

    Firstly, Saker wrote another good political analysis with some minor misses. But I am exceptionally glad to see some initial alignment between The Saker and Andrei Martyanov, which I have been arguing for here at unz. These two guys have a great complementary expertise and could contribute a wholistic view of the political-military situation (whilst staying out of each other’s speciality area).

    Secondly, in all the deep, deep fluff surrounding it the core of the Putin’s recent revolutionary speech could be truly summarised as a paradime shift: the US trash (primarily the AngloZionist owners of the World) has finally got targets on their foreheads. It has been my long argued point that the key problem of the World is that US has been granted immunity and impunity from its actions by the geography (e.g. two large oceans), history (selling weapons whilst the Europeans were blasting each other out) and (low) technology of its opponents. This established war in the primitive US brain purely as a war porn (a la The American Sniper etc), encouraging the dishing out violence liberally and gratiotously without even risking a broken nail in return (oh the 911 end-of-the-World). Now no more: imagine one of those container launched cruise missiles, with conventional propulsion and conventional warhead lobbed into a Ziocon meeting room anywhere in the US. No more owners and bosses of the World, ey? They will deny, they will obfurscate, they will do BMSM (bullshit through their MSM), they will double down, but the unease of a target already painted on their foreheads will remain.

    Finally, my first thought when listening to Putin’s speech about the forthcoming deployment of the nuclear propulsion torpedoes and cruise missiles was - my God, imagine if the minds which came up with those weapons were employed to develop rocket propulsion for launching humans towards other stars instead of spending their time on countering this declining idiocratic shithole full of drooling Russiagate imbeciles called US. When will humanity as a whole manage to solve its US problem?

    Saker has made more than a few minor misses. Putin has done some wishcasting, and that’s about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test. The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems. Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don’t exist either.

    Putin is a KGB thug. In spite of what most people thought, the primary function of the KGB in the west was spreading disinformation. In spite of what grinning, drooling morons Putin told about these “weapons” think, the probability of such things existing are nil.

    The Russophobia thing is another bit of idiocy Saker is in love with. The Collusion thing the DimoKKKRats are taken with doesn’t exist. The Dims are simply trying to neutralize Trump, who would like to normalize relations with Russia, but can’t because of the criminality that is rampant in Putin’s regime. The business in Ukraine is only a symptom. The internals of Russia, however, will destroy the country.

    Read More
    • Troll: Felix Keverich, bluedog
    • Replies: @Giuseppe
    Stage one and stage two, denial and anger, a case in point.
    , @FB
    Well...here we have a typical example of someone who clearly knows nothing about physics or engineering making some wild technical statements...such as...

    '...The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems.

    Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don’t exist either...'
     
    I had noted previously this phenomenon of an uninformed public's fascination with 'technology'...

    '...In a culture and at a historical time where ‘technology’ is fascinating to people…[despite the fact that they do not understand even the basic physical and technical side of it]… it is seen as a source of national power…'
     
    That from my comment #60 on the Martyanov article thread...

    The simple observation is that people who know absolutely nothing about things like metallurgy...should not make sweeping statements about technology superiority...which can be disproved quite effortlessly...

    A case in point...the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now...[since 2000]...

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket...which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 'spaceplane'...

    Now let's explore how Russian metallurgy is a key factor in the RD180 engine's unmatched performance capability...and why the US has not been able to replicate that technology...

    I will get to the technical details in a moment...

    But first we note that during the Ukraine crisis of 2014 when Russia talked about possibly stopping the export of RD180 engines to the US [bye bye X37...]...the big question immediately asked was whether the US could replicate the RD180 metallurgy...which is the key to its capability...

    The DoD's RD180 study committee expressed confidence the US could in fact replicate this technology...

    '...U.S. Can Replicate RD-180 Metallurgy Technology, Engine Study Committee Chair Says...'

    '...The head of the Defense Department’s RD-180 rocket study committee believes the United States could replicate the coding and metallurgy technology involved with the Russian-produced engine...'
     
    But others doubted this assessment [and rightly so...]

    '...Critics of the idea of replicating the RD-180 domestically have said the U.S. doesn’t have the expertise like Russia to reproduce its metallurgy...

    ...which is the study of physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements and their mixtures, known as alloys...'
     
    Now I will explain in technical terms why metallurgy is the key to the Russian high efficiency rocket engine technology...

    The key to the RD180...and in fact Russian engine technology going back to the 1960s...has been a more efficient engine cycle known as 'Staged Combustion Cycle'...

    '...its main advantage relative to other rocket engine power cycles is high fuel efficiency, measured through specific impulse, while its main disadvantage is engineering complexity...'
     
    '...Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949....

    The first generation of successful staged combustion cycle engines was perfected by the Russians by the 1960s...with the NK33 engine...

    '...The NK-33 series engines are high-pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle bipropellant rocket engines.

    They use oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps... These kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through failures.

    The United States had not investigated oxygen-rich combustion technologies until the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator project in the early 2000s....

    The Soviets, however, perfected the metallurgy behind this method...'
     
    Interesting story here...the US had heard about the advanced NK33 engine but was skeptical...

    '...In the 1990s, [US rocket engine company] Aerojet was contacted and eventually visited Kuznetsov's plant.

    Upon meeting initial skepticism about the high specific impulse and other specifications, Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing.

    Oxidizer-rich staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but deemed impossible.

    The Russian RD-180 engine, purchased by Lockheed Martin (subsequently by United Launch Alliance) for the Atlas III and V rockets, also employs this technique...'
     

    '...Word of the engines eventually spread to America. Nearly 30 years after they were built, disbelieving rocket engineers were led to the warehouse.

    One of the engines was later taken to America, and the precise specification of the engine was demonstrated on a test stand...'
     

    '...The NK-33 closed-cycle technology works by sending the auxiliary engines' exhaust into the main combustion chamber. This made the engine design unique.

    This technology was believed to be impossible by Western rocket engineers...'
     

    '...The fully heated liquid O2 flows through the pre-burner and into the main chamber in this design.

    The extremely hot oxygen-rich mixture made the engine dangerous: it was known to melt 3-inch (76 mm) thick castings "like candle wax"...'
     
    It is to be noted that the US has not to this day created a staged combustion cycle [aka closed cycle] engine of its own...

    This...despite the fact that Nasa scientists nearly 40 years ago called on the US to develop such engines...


    https://s20.postimg.org/al3a3zmf1/Nasa_Staged_Combustion_Cycle_Paper.jpg


    We note here also the specific technical details about chamber pressure of 4,000 psi...which is what the RD180 engine achieves...

    Chamber pressure 3,870 psi...
     
    We also note that the Rocketdyne F1 engine designed by Werner von Braun for the Apollo program achieved a chamber pressure 1/4 of that...1,015 psi...

    And also note that the SpaceX Merlin engine achieves barely 1/3'rd at 1,415 psi...

    As noted already...the US has yet to build a high-pressure rocket engine...[the newest Russian engines...which it is not selling...are well over 4,000 psi...]

    As noted in the introductory remarks of that Nasa paper of 1980...high chamber pressure is essential to rocket engine performance...

    Here is the explanation for that...in thermodynamics which is the study of energy and heat engines...we know that any type of heat engine...be it a rocket engine, a jet engine, a piston engine, or even an air conditioner [also a heat engine]...works with only two types of energy...heat and pressure...

    Only pressure energy can be converted directly to work energy...by means of expanding that pressure through a nozzle...which converts pressure into speed...ie kinetic energy...[it is the same principle as the nozzle on your garden hose...if you don't have water pressure there will be no water shooting out...]

    Heat energy by itself [ie without pressure] cannot be turned into work energy...[ie thrust]...heat energy only serves to make the pressure energy do more work...than it would on its own...

    The higher the pressure...the greater the speed of that fluid exiting the nozzle...whether in a garden hose or a rocket or jet engine nozzle...and the greater the thrust...

    The only way to achieve high pressure of the rocket fuel [kerosene] and oxydizer [liquid oxygen] is to pump those liquids up to a high pressure using a turbopump...

    ...which is the heart of a liquid fuel rocket engine...

    In a simple gas generator cycle as used on US engines...a small amount of fuel is burned to drive the turbopump...and the exhaust is simply dumped overboard...


    https://s20.postimg.org/yssgmfs31/gas_generator.jpg


    We see the orange arrow showing the gas leaving the turbine is dumped overboard...

    This means that the turbopump can be small but the pressure it can put out is likewise small...[incidentally...SpaceX does not make its own turbopumps...those are made by Barber Nichols...]

    The Russian high pressure engines use much more powerful turbopumps in order to get that high chamber pressure...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png


    Here we see that the exhaust gas exiting the pre-burner flows into the main combustion chamber where it adds to the thrust...instead of being dumped overboard...

    Making these very powerful turbopumps is a technology the US has never mastered...hence their reliance on outdated gas generator cycle rocket engines...

    This is a fundamental shortcoming of US space technology...

    Incidentally the most powerful turbopump is found on the world's most powerful rocket engine...the Russian RD170...

    The turbopump puts out 170 megawatts...which is ~230,000 HP...that's the kind of power it takes to achieve high pressure in the fuel and oxydizer of a very large engine...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/RD-170_rocket_engine.jpg


    and here is an interesting documentary about the previously mnentioned NK33 engine from the '60s...which wowed US rocket scientists in the '90s...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM

    I will address the issue of nuclear aircraft and cruise missile propulsion in my next technical comment...
    , @hunor
    What kind of a thug are you? Analysis or comment make sense , but your judgement is what you are.
    , @Antiwar7
    Quartermaster, anxiously waiting for your substantive reply to FB...

    Or do you just stop talking when proven to be full of baloney?
    , @professorchops
    Russia does not bluff, especially with the lives of hundreds of millions at stake - beleiveing whqt Putin says is true. Of course it is, and you know it.
    , @Gomez Anonymous
    You still in the first stage , denial , Every thing you vomit above has been said and proven wrong time and time again , Have you read Russian history ? Do you really think that the zionist US regime and its puppets can do ANYTHING against Russia that involves violence, with out being obliterated ?? the only idiotic moron here is you.
    , @Paw
    How we recognize of Thug Putin ? By repeating cliche of KGB. That certainly works for some brains. It makes USA very secure. He is just KGB. Case solved.
    Now some nations began to get closer and closer to Russia under relentless pressure from USA.
    Now , there is concentration od Russia defence and an advantage of home field.
    Comparing presidents does not look good for the pathetic hairy /gen. Custer/, UnKGB Trump. And the Stable genius , who change ministers like socks. Often.
    Threats of war every day makes USA peacefull as lambs. Minus the silence.
    Politicaly USA is splintered now into many groups.. Hysteria rules. Close to panic.
    Russia system of the Dead Hand makes sure when Russia ends the whole world ends.
    Great war in Syriia , very difficult to defeat US proxy army of terrorists.
    As they already defeated USA in 9/11 ...And so easy.
    Are those terrorist the last stand of US Army ?
    Tarrifs , are sanctions against the world. Shall work. Like the boomerang they will sure strike back.
    In many ways...
    , @FB

    '...Putin has done some wishcasting, and that’s about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test...'
     
    I trust you found my reply to your metallurgy 'issue' to your satisfaction...[certainly a number of other commenters seemed to...]

    I posted a similar technical discussion on the nuclear cruise missile on another thread...

    I trust you will find it likewise appealing...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Excellent analysis. Forestalling: those who will say that I have high opinion because of Saker referring to me–shame on you. Now to substance.

    Right now, the AngloZionists are undergoing something very similar to the first two of the Five Stages of the Kübler-Ross Grief model: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

    Some powerful figures are now into the stage three with four and five fused and following almost in parallel.

    https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/amid-heightened-tension-markey-merkley-feinstein-and-sanders-press-trump-administration-to-jumpstart-new-strategic-talks-with-russia

    Thursday, March 8, 2018

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Amid heightened tension with Russia, U.S. Senators Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) today urged Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to begin a new round of strategic talks with Russia without delay.

    “A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing including a cruise missile and a nuclear underwater drone, which are not currently limited by the New START treaty, and would be destabilizing if deployed,” the Senators wrote. “There is no doubt we have significant disagreements with Russia, including Russia’s brazen interference in the 2016 U.S. elections; continued violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF); invasion of Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea; and destabilizing actions in Syria.
    “However, it is due to these policy rifts, not in spite of them, that the United States should urgently engage with Russia to avoid miscalculation and reduce the likelihood of conflict,” the Senators continued.

    Yesterday’s hilarious statement by General John E. Hyten Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, that US can destroy Russia since Russia doesn’t know where US strategic missile submarines are is one of those cases of Duh! Thank you, nobody knew about this before, LOL.

    https://armedservices.house.gov/legislation/hearings/us-strategic-forces-posture-and-fiscal-year-2019-budget-request

    So, the movement already started and Lavrov already puts forth conditions for Russian-American discussion on strategic stability. About freaking time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Excellent articles by both Saker and Andrei Martyanov which compliment each other very well. Keep it up guys.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @Kiza
    A few quick thoughts.

    Firstly, Saker wrote another good political analysis with some minor misses. But I am exceptionally glad to see some initial alignment between The Saker and Andrei Martyanov, which I have been arguing for here at unz. These two guys have a great complementary expertise and could contribute a wholistic view of the political-military situation (whilst staying out of each other’s speciality area).

    Secondly, in all the deep, deep fluff surrounding it the core of the Putin’s recent revolutionary speech could be truly summarised as a paradime shift: the US trash (primarily the AngloZionist owners of the World) has finally got targets on their foreheads. It has been my long argued point that the key problem of the World is that US has been granted immunity and impunity from its actions by the geography (e.g. two large oceans), history (selling weapons whilst the Europeans were blasting each other out) and (low) technology of its opponents. This established war in the primitive US brain purely as a war porn (a la The American Sniper etc), encouraging the dishing out violence liberally and gratiotously without even risking a broken nail in return (oh the 911 end-of-the-World). Now no more: imagine one of those container launched cruise missiles, with conventional propulsion and conventional warhead lobbed into a Ziocon meeting room anywhere in the US. No more owners and bosses of the World, ey? They will deny, they will obfurscate, they will do BMSM (bullshit through their MSM), they will double down, but the unease of a target already painted on their foreheads will remain.

    Finally, my first thought when listening to Putin’s speech about the forthcoming deployment of the nuclear propulsion torpedoes and cruise missiles was - my God, imagine if the minds which came up with those weapons were employed to develop rocket propulsion for launching humans towards other stars instead of spending their time on countering this declining idiocratic shithole full of drooling Russiagate imbeciles called US. When will humanity as a whole manage to solve its US problem?

    Lizards, I had exactly same thoughts but in more laconic form ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Smart iPhone turned Kiza into Lizards, lol. Sorry
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. kemerd says:

    I am really puzzled by the reaction of some Russians like Karlin. He appears to have no expertise or access to classified information in these matters but still feels that he have to downplay what has been said by Putin.

    The article in his latest piece (http://www.unz.com/akarlin/putins-wunderwaffe/) by one Michael Koffman that he cites acknowledges that these weapon systems migh have been in development for a long time and then dismisses the possibility of them being operational, and as if he has access to project schedule and says they would be operational not before mid 2020s. Why so?

    And, a question to both Martyanov and the Saker: why Russia keeps producing such people who openly takes position against their best national interests: this is not about being on the left or right or the economic model of the county, but the very existence of it! Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The article in his latest piece (http://www.unz.com/akarlin/putins-wunderwaffe/) by one Michael Koffman that he cites acknowledges that these weapon systems migh have been in development for a long time and then dismisses the possibility of them being operational, and as if he has access to project schedule and says they would be operational not before mid 2020s. Why so?
     
    Most of what comes out of the so called "analytical" (think-tank) American institutions about Russia is baloney. Most US "estimates" on Russia's economy, military, science etc. are ideologically driven, confirmation bias impeded, fairy tales. The problem is deep and it is difficult to describe it in several sentences. It is a huge problem.
    , @Felix Keverich
    What a bizarre thing to say! We are talking about some cutting-edge weapons systems here, so there are legitimate questions as to whether Russia actually has the ability to develop and manufacture them, especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia's corruption natually extends to its "military-industrial complex".

    Questioning Russia's capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin's approach to Martyanov's, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Giuseppe says:
    @Quartermaster
    Saker has made more than a few minor misses. Putin has done some wishcasting, and that's about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test. The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems. Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don't exist either.

    Putin is a KGB thug. In spite of what most people thought, the primary function of the KGB in the west was spreading disinformation. In spite of what grinning, drooling morons Putin told about these "weapons" think, the probability of such things existing are nil.

    The Russophobia thing is another bit of idiocy Saker is in love with. The Collusion thing the DimoKKKRats are taken with doesn't exist. The Dims are simply trying to neutralize Trump, who would like to normalize relations with Russia, but can't because of the criminality that is rampant in Putin's regime. The business in Ukraine is only a symptom. The internals of Russia, however, will destroy the country.

    Stage one and stage two, denial and anger, a case in point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Sergey Krieger
    Lizards, I had exactly same thoughts but in more laconic form ;-)

    Smart iPhone turned Kiza into Lizards, lol. Sorry

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @kemerd
    I am really puzzled by the reaction of some Russians like Karlin. He appears to have no expertise or access to classified information in these matters but still feels that he have to downplay what has been said by Putin.

    The article in his latest piece (http://www.unz.com/akarlin/putins-wunderwaffe/) by one Michael Koffman that he cites acknowledges that these weapon systems migh have been in development for a long time and then dismisses the possibility of them being operational, and as if he has access to project schedule and says they would be operational not before mid 2020s. Why so?

    And, a question to both Martyanov and the Saker: why Russia keeps producing such people who openly takes position against their best national interests: this is not about being on the left or right or the economic model of the county, but the very existence of it! Why?

    The article in his latest piece (http://www.unz.com/akarlin/putins-wunderwaffe/) by one Michael Koffman that he cites acknowledges that these weapon systems migh have been in development for a long time and then dismisses the possibility of them being operational, and as if he has access to project schedule and says they would be operational not before mid 2020s. Why so?

    Most of what comes out of the so called “analytical” (think-tank) American institutions about Russia is baloney. Most US “estimates” on Russia’s economy, military, science etc. are ideologically driven, confirmation bias impeded, fairy tales. The problem is deep and it is difficult to describe it in several sentences. It is a huge problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @kemerd
    I am really puzzled by the reaction of some Russians like Karlin. He appears to have no expertise or access to classified information in these matters but still feels that he have to downplay what has been said by Putin.

    The article in his latest piece (http://www.unz.com/akarlin/putins-wunderwaffe/) by one Michael Koffman that he cites acknowledges that these weapon systems migh have been in development for a long time and then dismisses the possibility of them being operational, and as if he has access to project schedule and says they would be operational not before mid 2020s. Why so?

    And, a question to both Martyanov and the Saker: why Russia keeps producing such people who openly takes position against their best national interests: this is not about being on the left or right or the economic model of the county, but the very existence of it! Why?

    What a bizarre thing to say! We are talking about some cutting-edge weapons systems here, so there are legitimate questions as to whether Russia actually has the ability to develop and manufacture them, especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia’s corruption natually extends to its “military-industrial complex”.

    Questioning Russia’s capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin’s approach to Martyanov’s, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Andrei Martyanov got some background Karlin will never have. Andrei has background, education and experience and he speaks only about things he knows about. Karlin is all over the place talking expressing his opinion about things he has no background to talk at all. Also, Andrei stated many times as a fact he is not Putin fan. But considering job done in military and foreign affairs sphere Putin deserves huge credit. He would have never made statement he did without having things working as advertised. Regarding Karlin, it looks like the only Russia woryhs his praise is the one we lost pre 1917.
    , @kemerd
    No, you seem to not understand my point. Karlin has no expertise or information to verify whether these weapons exist or not; nor can he assess if these are the breakthrough developments as experts here argue.

    The point is that he feels the need to counter everything Russian nationalists say or do, irrespective of whether he has facts in front of him or not: I can see an American deny Russians having these weapons or their effectiveness if they exist without hard facts in front of them (as the Saker explains). But Karlin behaves the same as Americans as if he was against the survival of an independent Russia. A real Russian patriot who is an opponent of Putin and his ilk (there are a lot of reasons for doing so) would say or do nothing until hard facts are established. But he jumps to the American wagon immediately even though he (or Americans) have no way of verifying those claims.

    That is the issue and it seems Russia have a big problem of producing such people in large numbers.
    , @peterAUS

    .....especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia’s corruption natually extends to its “military-industrial complex”.

    Questioning Russia’s capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin’s approach to Martyanov’s, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.
     

    Agree, up to a point.

    Corruption notwithstanding and the "Team Russia" cheering for their Great Leader and his team, I do believe that Russia can produce such weaponry.

    Not important, IMHO.

    Soviet Union was going to shit and it was produciing quite good weaponry.
    The same pattern being repeated now is simply......funny.

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
    Now, it is good for lining the pockets of fat cats at the top, but, not so good on making the life of lower strata of society happy.
    The same strata that had enough of Soviet shit and brought all that Potemkin village now.

    I have a feeling that Russian elites know all that, just, they don't have another option.
    They haven't been able to develop a coherent alternative vision of society and got locked into competition with similar ilk in the West.

    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those "superweapons" less they'll allocate for the common man there.
    That will create an environment for an internal dissent.
    How is that internal dissent going to work out, or not, we'll see.

    Maybe it will make the team in Kremlin listen and do something good.
    Or...maybe it will destabilize the regime enough to create a crisis.
    That crisis could, of badly managed by both parties, escalate in a serious confrontation with The Empire.
    And, the only important then would be: nukes or not.
    If yes, ah, well.....it was sort of good while it lasted. Especially for the fat cats.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Felix Keverich
    What a bizarre thing to say! We are talking about some cutting-edge weapons systems here, so there are legitimate questions as to whether Russia actually has the ability to develop and manufacture them, especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia's corruption natually extends to its "military-industrial complex".

    Questioning Russia's capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin's approach to Martyanov's, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.

    Andrei Martyanov got some background Karlin will never have. Andrei has background, education and experience and he speaks only about things he knows about. Karlin is all over the place talking expressing his opinion about things he has no background to talk at all. Also, Andrei stated many times as a fact he is not Putin fan. But considering job done in military and foreign affairs sphere Putin deserves huge credit. He would have never made statement he did without having things working as advertised. Regarding Karlin, it looks like the only Russia woryhs his praise is the one we lost pre 1917.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yurivku

    Regarding Karlin, it looks like the only Russia woryhs his praise is the one we lost pre 1917.
     
    He doesn't worry about Russia of any time.
    He's speaking about "Russia we've lost" just to look not as a full betraytor who nobody likes.
    He, just like that Felix guy trying to get a lot from Russia for free. They are actually are enemies. Why such people exist? I don't know, but they've been in all times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. kemerd says:
    @Felix Keverich
    What a bizarre thing to say! We are talking about some cutting-edge weapons systems here, so there are legitimate questions as to whether Russia actually has the ability to develop and manufacture them, especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia's corruption natually extends to its "military-industrial complex".

    Questioning Russia's capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin's approach to Martyanov's, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.

    No, you seem to not understand my point. Karlin has no expertise or information to verify whether these weapons exist or not; nor can he assess if these are the breakthrough developments as experts here argue.

    The point is that he feels the need to counter everything Russian nationalists say or do, irrespective of whether he has facts in front of him or not: I can see an American deny Russians having these weapons or their effectiveness if they exist without hard facts in front of them (as the Saker explains). But Karlin behaves the same as Americans as if he was against the survival of an independent Russia. A real Russian patriot who is an opponent of Putin and his ilk (there are a lot of reasons for doing so) would say or do nothing until hard facts are established. But he jumps to the American wagon immediately even though he (or Americans) have no way of verifying those claims.

    That is the issue and it seems Russia have a big problem of producing such people in large numbers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I need to question if you have even read that article, where:

    1. I do not say that Russia does not have those superweapons (namely, Status-6 and nuclear-powered cruise missile), just a list of pros and contras to consider in deciding on the likelihood that they add up to anything more than plans on paper or faulty prototypes at best.

    2. Suggested that if Russia is serious about Status-6, its stated role as a harbor destroyer makes no sense (and suggested an alternative).

    I also need to question that you read me in general.

    For a start, I am a Russian nationalist - probably the most prominent one who identifies as such writing in the Anglosphere. Neither The Saker nor especially Martyanov identify as such.
    , @yurivku

    But Karlin behaves the same as Americans as if he was against the survival of an independent Russia.
     
    You got his point correctly. There are quite a some of such "russians" (mainly Jews) who hate Russia and call themselves liberals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. FB says:
    @Quartermaster
    Saker has made more than a few minor misses. Putin has done some wishcasting, and that's about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test. The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems. Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don't exist either.

    Putin is a KGB thug. In spite of what most people thought, the primary function of the KGB in the west was spreading disinformation. In spite of what grinning, drooling morons Putin told about these "weapons" think, the probability of such things existing are nil.

    The Russophobia thing is another bit of idiocy Saker is in love with. The Collusion thing the DimoKKKRats are taken with doesn't exist. The Dims are simply trying to neutralize Trump, who would like to normalize relations with Russia, but can't because of the criminality that is rampant in Putin's regime. The business in Ukraine is only a symptom. The internals of Russia, however, will destroy the country.

    Well…here we have a typical example of someone who clearly knows nothing about physics or engineering making some wild technical statements…such as…

    ‘…The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems.

    Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don’t exist either…’

    I had noted previously this phenomenon of an uninformed public’s fascination with ‘technology’…

    ‘…In a culture and at a historical time where ‘technology’ is fascinating to people…[despite the fact that they do not understand even the basic physical and technical side of it]… it is seen as a source of national power…’

    That from my comment #60 on the Martyanov article thread…

    The simple observation is that people who know absolutely nothing about things like metallurgy…should not make sweeping statements about technology superiority…which can be disproved quite effortlessly…

    A case in point…the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now…[since 2000]…

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket…which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 ‘spaceplane’…

    Now let’s explore how Russian metallurgy is a key factor in the RD180 engine’s unmatched performance capability…and why the US has not been able to replicate that technology…

    I will get to the technical details in a moment…

    But first we note that during the Ukraine crisis of 2014 when Russia talked about possibly stopping the export of RD180 engines to the US [bye bye X37...]…the big question immediately asked was whether the US could replicate the RD180 metallurgy…which is the key to its capability…

    The DoD’s RD180 study committee expressed confidence the US could in fact replicate this technology…

    ‘…U.S. Can Replicate RD-180 Metallurgy Technology, Engine Study Committee Chair Says…’

    ‘…The head of the Defense Department’s RD-180 rocket study committee believes the United States could replicate the coding and metallurgy technology involved with the Russian-produced engine…’

    But others doubted this assessment [and rightly so...]

    ‘…Critics of the idea of replicating the RD-180 domestically have said the U.S. doesn’t have the expertise like Russia to reproduce its metallurgy…

    …which is the study of physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements and their mixtures, known as alloys…’

    Now I will explain in technical terms why metallurgy is the key to the Russian high efficiency rocket engine technology…

    The key to the RD180…and in fact Russian engine technology going back to the 1960s…has been a more efficient engine cycle known as ‘Staged Combustion Cycle’…

    ‘…its main advantage relative to other rocket engine power cycles is high fuel efficiency, measured through specific impulse, while its main disadvantage is engineering complexity…’

    ‘…Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949….

    The first generation of successful staged combustion cycle engines was perfected by the Russians by the 1960s…with the NK33 engine…

    ‘…The NK-33 series engines are high-pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle bipropellant rocket engines.

    They use oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps… These kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through failures.

    The United States had not investigated oxygen-rich combustion technologies until the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator project in the early 2000s….

    The Soviets, however, perfected the metallurgy behind this method…’

    Interesting story here…the US had heard about the advanced NK33 engine but was skeptical…

    ‘…In the 1990s, [US rocket engine company] Aerojet was contacted and eventually visited Kuznetsov’s plant.

    Upon meeting initial skepticism about the high specific impulse and other specifications, Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing.

    Oxidizer-rich staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but deemed impossible.

    The Russian RD-180 engine, purchased by Lockheed Martin (subsequently by United Launch Alliance) for the Atlas III and V rockets, also employs this technique…’

    ‘…Word of the engines eventually spread to America. Nearly 30 years after they were built, disbelieving rocket engineers were led to the warehouse.

    One of the engines was later taken to America, and the precise specification of the engine was demonstrated on a test stand…’

    ‘…The NK-33 closed-cycle technology works by sending the auxiliary engines’ exhaust into the main combustion chamber. This made the engine design unique.

    This technology was believed to be impossible by Western rocket engineers…’

    ‘…The fully heated liquid O2 flows through the pre-burner and into the main chamber in this design.

    The extremely hot oxygen-rich mixture made the engine dangerous: it was known to melt 3-inch (76 mm) thick castings “like candle wax”…’

    It is to be noted that the US has not to this day created a staged combustion cycle [aka closed cycle] engine of its own…

    This…despite the fact that Nasa scientists nearly 40 years ago called on the US to develop such engines…

    We note here also the specific technical details about chamber pressure of 4,000 psi…which is what the RD180 engine achieves…

    Chamber pressure 3,870 psi…

    We also note that the Rocketdyne F1 engine designed by Werner von Braun for the Apollo program achieved a chamber pressure 1/4 of that…1,015 psi…

    And also note that the SpaceX Merlin engine achieves barely 1/3′rd at 1,415 psi…

    As noted already…the US has yet to build a high-pressure rocket engine…[the newest Russian engines...which it is not selling...are well over 4,000 psi...]

    As noted in the introductory remarks of that Nasa paper of 1980…high chamber pressure is essential to rocket engine performance…

    Here is the explanation for that…in thermodynamics which is the study of energy and heat engines…we know that any type of heat engine…be it a rocket engine, a jet engine, a piston engine, or even an air conditioner [also a heat engine]…works with only two types of energy…heat and pressure…

    Only pressure energy can be converted directly to work energy…by means of expanding that pressure through a nozzle…which converts pressure into speed…ie kinetic energy…[it is the same principle as the nozzle on your garden hose...if you don't have water pressure there will be no water shooting out...]

    Heat energy by itself [ie without pressure] cannot be turned into work energy…[ie thrust]…heat energy only serves to make the pressure energy do more work…than it would on its own…

    The higher the pressure…the greater the speed of that fluid exiting the nozzle…whether in a garden hose or a rocket or jet engine nozzle…and the greater the thrust…

    The only way to achieve high pressure of the rocket fuel [kerosene] and oxydizer [liquid oxygen] is to pump those liquids up to a high pressure using a turbopump…

    …which is the heart of a liquid fuel rocket engine…

    In a simple gas generator cycle as used on US engines…a small amount of fuel is burned to drive the turbopump…and the exhaust is simply dumped overboard…

    We see the orange arrow showing the gas leaving the turbine is dumped overboard…

    This means that the turbopump can be small but the pressure it can put out is likewise small…[incidentally...SpaceX does not make its own turbopumps...those are made by Barber Nichols...]

    The Russian high pressure engines use much more powerful turbopumps in order to get that high chamber pressure…

    Here we see that the exhaust gas exiting the pre-burner flows into the main combustion chamber where it adds to the thrust…instead of being dumped overboard…

    Making these very powerful turbopumps is a technology the US has never mastered…hence their reliance on outdated gas generator cycle rocket engines…

    This is a fundamental shortcoming of US space technology…

    Incidentally the most powerful turbopump is found on the world’s most powerful rocket engine…the Russian RD170…

    The turbopump puts out 170 megawatts…which is ~230,000 HP…that’s the kind of power it takes to achieve high pressure in the fuel and oxydizer of a very large engine…

    and here is an interesting documentary about the previously mnentioned NK33 engine from the ’60s…which wowed US rocket scientists in the ’90s…

    I will address the issue of nuclear aircraft and cruise missile propulsion in my next technical comment…

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    I remember reading a book by a Russian immigrant journalist who went into great detail about the weakness of Soviet rocket technology, and especially metallurgy, who confidently put forth the argument that the Soviets could never achieve the metallurgy to make large rocket engines, hence the reason why large Soviet rockets consisted of large clusters of smaller engines. I wondered why the Soviets would have allowed the emigration of someone possessing such an intimate detail of state secrets on the Soviet space program, but it looks like this journalist and his book may have simply been disinformation to cover up the Soviets real abilities in metallurgy.
    , @Vidi
    IMHO, that was a knockout blow to Quartermaster's ignorant rantings that the Russians are behind in metallurgy. The RD-180 engine can tolerate an oxidizer-rich and high-pressure mixture that would melt the best American alloys like "candle wax". The U.S. still can't do it, even after decades of trying.

    The metallurgical advantage isn't minor. Of course, it enables practical hypersonic weapons, as Putin has announced. But I suspect that Russia also has the upper hand in engines for fighter jets, such as the one for the Su-57; I don't know when or even if the U.S. will ever catch up.

    Yes, as the Saker says, Americans need to stop their denial and anger, and start the next stage of grief. If they can make it through all five stages, maybe the U.S. will start behaving like a civilized country.
    , @Dissident X
    I loved the post.
    Thank you.
    , @bjondo
    So, you think reverse engineering of alien space craft, other alien tech items by US in mid 20th century baloney?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. No, you seem to not understand my point. Karlin has no expertise or information to verify whether these weapons exist or not; nor can he assess if these are the breakthrough developments as experts here argue.

    Neither does Martyanov! The dude apparently used to be a sailor in the Soviet navy, but that was decades ago.

    Overreliance on Western sources is a arguably one weakness in Karlin’s analysis, however it’s probably due to the paucity of publicly available Russian research on this subject. Russia doesn’t have anything resembling the think-tank industry that exists in the West, the Kremlin doesn’t want Russians to have a public debate on the issues of foreign policy and national security, because allowing a public debate will encourage criticism, and Kremlin doesn’t take criticism well…

    Consequently, we find ourselves relying on Western sources when trying to assess Russia’s military capabilities, but that’s mainly Kremlin’s own fault for trying to keep this information hidden (from the Russian public).

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...Overreliance on Western sources is a arguably one weakness in Karlin’s analysis...'
     
    Here is what I replied to Karlin's 'analysis'...

    '...Thanks for the fluff…
     
    Karlin cites a so-called US 'expert' on Russia weapons...one Micheal Kofman...whose background is this…

    ‘… Mr. Kofman holds a M.A. in International Security from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University and a B.A. in Political Science from Northeastern University…’
     
    We note here that Kofman does not hold any kind of hard science degree whatsoever…either physics, math or engineering…

    Ie he is a layman when it comes to technical matters…

    '...Russia doesn’t have anything resembling the think-tank industry that exists in the West...

    ...the Kremlin doesn’t want Russians to have a public debate on the issues of foreign policy and national security, because allowing a public debate will encourage criticism, and Kremlin doesn’t take criticism well…'
     
    The first part of your sentence is correct...Russia does not have a 'stink tank' industry...to the huge benefit of Russian public and society at large...since they miss the opportunity to be influenced by special-interest groups and their agenda-driven messages...

    The second part of your sentence implies a somewhat remarkable ability to read minds...

    ...would love to hear more...[another Kreskin in the making perhaps...]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdz6ihhObJk
    , @Murali Penumarth
    I don't believe your the lack of understanding of Russian Federation. Today's Russia is not old Soviet Union, now they have free press and i can't recall the name of the TV personality but he has a weekly TV interview of various Russians with different political views. Do you know Putin has a regular TV interview where people can ask him or may be even challenge his positions/policies. Good luck finding such a political leader in the so called free west, where the sheeple are fed a constant barrage of propaganda. Also the various Think Tanks you are marvelling are funded by mega corporations and guess who they shill for? Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. peterAUS says:
    @Felix Keverich
    What a bizarre thing to say! We are talking about some cutting-edge weapons systems here, so there are legitimate questions as to whether Russia actually has the ability to develop and manufacture them, especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia's corruption natually extends to its "military-industrial complex".

    Questioning Russia's capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin's approach to Martyanov's, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.

    …..especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia’s corruption natually extends to its “military-industrial complex”.

    Questioning Russia’s capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin’s approach to Martyanov’s, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.

    Agree, up to a point.

    Corruption notwithstanding and the “Team Russia” cheering for their Great Leader and his team, I do believe that Russia can produce such weaponry.

    Not important, IMHO.

    Soviet Union was going to shit and it was produciing quite good weaponry.
    The same pattern being repeated now is simply……funny.

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
    Now, it is good for lining the pockets of fat cats at the top, but, not so good on making the life of lower strata of society happy.
    The same strata that had enough of Soviet shit and brought all that Potemkin village now.

    I have a feeling that Russian elites know all that, just, they don’t have another option.
    They haven’t been able to develop a coherent alternative vision of society and got locked into competition with similar ilk in the West.

    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those “superweapons” less they’ll allocate for the common man there.
    That will create an environment for an internal dissent.
    How is that internal dissent going to work out, or not, we’ll see.

    Maybe it will make the team in Kremlin listen and do something good.
    Or…maybe it will destabilize the regime enough to create a crisis.
    That crisis could, of badly managed by both parties, escalate in a serious confrontation with The Empire.
    And, the only important then would be: nukes or not.
    If yes, ah, well…..it was sort of good while it lasted. Especially for the fat cats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
     
    I don't think so. Soviet Union was a leftist regime, that was fiscally irresponsible. Putin's Russia is the opposite of that. You may not be aware of it, but since 2014 the government pursued an austerity program, that would have been impossible in any Western country. The federal budget is expected to have a positive balance in 2018. Russia will not be running out of money any time soon.

    These weapons do not seem to be particularly expensive to deploy but, if real, will make the American navy obsolete. So the implications are huge.

    , @for-the-record
    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those “superweapons” less they’ll allocate for the common man there.

    Logically, of course, this would appear to be true. On the other hand, official sources indicate that Russian military expenditures (2.85% in 2018 and in absolute terms lower than the UK) are actually declining (9% in ruble terms in 2018). Are they to be believed?
    , @Vidi

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
     
    With economic support from China, Russia can afford an arms race. The U.S. can't -- especially as it is clearly decades behind in many aspects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. That reader-comment by “FB” is awesome, the best thing that I’ve yet seen as a comment on Putin’s speech. The Saker and Martyanov are the ultimate authorities on the big picture, but this explanation of why “Quartermaster”s reader-comment denigrating that big-picture presentation is just pompous BS is the icing on this ultimate cake, for me. If “Quartermaster” can point out any fatal falsehood in “FB”s presentation here, then I shall change my mind, but, otherwise, I can only conclude that “Quartermaster” is a fool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Thanks Eric...

    I regularly read and value your important and honest contributions to geopolitical journalism...
    , @ploni alomoni
    Quartermaster is not a fool.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Beckow says:

    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other? During Cold War, there were 3-4 cases when the world came close to a nuclear exchange. We got lucky. When your success depends on luck, you will eventually lose. We will not make it through another 3-4 close calls. It would not be the end, but we would ALL be worse off.

    Political implications? Go inland, drones could pop out of oceans any moment, avoid large metropolitan areas, store some potatoes, and don’t count on your electronic wealth.

    What will trigger it? Maybe saving the Al Queda guys in ‘east Ghouta’, Bandera statues in Donbass, Melodonin slipped into the wrong drink (curling? come on that was random…), and foreigners calling Hillary the ‘Satan’. (I was completely ‘with Her’ until I saw that Facebook ad, one can never be too careful.)

    Oh, and one more consequence, the rolling bombing-for-fun-and-better-humanity could be a thing of the past. Too bad, I think Catalonia would really deserve it, damn ‘populists’ with their over-prices tapas…

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other? During Cold War, there were 3-4 cases when the world came close to a nuclear exchange. We got lucky. When your success depends on luck, you will eventually lose. We will not make it through another 3-4 close calls.
     
    Agree.

    It would not be the end, but we would ALL be worse off.
     
    Maybe. Depends on a lot of variables.
    I do believe that going out full scale will be the end.

    What will trigger it?
     
    Hehe.........
    My take: a combination of human error with system malfunction.

    Or, perhaps you are just too negative. I'd suggest the common remedy: take a day course in positive thinking, get immersed in social media and consumer society. Works a a charm until it doesn't.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other?
     
    We are entering a new military-technological paradigm and at this stage Russia is ahead in some most crucial delivery and defensive systems. Paradoxically, this now IS a main guarantor of NOT shooting those damn things at each-other since the nature of Russian state, nation and its military doctrine is explicitly defensive and Russia has NO plans to conquer someone or attack someone. Although I had to rewrite Epilogue for my book, once it comes out in August-September all of it is dedicated to this issue. Should this have been 180 degree reversed--the United States would have unleashed a war against Russia long ago.
    , @Kiza
    My favorite scenario for the end of the World (yes, the end - not just everyone worse off as you say) is not even related to any Western created crisis point such as Eastern Ghouta or Donbas etc. The end of the World would start as a random effect of the totally unneccesary military build up on Russia’s borders. A drunken Estonian “air-defence” officer orders a shoot-down of a Russian military transport plane full of military officers for rotation on the way to Kaliningrad, because it missed the very narrow international airspace corridor by a couple of hundred meters. Putin cannot let that random and dumb act pass as he let pass so many deliberate US provocations before: MH17, Su-24, the assasinations of ambassadors and generals, destruction of field hospitals, sabotages etc etc.

    Another thought that has been occupying my mind is about the Putin’s successor. If it turns out to be the man who is apparently the one most responsible for the stellar efficiency of the Russian MIC, Dmitry Rogozin, a former Russian ambassador to NATO, then I remember that he was also the one on whose civilian plane NATO/US pirates harassed with menacingly armed military jets. I believe that from that moment on the Russians realised that their leaders cannot fly anywhere in the international airspace without own fighter jet escort. Rogozin, after his civilian jet almost got shotdown by the biggest humanitarians and the most honest people on the planet, would now be as tolerant of NATO/US crap as Putin? Do not think so. In other words, one day when Putin steps down or is assasinated, after his replacement starts paybacks, the Western crapsters will wish for the thuggish dictator Putin to be back. Rogozin is a very cool-headed guy, but he strikes me as an eye for an eye sort of guy.

    On the funny side, I find it pleasant that two positive commenters managed to beat the usual troll brigade to Saker’s articles and post before them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @peterAUS

    .....especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia’s corruption natually extends to its “military-industrial complex”.

    Questioning Russia’s capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin’s approach to Martyanov’s, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.
     

    Agree, up to a point.

    Corruption notwithstanding and the "Team Russia" cheering for their Great Leader and his team, I do believe that Russia can produce such weaponry.

    Not important, IMHO.

    Soviet Union was going to shit and it was produciing quite good weaponry.
    The same pattern being repeated now is simply......funny.

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
    Now, it is good for lining the pockets of fat cats at the top, but, not so good on making the life of lower strata of society happy.
    The same strata that had enough of Soviet shit and brought all that Potemkin village now.

    I have a feeling that Russian elites know all that, just, they don't have another option.
    They haven't been able to develop a coherent alternative vision of society and got locked into competition with similar ilk in the West.

    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those "superweapons" less they'll allocate for the common man there.
    That will create an environment for an internal dissent.
    How is that internal dissent going to work out, or not, we'll see.

    Maybe it will make the team in Kremlin listen and do something good.
    Or...maybe it will destabilize the regime enough to create a crisis.
    That crisis could, of badly managed by both parties, escalate in a serious confrontation with The Empire.
    And, the only important then would be: nukes or not.
    If yes, ah, well.....it was sort of good while it lasted. Especially for the fat cats.

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.

    I don’t think so. Soviet Union was a leftist regime, that was fiscally irresponsible. Putin’s Russia is the opposite of that. You may not be aware of it, but since 2014 the government pursued an austerity program, that would have been impossible in any Western country. The federal budget is expected to have a positive balance in 2018. Russia will not be running out of money any time soon.

    These weapons do not seem to be particularly expensive to deploy but, if real, will make the American navy obsolete. So the implications are huge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    ...since 2014 the government pursued an austerity program...
     
    Interesting, especially that "austerity" word.

    These weapons do not seem to be particularly expensive to deploy but, if real, will make the American navy obsolete.
     
    Not expensive to design, manufacture and deploy?"Particularly" expensive that is. With that "austerity" thing.
    O.K.
    You mean US Navy obsolete in that, coming soon, full scale conventional war with Russia? Agree.
    Obsolete in all the rest that navy has been used and will be used for?
    O.K.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Speaking about Soviet union financial irresponsibility show you are full of it. No wonder you like Karlin so much. You are currently talking to citizen of the country which is epithom of financial irresponsibility which has accumulated external and internal obligations larger than the whole world product few times over.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. FB says:
    @Felix Keverich

    No, you seem to not understand my point. Karlin has no expertise or information to verify whether these weapons exist or not; nor can he assess if these are the breakthrough developments as experts here argue.
     
    Neither does Martyanov! The dude apparently used to be a sailor in the Soviet navy, but that was decades ago.

    Overreliance on Western sources is a arguably one weakness in Karlin's analysis, however it's probably due to the paucity of publicly available Russian research on this subject. Russia doesn't have anything resembling the think-tank industry that exists in the West, the Kremlin doesn't want Russians to have a public debate on the issues of foreign policy and national security, because allowing a public debate will encourage criticism, and Kremlin doesn't take criticism well...

    Consequently, we find ourselves relying on Western sources when trying to assess Russia's military capabilities, but that's mainly Kremlin's own fault for trying to keep this information hidden (from the Russian public).

    ‘…Overreliance on Western sources is a arguably one weakness in Karlin’s analysis…’

    Here is what I replied to Karlin’s ‘analysis’…

    ‘…Thanks for the fluff…

    Karlin cites a so-called US ‘expert’ on Russia weapons…one Micheal Kofman…whose background is this…

    ‘… Mr. Kofman holds a M.A. in International Security from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University and a B.A. in Political Science from Northeastern University…’

    We note here that Kofman does not hold any kind of hard science degree whatsoever…either physics, math or engineering…

    Ie he is a layman when it comes to technical matters…

    ‘…Russia doesn’t have anything resembling the think-tank industry that exists in the West…

    …the Kremlin doesn’t want Russians to have a public debate on the issues of foreign policy and national security, because allowing a public debate will encourage criticism, and Kremlin doesn’t take criticism well…’

    The first part of your sentence is correct…Russia does not have a ‘stink tank’ industry…to the huge benefit of Russian public and society at large…since they miss the opportunity to be influenced by special-interest groups and their agenda-driven messages…

    The second part of your sentence implies a somewhat remarkable ability to read minds…

    …would love to hear more…[another Kreskin in the making perhaps...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. FB says:
    @Eric Zuesse
    That reader-comment by "FB" is awesome, the best thing that I've yet seen as a comment on Putin's speech. The Saker and Martyanov are the ultimate authorities on the big picture, but this explanation of why "Quartermaster"s reader-comment denigrating that big-picture presentation is just pompous BS is the icing on this ultimate cake, for me. If "Quartermaster" can point out any fatal falsehood in "FB"s presentation here, then I shall change my mind, but, otherwise, I can only conclude that "Quartermaster" is a fool.

    Thanks Eric…

    I regularly read and value your important and honest contributions to geopolitical journalism…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. peterAUS says:
    @Felix Keverich

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
     
    I don't think so. Soviet Union was a leftist regime, that was fiscally irresponsible. Putin's Russia is the opposite of that. You may not be aware of it, but since 2014 the government pursued an austerity program, that would have been impossible in any Western country. The federal budget is expected to have a positive balance in 2018. Russia will not be running out of money any time soon.

    These weapons do not seem to be particularly expensive to deploy but, if real, will make the American navy obsolete. So the implications are huge.

    …since 2014 the government pursued an austerity program…

    Interesting, especially that “austerity” word.

    These weapons do not seem to be particularly expensive to deploy but, if real, will make the American navy obsolete.

    Not expensive to design, manufacture and deploy?”Particularly” expensive that is. With that “austerity” thing.
    O.K.
    You mean US Navy obsolete in that, coming soon, full scale conventional war with Russia? Agree.
    Obsolete in all the rest that navy has been used and will be used for?
    O.K.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. peterAUS says:
    @Beckow
    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other? During Cold War, there were 3-4 cases when the world came close to a nuclear exchange. We got lucky. When your success depends on luck, you will eventually lose. We will not make it through another 3-4 close calls. It would not be the end, but we would ALL be worse off.

    Political implications? Go inland, drones could pop out of oceans any moment, avoid large metropolitan areas, store some potatoes, and don't count on your electronic wealth.

    What will trigger it? Maybe saving the Al Queda guys in 'east Ghouta', Bandera statues in Donbass, Melodonin slipped into the wrong drink (curling? come on that was random...), and foreigners calling Hillary the 'Satan'. (I was completely 'with Her' until I saw that Facebook ad, one can never be too careful.)

    Oh, and one more consequence, the rolling bombing-for-fun-and-better-humanity could be a thing of the past. Too bad, I think Catalonia would really deserve it, damn 'populists' with their over-prices tapas...

    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other? During Cold War, there were 3-4 cases when the world came close to a nuclear exchange. We got lucky. When your success depends on luck, you will eventually lose. We will not make it through another 3-4 close calls.

    Agree.

    It would not be the end, but we would ALL be worse off.

    Maybe. Depends on a lot of variables.
    I do believe that going out full scale will be the end.

    What will trigger it?

    Hehe………
    My take: a combination of human error with system malfunction.

    Or, perhaps you are just too negative. I’d suggest the common remedy: take a day course in positive thinking, get immersed in social media and consumer society. Works a a charm until it doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Maybe. Depends on a lot of variables.
     
    I think it is a fairly good assumption that after a nuclear war we would all be worse off. I think parts of the world would survive, but life would be worse for everyone.

    I am very positive. The best rational response to increased risk of annihilation is to live well. In some ways the geo-political circus is liberating because it puts a lot of things in perspective. There is also the amusing part of it as one watches the creme-the-crop 'elites' go deep into an-ever more absurdist thinking, looking for Putin under their bed, losing even a semblance of having some principles.

    How far are they going to take it? I have always wondered how far absurd thinking can go, seeing designated 'smart people' go nuts over silly made-up narratives is fun. Let's enjoy the moment...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Beckow
    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other? During Cold War, there were 3-4 cases when the world came close to a nuclear exchange. We got lucky. When your success depends on luck, you will eventually lose. We will not make it through another 3-4 close calls. It would not be the end, but we would ALL be worse off.

    Political implications? Go inland, drones could pop out of oceans any moment, avoid large metropolitan areas, store some potatoes, and don't count on your electronic wealth.

    What will trigger it? Maybe saving the Al Queda guys in 'east Ghouta', Bandera statues in Donbass, Melodonin slipped into the wrong drink (curling? come on that was random...), and foreigners calling Hillary the 'Satan'. (I was completely 'with Her' until I saw that Facebook ad, one can never be too careful.)

    Oh, and one more consequence, the rolling bombing-for-fun-and-better-humanity could be a thing of the past. Too bad, I think Catalonia would really deserve it, damn 'populists' with their over-prices tapas...

    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other?

    We are entering a new military-technological paradigm and at this stage Russia is ahead in some most crucial delivery and defensive systems. Paradoxically, this now IS a main guarantor of NOT shooting those damn things at each-other since the nature of Russian state, nation and its military doctrine is explicitly defensive and Russia has NO plans to conquer someone or attack someone. Although I had to rewrite Epilogue for my book, once it comes out in August-September all of it is dedicated to this issue. Should this have been 180 degree reversed–the United States would have unleashed a war against Russia long ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Should this have been 180 degree reversed–United States would have unleashed a war against Russia long ago
     
    There was never a good moment for it. The 90's were too friendly, 2000's - the demonisation was just getting started, by 2014-18 the risk has become too high (even before the 3/1/2018 speech).

    Western population has to be prepared for something like a nuclear attack, or even general bombing. It takes a few years of media campaigns, staged incidents, political posturing. Because Putin is a low-key, patient guy, and because Europeans can show some smarts occasionally, the timing just didn't work out.

    By late 2017, the public preparation was almost in place. The general view (undisputed by almost anyone who matters in the West) was that Russia is menacing, aggressive, attacks countries around the world at will, annexes their territories, kills opponents with evil methods, and micro-manages all opposition in the West. To that has been added everything from homophobia and racism, to doping and election 'interference'. The pieces were slowly falling in place, the campaign was successful, except for the small detail of timing. Brexit, Trump, Merkel migrants, all of those delayed and confused the story. They have run out of time. Interestingly enough some of the initiatives are still ongoing, e.g. scuttle the World Cup, or possibly the poor guy whacked in Salisbury, but they are kind of hanging in a vacuum. There is no 'happy' ending to this story and that can be disorienting.

    I agree that by now it is too late, unless there are weapons we are not aware of. So much work, so much preparation, and nothing? The devil is on the loose and the good humanitarians in the West cannot save us? This will be awkward.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Ivan K. says: • Website

    Here is an article of a sceptic who is apparently knowledgeable and speaking exclusively outside of mainstream media: I’m reading him right now, and I’m posting this here so that all the arguments & quasi-arguments are on the table :

    https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Russias-New-Nuclear-Weapons-A-Skeptical-Look

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    A good find.

    Elements I've found interesting:

    ....completely change warfare as we know it.
     
    Yeah.
    Before these Russsian/Putin new wonderweapons:
    USA would’ve destroyed Russia xxx times over and Russia, retaliating, would’ve destroyed USA yyy times over. And most of the world along thte way.
    Now, after these Russian weapons:
    USA will destroyed Russia yy times over only and Russia, retaliating, will destroyed USA xxxx times over. And most of the world along the way.
    And that’s new and of extreme strategic and political importance.
    Pathetic really.

    Not so pathetic is diverting resources into having those weapons from better purposes. But, nothing new there. Worked well for Soviet Union. Why wouldn’t for Russia. Same guys on top. .And bottom.

    And in all those wonderweapons

    They’re building a new heavy ICBM
     
    The crux of the matter, though, is:

    So what is he up to, then? Again, we must look back to the Cold War. During that conflict, the Russians twice managed to convince the US that they had a major edge in strategic weapons, first bombers and then missiles. In both cases, the US was comfortably ahead,
     
    My take: how nice. That US xxx capability was actually xxxx and Russian instead yyyy was actually yy. Great.

    There’s also a domestic political angle. The Russian presidential election is on March 18th, and Putin is presumably trying to bring the opinion the country more in line with the election results.
     
    Agree.

    The other big question missed by the media is how all of this is being funded. Russia’s GDP is smaller than that of South Korea in nominal terms, and just behind Germany in PPP terms. Even with the mess that most of the west has made of military equipment procurement, it’s hard to see them being able to fund a strategic buildup of this magnitude, particularly when combined with ongoing operations in Syria and Ukraine, and the modernization of their conventional forces that we see articles about every so often.
    Ultimately, since the end of the Cold War, the Russians have established themselves as masters of military vaporware. Their systems arrive late or not at all, and it’s impossible to definitively say just how effective they are when they get there. Putin’s latest announcement of a bunch of repackaged Cold War-era concepts is entirely in line with traditional Russian strategy.
     
    Yup.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    I have to disagree with you on the issue that this lack of "argument" is written by "knowledgeable" person. To start with, since you brought this up here, and I quote from this "knowledgeable" person:

    The nuclear-powered minisubmarine is much the same. Nobody wants to let nuclear weapons run around the oceans unattended, and communications have always been the Achilles heel of submarine operations. The characteristics described don’t go well together, as high speed means lots of noise and a relatively large size, while being undetectable also drives up size. The concept of using underwater vehicles to attack ports dates back to the initial plans for the first Soviet nuclear attack submarine, the November class.
     

    This quote alone demonstrates that the guy is extremely butt-hurt and, most likely, just making noises:

    1. First highlighted in bold. Evidently our "knowledgeable" person is not keenly aware of several major factors impeding a reliable location of the submarine among which are:

    a) Hydrology with oh-so-well known issue of the speed of sound "jump" (skachok);
    b) Depth. Just to illustrate to this amateur that5 he has no clue what writes about, but the Soviet Navy and, specifically, manned Project 661 (NATO-Papa-class):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-222

    and Project 685 (Plavnik) both hold world records for a depth which exceeds 1000 meters. This is precisely the depth beyond which no modern ASW weapon works. This was late 1970s through late 1980s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-278_Komsomolets

    c) Speed, of course, with this very pr. 661 holding world record in submerged speed of 44.7 knots which make pretty much any torpedo having a hell of a time catching up to this.

    So, if this "knowledgeable" person wants to tell me how he will intercept (let's assume it is detected) a nuclear power drone on the depths of more than 1 kilometer and with the technology of not 1970s, not even 1980s but of 2010s--I am all ears (or eyes).

    2. Per last highlighted in bold. The guy obviously talks here about 1950s concept of an enormous nuclear tipped torpedo which was proposed for Pr. 627 November class. That was in 1950s, since then a lot of water went under bridge but he still uses outdated and irrelevant historic facts as a base for his so called "argumentation".

    Next:


    The Kinzhal hypersonic missile was quickly identified by the internet as an air-launched version of the existing Iskander ballistic missile. This is yet another system with roots in the Cold War, and it’s nowhere near as revolutionary as it’s made out to be. Iskander is an impressive weapon, but it’s not exempt from the laws of physics, and it’s well within the envelope of the SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.
     
    The guy obviously is not well-educated since he doesn't understand basic physics of M>5 salvo and if he needs some education on application of basic (and augmented) Salvo Models, granted he understands what math expectations are and how probabilities are calculated--I see no reason to discuss his amateurish butt-hurt BS written for fanboys. He obviously never heard that even today Iskander for ground troops boasts 7 (seven) different missiles 6 of them hypesonic, in excess of M=6. It is precisely the velocity not only on a burn-out phase but on terminal too, but this fact doesn't bother our self-proclaimed "expert", as well as the fact that he has no understanding of both Course Parameter and the Engagement Cone, not speak of other things which are not for a discussion here. I can guarantee you--he has no idea what he is talking about, nor does he know much on a professional level about Cold War. In other words, another version of Ralph Peters.

    I am not interested in answering the rest of this "argumentation". Saker excellently described all stages of Grief Model. Expect more of those "knowledgeable experts" popping up with each day.

    P.S. American "version" of the Cold War has very little relation to Soviet realities and experiences.

    , @FB
    That short article from an anonymous blogger is simply an opinion piece...as it present no physical facts of any kind...nor any attempt at technical explanations whatsoever...

    He is basically saying...'I think it's vaporware...'

    Not exactly QED...

    Not to mention that reading this article and some other on his blog makes quite clear that this person has no technical/scientific background whatsoever...

    The site is a joke...

    In one article he talks about the WW2 era Iowa battleship as being the pinnacle of propulsion...making something like 60,000 hp from its steam engine...

    Which is pretty laughable when you compare that to just the turbopump of the RD170 engine which makes 230,000 hp...just for the turbopump [ie nothing to do with thrust...which is over 1.7 million pounds...]

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Felix Keverich

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
     
    I don't think so. Soviet Union was a leftist regime, that was fiscally irresponsible. Putin's Russia is the opposite of that. You may not be aware of it, but since 2014 the government pursued an austerity program, that would have been impossible in any Western country. The federal budget is expected to have a positive balance in 2018. Russia will not be running out of money any time soon.

    These weapons do not seem to be particularly expensive to deploy but, if real, will make the American navy obsolete. So the implications are huge.

    Speaking about Soviet union financial irresponsibility show you are full of it. No wonder you like Karlin so much. You are currently talking to citizen of the country which is epithom of financial irresponsibility which has accumulated external and internal obligations larger than the whole world product few times over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    ~60% (off the top of my head) of which is owed to its own citizens, and virtually 100% of which is denoted in USD, which can be inflated away should the eternal prognostications of American collapse finally materialize. US budget deficit temporarily peaked at 10% around 2009, but otherwise rarely exceeds 4%.

    USSR: Budget deficit at 12% of GDP in 1989, reaching 30% by 1991, at which point it owes $97 billion to Western banks while depleting its own foreign currency reserves. Thus, incidentally, ruling out any forcible solution to arrest its spiraling breakup.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. MarkinPNW says:
    @FB
    Well...here we have a typical example of someone who clearly knows nothing about physics or engineering making some wild technical statements...such as...

    '...The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems.

    Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don’t exist either...'
     
    I had noted previously this phenomenon of an uninformed public's fascination with 'technology'...

    '...In a culture and at a historical time where ‘technology’ is fascinating to people…[despite the fact that they do not understand even the basic physical and technical side of it]… it is seen as a source of national power…'
     
    That from my comment #60 on the Martyanov article thread...

    The simple observation is that people who know absolutely nothing about things like metallurgy...should not make sweeping statements about technology superiority...which can be disproved quite effortlessly...

    A case in point...the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now...[since 2000]...

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket...which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 'spaceplane'...

    Now let's explore how Russian metallurgy is a key factor in the RD180 engine's unmatched performance capability...and why the US has not been able to replicate that technology...

    I will get to the technical details in a moment...

    But first we note that during the Ukraine crisis of 2014 when Russia talked about possibly stopping the export of RD180 engines to the US [bye bye X37...]...the big question immediately asked was whether the US could replicate the RD180 metallurgy...which is the key to its capability...

    The DoD's RD180 study committee expressed confidence the US could in fact replicate this technology...

    '...U.S. Can Replicate RD-180 Metallurgy Technology, Engine Study Committee Chair Says...'

    '...The head of the Defense Department’s RD-180 rocket study committee believes the United States could replicate the coding and metallurgy technology involved with the Russian-produced engine...'
     
    But others doubted this assessment [and rightly so...]

    '...Critics of the idea of replicating the RD-180 domestically have said the U.S. doesn’t have the expertise like Russia to reproduce its metallurgy...

    ...which is the study of physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements and their mixtures, known as alloys...'
     
    Now I will explain in technical terms why metallurgy is the key to the Russian high efficiency rocket engine technology...

    The key to the RD180...and in fact Russian engine technology going back to the 1960s...has been a more efficient engine cycle known as 'Staged Combustion Cycle'...

    '...its main advantage relative to other rocket engine power cycles is high fuel efficiency, measured through specific impulse, while its main disadvantage is engineering complexity...'
     
    '...Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949....

    The first generation of successful staged combustion cycle engines was perfected by the Russians by the 1960s...with the NK33 engine...

    '...The NK-33 series engines are high-pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle bipropellant rocket engines.

    They use oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps... These kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through failures.

    The United States had not investigated oxygen-rich combustion technologies until the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator project in the early 2000s....

    The Soviets, however, perfected the metallurgy behind this method...'
     
    Interesting story here...the US had heard about the advanced NK33 engine but was skeptical...

    '...In the 1990s, [US rocket engine company] Aerojet was contacted and eventually visited Kuznetsov's plant.

    Upon meeting initial skepticism about the high specific impulse and other specifications, Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing.

    Oxidizer-rich staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but deemed impossible.

    The Russian RD-180 engine, purchased by Lockheed Martin (subsequently by United Launch Alliance) for the Atlas III and V rockets, also employs this technique...'
     

    '...Word of the engines eventually spread to America. Nearly 30 years after they were built, disbelieving rocket engineers were led to the warehouse.

    One of the engines was later taken to America, and the precise specification of the engine was demonstrated on a test stand...'
     

    '...The NK-33 closed-cycle technology works by sending the auxiliary engines' exhaust into the main combustion chamber. This made the engine design unique.

    This technology was believed to be impossible by Western rocket engineers...'
     

    '...The fully heated liquid O2 flows through the pre-burner and into the main chamber in this design.

    The extremely hot oxygen-rich mixture made the engine dangerous: it was known to melt 3-inch (76 mm) thick castings "like candle wax"...'
     
    It is to be noted that the US has not to this day created a staged combustion cycle [aka closed cycle] engine of its own...

    This...despite the fact that Nasa scientists nearly 40 years ago called on the US to develop such engines...


    https://s20.postimg.org/al3a3zmf1/Nasa_Staged_Combustion_Cycle_Paper.jpg


    We note here also the specific technical details about chamber pressure of 4,000 psi...which is what the RD180 engine achieves...

    Chamber pressure 3,870 psi...
     
    We also note that the Rocketdyne F1 engine designed by Werner von Braun for the Apollo program achieved a chamber pressure 1/4 of that...1,015 psi...

    And also note that the SpaceX Merlin engine achieves barely 1/3'rd at 1,415 psi...

    As noted already...the US has yet to build a high-pressure rocket engine...[the newest Russian engines...which it is not selling...are well over 4,000 psi...]

    As noted in the introductory remarks of that Nasa paper of 1980...high chamber pressure is essential to rocket engine performance...

    Here is the explanation for that...in thermodynamics which is the study of energy and heat engines...we know that any type of heat engine...be it a rocket engine, a jet engine, a piston engine, or even an air conditioner [also a heat engine]...works with only two types of energy...heat and pressure...

    Only pressure energy can be converted directly to work energy...by means of expanding that pressure through a nozzle...which converts pressure into speed...ie kinetic energy...[it is the same principle as the nozzle on your garden hose...if you don't have water pressure there will be no water shooting out...]

    Heat energy by itself [ie without pressure] cannot be turned into work energy...[ie thrust]...heat energy only serves to make the pressure energy do more work...than it would on its own...

    The higher the pressure...the greater the speed of that fluid exiting the nozzle...whether in a garden hose or a rocket or jet engine nozzle...and the greater the thrust...

    The only way to achieve high pressure of the rocket fuel [kerosene] and oxydizer [liquid oxygen] is to pump those liquids up to a high pressure using a turbopump...

    ...which is the heart of a liquid fuel rocket engine...

    In a simple gas generator cycle as used on US engines...a small amount of fuel is burned to drive the turbopump...and the exhaust is simply dumped overboard...


    https://s20.postimg.org/yssgmfs31/gas_generator.jpg


    We see the orange arrow showing the gas leaving the turbine is dumped overboard...

    This means that the turbopump can be small but the pressure it can put out is likewise small...[incidentally...SpaceX does not make its own turbopumps...those are made by Barber Nichols...]

    The Russian high pressure engines use much more powerful turbopumps in order to get that high chamber pressure...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png


    Here we see that the exhaust gas exiting the pre-burner flows into the main combustion chamber where it adds to the thrust...instead of being dumped overboard...

    Making these very powerful turbopumps is a technology the US has never mastered...hence their reliance on outdated gas generator cycle rocket engines...

    This is a fundamental shortcoming of US space technology...

    Incidentally the most powerful turbopump is found on the world's most powerful rocket engine...the Russian RD170...

    The turbopump puts out 170 megawatts...which is ~230,000 HP...that's the kind of power it takes to achieve high pressure in the fuel and oxydizer of a very large engine...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/RD-170_rocket_engine.jpg


    and here is an interesting documentary about the previously mnentioned NK33 engine from the '60s...which wowed US rocket scientists in the '90s...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM

    I will address the issue of nuclear aircraft and cruise missile propulsion in my next technical comment...

    I remember reading a book by a Russian immigrant journalist who went into great detail about the weakness of Soviet rocket technology, and especially metallurgy, who confidently put forth the argument that the Soviets could never achieve the metallurgy to make large rocket engines, hence the reason why large Soviet rockets consisted of large clusters of smaller engines. I wondered why the Soviets would have allowed the emigration of someone possessing such an intimate detail of state secrets on the Soviet space program, but it looks like this journalist and his book may have simply been disinformation to cover up the Soviets real abilities in metallurgy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...who confidently put forth the argument that the Soviets could never achieve the metallurgy to make large rocket engines, hence the reason why large Soviet rockets consisted of large clusters of smaller engines...'
     
    Yes...the large cluster of smaller engines was the approach for the Soviet manned moon rocket...N1...which used 30 NK33s...

    However...this had nothing to do with metallurgy...the problem with a big engine...like von Braun's F1...is combustion instability...

    This was the major challenge faced by the F1 program...and arguably the entire Apollo program...the very large combustion chamber...[the F1 is still the biggest single-chamber engine ever built]...brought with it a very complex gas flow inside the chamber that was difficult to solve...

    In fact many technical books have been written on that subject...here is a <a short excerpt from the wiki on the F1...

    '...Early development tests revealed serious combustion instability problems which sometimes caused catastrophic failure.

    Initially, progress on this problem was slow, as it was intermittent and unpredictable...Eventually, engineers developed a diagnostic technique of detonating small explosive charges (which they called "bombs") outside the combustion chamber, through a tangential tube (RDX, C4 or black powder were used) while the engine was firing.

    This allowed them to determine exactly how the running chamber responded to variations in pressure, and to determine how to nullify these oscillations.

    The designers could then quickly experiment with different co-axial fuel-injector designs to obtain the one most resistant to instability. These problems were addressed from 1959 through 1961.

    Eventually, engine combustion was so stable, it would self-damp artificially induced instability within one-tenth of a second...'
     
    The RD170 which I mentioned in my previous comment is even more powerful than the F1...but uses four combustion chambers [and nozzles]...all of them fed by a common turbopump...

    Using multiple small engines has its drawbacks...we note that the SpaceX Falcon Heavy that made its maiden flight last month with great fanfare...used a total of 27 Merlin 1D engines...9 in the Falcon heavy core...and 9 each in two strap on boosters...

    Each of those Merlins have just half the power of an NK33...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. peterAUS says:
    @Ivan K.
    Here is an article of a sceptic who is apparently knowledgeable and speaking exclusively outside of mainstream media: I'm reading him right now, and I'm posting this here so that all the arguments & quasi-arguments are on the table :

    https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Russias-New-Nuclear-Weapons-A-Skeptical-Look

    A good find.

    Elements I’ve found interesting:

    ….completely change warfare as we know it.

    Yeah.
    Before these Russsian/Putin new wonderweapons:
    USA would’ve destroyed Russia xxx times over and Russia, retaliating, would’ve destroyed USA yyy times over. And most of the world along thte way.
    Now, after these Russian weapons:
    USA will destroyed Russia yy times over only and Russia, retaliating, will destroyed USA xxxx times over. And most of the world along the way.
    And that’s new and of extreme strategic and political importance.
    Pathetic really.

    Not so pathetic is diverting resources into having those weapons from better purposes. But, nothing new there. Worked well for Soviet Union. Why wouldn’t for Russia. Same guys on top. .And bottom.

    And in all those wonderweapons

    They’re building a new heavy ICBM

    The crux of the matter, though, is:

    So what is he up to, then? Again, we must look back to the Cold War. During that conflict, the Russians twice managed to convince the US that they had a major edge in strategic weapons, first bombers and then missiles. In both cases, the US was comfortably ahead,

    My take: how nice. That US xxx capability was actually xxxx and Russian instead yyyy was actually yy. Great.

    There’s also a domestic political angle. The Russian presidential election is on March 18th, and Putin is presumably trying to bring the opinion the country more in line with the election results.

    Agree.

    The other big question missed by the media is how all of this is being funded. Russia’s GDP is smaller than that of South Korea in nominal terms, and just behind Germany in PPP terms. Even with the mess that most of the west has made of military equipment procurement, it’s hard to see them being able to fund a strategic buildup of this magnitude, particularly when combined with ongoing operations in Syria and Ukraine, and the modernization of their conventional forces that we see articles about every so often.
    Ultimately, since the end of the Cold War, the Russians have established themselves as masters of military vaporware. Their systems arrive late or not at all, and it’s impossible to definitively say just how effective they are when they get there. Putin’s latest announcement of a bunch of repackaged Cold War-era concepts is entirely in line with traditional Russian strategy.

    Yup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Those Armata tanks are due in 2030. These "new" weapons will need the 7% growth rate to be sustainable. Oil is down for along time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Ivan K.
    Here is an article of a sceptic who is apparently knowledgeable and speaking exclusively outside of mainstream media: I'm reading him right now, and I'm posting this here so that all the arguments & quasi-arguments are on the table :

    https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Russias-New-Nuclear-Weapons-A-Skeptical-Look

    I have to disagree with you on the issue that this lack of “argument” is written by “knowledgeable” person. To start with, since you brought this up here, and I quote from this “knowledgeable” person:

    The nuclear-powered minisubmarine is much the same. Nobody wants to let nuclear weapons run around the oceans unattended, and communications have always been the Achilles heel of submarine operations. The characteristics described don’t go well together, as high speed means lots of noise and a relatively large size, while being undetectable also drives up size. The concept of using underwater vehicles to attack ports dates back to the initial plans for the first Soviet nuclear attack submarine, the November class.

    This quote alone demonstrates that the guy is extremely butt-hurt and, most likely, just making noises:

    1. First highlighted in bold. Evidently our “knowledgeable” person is not keenly aware of several major factors impeding a reliable location of the submarine among which are:

    a) Hydrology with oh-so-well known issue of the speed of sound “jump” (skachok);
    b) Depth. Just to illustrate to this amateur that5 he has no clue what writes about, but the Soviet Navy and, specifically, manned Project 661 (NATO-Papa-class):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-222

    and Project 685 (Plavnik) both hold world records for a depth which exceeds 1000 meters. This is precisely the depth beyond which no modern ASW weapon works. This was late 1970s through late 1980s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-278_Komsomolets

    c) Speed, of course, with this very pr. 661 holding world record in submerged speed of 44.7 knots which make pretty much any torpedo having a hell of a time catching up to this.

    So, if this “knowledgeable” person wants to tell me how he will intercept (let’s assume it is detected) a nuclear power drone on the depths of more than 1 kilometer and with the technology of not 1970s, not even 1980s but of 2010s–I am all ears (or eyes).

    2. Per last highlighted in bold. The guy obviously talks here about 1950s concept of an enormous nuclear tipped torpedo which was proposed for Pr. 627 November class. That was in 1950s, since then a lot of water went under bridge but he still uses outdated and irrelevant historic facts as a base for his so called “argumentation”.

    Next:

    The Kinzhal hypersonic missile was quickly identified by the internet as an air-launched version of the existing Iskander ballistic missile. This is yet another system with roots in the Cold War, and it’s nowhere near as revolutionary as it’s made out to be. Iskander is an impressive weapon, but it’s not exempt from the laws of physics, and it’s well within the envelope of the SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.

    The guy obviously is not well-educated since he doesn’t understand basic physics of M>5 salvo and if he needs some education on application of basic (and augmented) Salvo Models, granted he understands what math expectations are and how probabilities are calculated–I see no reason to discuss his amateurish butt-hurt BS written for fanboys. He obviously never heard that even today Iskander for ground troops boasts 7 (seven) different missiles 6 of them hypesonic, in excess of M=6. It is precisely the velocity not only on a burn-out phase but on terminal too, but this fact doesn’t bother our self-proclaimed “expert”, as well as the fact that he has no understanding of both Course Parameter and the Engagement Cone, not speak of other things which are not for a discussion here. I can guarantee you–he has no idea what he is talking about, nor does he know much on a professional level about Cold War. In other words, another version of Ralph Peters.

    I am not interested in answering the rest of this “argumentation”. Saker excellently described all stages of Grief Model. Expect more of those “knowledgeable experts” popping up with each day.

    P.S. American “version” of the Cold War has very little relation to Soviet realities and experiences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. FB says:
    @MarkinPNW
    I remember reading a book by a Russian immigrant journalist who went into great detail about the weakness of Soviet rocket technology, and especially metallurgy, who confidently put forth the argument that the Soviets could never achieve the metallurgy to make large rocket engines, hence the reason why large Soviet rockets consisted of large clusters of smaller engines. I wondered why the Soviets would have allowed the emigration of someone possessing such an intimate detail of state secrets on the Soviet space program, but it looks like this journalist and his book may have simply been disinformation to cover up the Soviets real abilities in metallurgy.

    ‘…who confidently put forth the argument that the Soviets could never achieve the metallurgy to make large rocket engines, hence the reason why large Soviet rockets consisted of large clusters of smaller engines…’

    Yes…the large cluster of smaller engines was the approach for the Soviet manned moon rocket…N1…which used 30 NK33s…

    However…this had nothing to do with metallurgy…the problem with a big engine…like von Braun’s F1…is combustion instability…

    This was the major challenge faced by the F1 program…and arguably the entire Apollo program…the very large combustion chamber…[the F1 is still the biggest single-chamber engine ever built]…brought with it a very complex gas flow inside the chamber that was difficult to solve…

    In fact many technical books have been written on that subject…here is a <a short excerpt from the wiki on the F1…

    ‘…Early development tests revealed serious combustion instability problems which sometimes caused catastrophic failure.

    Initially, progress on this problem was slow, as it was intermittent and unpredictable…Eventually, engineers developed a diagnostic technique of detonating small explosive charges (which they called “bombs”) outside the combustion chamber, through a tangential tube (RDX, C4 or black powder were used) while the engine was firing.

    This allowed them to determine exactly how the running chamber responded to variations in pressure, and to determine how to nullify these oscillations.

    The designers could then quickly experiment with different co-axial fuel-injector designs to obtain the one most resistant to instability. These problems were addressed from 1959 through 1961.

    Eventually, engine combustion was so stable, it would self-damp artificially induced instability within one-tenth of a second…’

    The RD170 which I mentioned in my previous comment is even more powerful than the F1…but uses four combustion chambers [and nozzles]…all of them fed by a common turbopump…

    Using multiple small engines has its drawbacks…we note that the SpaceX Falcon Heavy that made its maiden flight last month with great fanfare…used a total of 27 Merlin 1D engines…9 in the Falcon heavy core…and 9 each in two strap on boosters…

    Each of those Merlins have just half the power of an NK33…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Interesting. I always wondered about reliability. How to ensure even ignition in large clusters of rockets. I thought it was a production issue. Series production of smaller, less stressed components.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Beckow says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other?
     
    We are entering a new military-technological paradigm and at this stage Russia is ahead in some most crucial delivery and defensive systems. Paradoxically, this now IS a main guarantor of NOT shooting those damn things at each-other since the nature of Russian state, nation and its military doctrine is explicitly defensive and Russia has NO plans to conquer someone or attack someone. Although I had to rewrite Epilogue for my book, once it comes out in August-September all of it is dedicated to this issue. Should this have been 180 degree reversed--the United States would have unleashed a war against Russia long ago.

    Should this have been 180 degree reversed–United States would have unleashed a war against Russia long ago

    There was never a good moment for it. The 90′s were too friendly, 2000′s – the demonisation was just getting started, by 2014-18 the risk has become too high (even before the 3/1/2018 speech).

    Western population has to be prepared for something like a nuclear attack, or even general bombing. It takes a few years of media campaigns, staged incidents, political posturing. Because Putin is a low-key, patient guy, and because Europeans can show some smarts occasionally, the timing just didn’t work out.

    By late 2017, the public preparation was almost in place. The general view (undisputed by almost anyone who matters in the West) was that Russia is menacing, aggressive, attacks countries around the world at will, annexes their territories, kills opponents with evil methods, and micro-manages all opposition in the West. To that has been added everything from homophobia and racism, to doping and election ‘interference’. The pieces were slowly falling in place, the campaign was successful, except for the small detail of timing. Brexit, Trump, Merkel migrants, all of those delayed and confused the story. They have run out of time. Interestingly enough some of the initiatives are still ongoing, e.g. scuttle the World Cup, or possibly the poor guy whacked in Salisbury, but they are kind of hanging in a vacuum. There is no ‘happy’ ending to this story and that can be disorienting.

    I agree that by now it is too late, unless there are weapons we are not aware of. So much work, so much preparation, and nothing? The devil is on the loose and the good humanitarians in the West cannot save us? This will be awkward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident X
    How do you layer the pre-requisite work to establish the gold-backed petroyuan, and pending petroleum contracts denomination in the same (actually already done, I think, with Venezuela?! If not done yet, then shortly, measurable in days); thus the introduction of an alternative to the existing monopoly on settlements?

    BRI as a factor?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. FB says:
    @Ivan K.
    Here is an article of a sceptic who is apparently knowledgeable and speaking exclusively outside of mainstream media: I'm reading him right now, and I'm posting this here so that all the arguments & quasi-arguments are on the table :

    https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Russias-New-Nuclear-Weapons-A-Skeptical-Look

    That short article from an anonymous blogger is simply an opinion piece…as it present no physical facts of any kind…nor any attempt at technical explanations whatsoever…

    He is basically saying…’I think it’s vaporware…’

    Not exactly QED…

    Not to mention that reading this article and some other on his blog makes quite clear that this person has no technical/scientific background whatsoever…

    The site is a joke…

    In one article he talks about the WW2 era Iowa battleship as being the pinnacle of propulsion…making something like 60,000 hp from its steam engine…

    Which is pretty laughable when you compare that to just the turbopump of the RD170 engine which makes 230,000 hp…just for the turbopump [ie nothing to do with thrust...which is over 1.7 million pounds...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Large engines are good for some rockets, but SpaceX are doing just fine with their “small” Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses

    FB will say that the RD-180 is better than the Merlin, true, but strangely the Falcon 9 is a better rocket than the Atlas 5, its not all about size

    SpaceX and Blue Origin are also working on staged combustion engines, both will be finished soon, Blue will launch around 2020, New Glenn will have 7 engines on the first stage, next year spaceX may launch the BSF next year, it will also have 7 engines, the BFR will have 31 engines

    Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...SpaceX are doing just fine with their “small” Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses...'
     
    'Clearly better'...how technically speaking...?

    Stating an opinion is fine...as long as it's coming from a credible rocket scientist who is able to explain technically his reasoning...

    So I will wait for the response...

    Many small engines...27 total in the Falcon heavy...means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight...

    When you add more engines you increase the chance of an engine failure...it's a simple numerical and statistical fact...which is why you don't see aircraft with 27 engines...

    '...SpaceX and Blue Origin are also working on staged combustion engines, both will be finished soon...'
     
    'Will be' is the very definition of vaporware...

    Of course the many non-qualified people calling the new Russian technologies vaporware...do not seem capable of understanding that when it comes to the US...

    '...Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only...'
     
    'May not' is in reality Never Will...

    Blue Origin...headed by noted 'rocket scientist' Jeff Bezos [of Amazon and Washington Post]...is making some pretty big accomplishments...

    '...The first developmental test flight of the New Shepard,[5] named after the first American in space Alan Shepard, was April 29, 2015.

    The uncrewed vehicle flew to its planned test altitude of more than 93.5 km (307,000 ft) and achieved a top speed of Mach 3 (3,675 km/h; 2,284 mph)...'
     
    We note here that speed of Mach 3 is ~1 km/s...

    And we also note that orbital velocity for low earth orbit is about ~8 km/s...so...clearly they are pretty close...LOL...

    As for the Bezos BE4 vaporware engine...its stated goal is a chamber pressure of 1,950 psi...half that of the RD180...[and don't hold your breath either...]

    We note also that its stated thrust goal is 550,000 lb...three times as much as the SpaceX Merlin...so perhaps Bezos didn't get your memo that a large number of smaller engines is 'better'...

    Anyway...the US has a lot more to worry about than trying to catch up in high pressure engine technology...they have not had human space flight capability for seven years now...

    Even a low pressure engine will get you to space as long as you have everything else worked out...ie life support systems etc.

    We will all be thrilled if the day ever comes that Musk and/or Bezos actually send a human into orbit...

    Notice I said orbit...not space...big difference...will explain later...[or maybe you would like to give it a shot...?}
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. hunor says: • Website
    @Quartermaster
    Saker has made more than a few minor misses. Putin has done some wishcasting, and that's about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test. The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems. Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don't exist either.

    Putin is a KGB thug. In spite of what most people thought, the primary function of the KGB in the west was spreading disinformation. In spite of what grinning, drooling morons Putin told about these "weapons" think, the probability of such things existing are nil.

    The Russophobia thing is another bit of idiocy Saker is in love with. The Collusion thing the DimoKKKRats are taken with doesn't exist. The Dims are simply trying to neutralize Trump, who would like to normalize relations with Russia, but can't because of the criminality that is rampant in Putin's regime. The business in Ukraine is only a symptom. The internals of Russia, however, will destroy the country.

    What kind of a thug are you? Analysis or comment make sense , but your judgement is what you are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Faker says:

    Hey Faker,

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia, possible boycotts of the World Cup (although I think ultimately they will relocate the tournament so that TV networks don’t lose money) – oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help… poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.
     
    Correction:
    The "Team Russia" everywhere bought it. A peculiar mix of character types.
    That's not important, though. What is important is that an average Russian, perhaps, bought it, so that daily life there just became a bit more bearable. And, I do agree; it's better than drowning in vodka. Or emigrating into that miserable West just about to fall apart.
    Not sure about the latest, though; just last evening, while strolling along the beach, I came across a new Russian couple. Ah, well....

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia
     
    Ah, well, that's not important, really. Those superweapons will take care of all that. Somehow.

    – oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help… poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)
     
    Are you sure it wasn't the result of that multidimensional chess played by The Great Leader in Kremlin? The resident "Team Russia" will explain all that to you/us here.

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?
     
    Of course.
    Pays well. Better than doing that from Russia. Food's better too, and last, but not the least, the climate.
    , @FB

    '...Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos...'
     
    I agree...nobody in the village idiot demographic...

    Of course the reaction in Washington was slightly more telling...as US senators quickly urged Trump to start arms negotiations with Russia...

    '...A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing including a cruise missile and a nuclear underwater drone, which are not currently limited by the New START treaty, and would be destabilizing if deployed...'
     
    https://s20.postimg.org/meoiod3b1/VILLAGE_IDIOT.png
    , @for-the-record
    oh and Kim Jong Un folded


    This seems to be a quite common view, but is it true? North Korea has proposed bilateral negotiations for years, the US has consistently refused, or placed preconditions that constituted an effective refusal. Now the US, after making lots of threats, accepts talks with no preconditions.

    Who has folded?

    , @FB

    '...oh and Kim Jong Un folded...'
     
    Oh yes that...quite spectacular how Kim folded...

    ...By getting Trump to agree to negotiations...as opposed to US carrying out that 'Bloody Nose' and 'Decapitating Strike' that the Big Men in DC have been threatening for months...

    '...I won the fight...didn't you see how I hit him on the fist with my face...?
     
    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/49/49/74/494974d4a0892a7d821d37c98a03fe9e.jpg
    , @Aedib
    Just another one entering into the Butthurt team.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Kiza says:
    @Beckow
    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other? During Cold War, there were 3-4 cases when the world came close to a nuclear exchange. We got lucky. When your success depends on luck, you will eventually lose. We will not make it through another 3-4 close calls. It would not be the end, but we would ALL be worse off.

    Political implications? Go inland, drones could pop out of oceans any moment, avoid large metropolitan areas, store some potatoes, and don't count on your electronic wealth.

    What will trigger it? Maybe saving the Al Queda guys in 'east Ghouta', Bandera statues in Donbass, Melodonin slipped into the wrong drink (curling? come on that was random...), and foreigners calling Hillary the 'Satan'. (I was completely 'with Her' until I saw that Facebook ad, one can never be too careful.)

    Oh, and one more consequence, the rolling bombing-for-fun-and-better-humanity could be a thing of the past. Too bad, I think Catalonia would really deserve it, damn 'populists' with their over-prices tapas...

    My favorite scenario for the end of the World (yes, the end – not just everyone worse off as you say) is not even related to any Western created crisis point such as Eastern Ghouta or Donbas etc. The end of the World would start as a random effect of the totally unneccesary military build up on Russia’s borders. A drunken Estonian “air-defence” officer orders a shoot-down of a Russian military transport plane full of military officers for rotation on the way to Kaliningrad, because it missed the very narrow international airspace corridor by a couple of hundred meters. Putin cannot let that random and dumb act pass as he let pass so many deliberate US provocations before: MH17, Su-24, the assasinations of ambassadors and generals, destruction of field hospitals, sabotages etc etc.

    Another thought that has been occupying my mind is about the Putin’s successor. If it turns out to be the man who is apparently the one most responsible for the stellar efficiency of the Russian MIC, Dmitry Rogozin, a former Russian ambassador to NATO, then I remember that he was also the one on whose civilian plane NATO/US pirates harassed with menacingly armed military jets. I believe that from that moment on the Russians realised that their leaders cannot fly anywhere in the international airspace without own fighter jet escort. Rogozin, after his civilian jet almost got shotdown by the biggest humanitarians and the most honest people on the planet, would now be as tolerant of NATO/US crap as Putin? Do not think so. In other words, one day when Putin steps down or is assasinated, after his replacement starts paybacks, the Western crapsters will wish for the thuggish dictator Putin to be back. Rogozin is a very cool-headed guy, but he strikes me as an eye for an eye sort of guy.

    On the funny side, I find it pleasant that two positive commenters managed to beat the usual troll brigade to Saker’s articles and post before them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Agree with you on Rogozin...

    He is not the kind to turn the other cheek...

    While working as Russia's representative to Nato in Brussels he famously quipped that he would love to plant a poplar on that fine big lawn...

    The poplar being known in Russian as 'topol' as in the Topol M roadmobile ICBM...

    https://s20.postimg.org/9990ihen1/19-03-2012-_Parade-rehearsal_-_Topol-_M.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Beckow says:
    @peterAUS

    What are the odds of us shooting these damn things at each other? During Cold War, there were 3-4 cases when the world came close to a nuclear exchange. We got lucky. When your success depends on luck, you will eventually lose. We will not make it through another 3-4 close calls.
     
    Agree.

    It would not be the end, but we would ALL be worse off.
     
    Maybe. Depends on a lot of variables.
    I do believe that going out full scale will be the end.

    What will trigger it?
     
    Hehe.........
    My take: a combination of human error with system malfunction.

    Or, perhaps you are just too negative. I'd suggest the common remedy: take a day course in positive thinking, get immersed in social media and consumer society. Works a a charm until it doesn't.

    Maybe. Depends on a lot of variables.

    I think it is a fairly good assumption that after a nuclear war we would all be worse off. I think parts of the world would survive, but life would be worse for everyone.

    I am very positive. The best rational response to increased risk of annihilation is to live well. In some ways the geo-political circus is liberating because it puts a lot of things in perspective. There is also the amusing part of it as one watches the creme-the-crop ‘elites’ go deep into an-ever more absurdist thinking, looking for Putin under their bed, losing even a semblance of having some principles.

    How far are they going to take it? I have always wondered how far absurd thinking can go, seeing designated ‘smart people’ go nuts over silly made-up narratives is fun. Let’s enjoy the moment…

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I think it is a fairly good assumption that after a nuclear war we would all be worse off.
     
    Definitely.

    I think parts of the world would survive, but life would be worse for everyone.
     
    I guess that is the most, if not only, important part of all this "whose dick is bigger" nonsense.
    Well....if the Big Boys go full at each other, one of projections was/is that we'd get a "nuclear winter".
    Another was that the levels of radiation around the world would get to lethal levels. Not lethal as "5 days" but more like "a couple of months". Anyway, I believe they are all available somewhere on the Internet.
    Or, the world of mutants living in stone age. That definitely qualifies as "much worse".

    I am very positive. The best rational response to increased risk of annihilation is to live well. In some ways the geo-political circus is liberating because it puts a lot of things in perspective.
     
    Agree.
    Depends of age of course.
    We, oldies, fine with us really.
    For our offspring and those under,say, 30.......not good.

    There is also the amusing part of it as one watches the creme-the-crop ‘elites’ go deep into an-ever more absurdist thinking, looking for Putin under their bed, losing even a semblance of having some principles.
     
    An individual perception.
    Another would be "look at these pompous idiots, not even aware how stupid they are". And they do have my/our life in their hands. Hence, what does that make of me? What kind of person I am when have these as masters of my life and death? Let alone all these around who are so into their leaders?Anyway........

    How far are they going to take it? I have always wondered how far absurd thinking can go, seeing designated ‘smart people’ go nuts over silly made-up narratives is fun.
     
    As I wrote before somewhere around, my theory is:
    We, humans, simply didn't evolve our core nature along our intellectual capability.
    In essence, we are still, by nature, in Babylon era. Then, though, we were slaughtering each other with edged and blunt weapons. We evolved, intellectually, into nuclear weapons of megatons yield. Something like that.
    We'll pay for that difference.

    There are even some theories that we aren't the first doing all that; those "pre-diluvian" civilizations, cataclysm, reset, Gobekli Tepe etc. Anyway.

    Let’s enjoy the moment…
     
    Yup.
    Off I go for the beach.
    , @The Scalpel
    "How far are they going to take it?"

    I think Stanley Kubrick was close to being correct
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. peterAUS says:
    @Faker
    Hey Faker,

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia, possible boycotts of the World Cup (although I think ultimately they will relocate the tournament so that TV networks don't lose money) - oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help... poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.

    Correction:
    The “Team Russia” everywhere bought it. A peculiar mix of character types.
    That’s not important, though. What is important is that an average Russian, perhaps, bought it, so that daily life there just became a bit more bearable. And, I do agree; it’s better than drowning in vodka. Or emigrating into that miserable West just about to fall apart.
    Not sure about the latest, though; just last evening, while strolling along the beach, I came across a new Russian couple. Ah, well….

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia

    Ah, well, that’s not important, really. Those superweapons will take care of all that. Somehow.

    – oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help… poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)

    Are you sure it wasn’t the result of that multidimensional chess played by The Great Leader in Kremlin? The resident “Team Russia” will explain all that to you/us here.

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?

    Of course.
    Pays well. Better than doing that from Russia. Food’s better too, and last, but not the least, the climate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Hey Petey...

    I recall on another thread your self-described military career as an officer commanding a battalion-size unit...

    Certainly your comments since then have only served to...shall we say...'cement' your reputation...

    So I was wondering if you could give us a take on this article...by former Canadian diplomat Patrick Armstrong...

    He gets into the 'nuts and bolts' as you like to do here...

    '...The Chinese have a genius for pithy expressions and few are more packed with meaning, while immediately understandable, than “paper tiger”.

    NATO is one, but paper tigers that overestimate their powers can be dangerous...'
     
    He talks some real numbers here...like you like to do...you know divisions strengths etc...

    '...So, altogether, bringing everything home from the wars NATO is fighting around the world, under the most optimistic assumptions, assuming that everything is there and working...

    ...(fewer than half of France’s tanks were operational, German painted broomsticks, British recruiting shortfalls), crossing your fingers and hoping, NATO could possibly cobble together two and a half dozen divisions: or one-fifth of the number Germany thought it would need...'
     
    And...he quotes noted weapons expert Scott Ritter...who although not exactly in your league [who is...]...is still considered credible...

    '...“only five of the U.S. Army’s 15 armored brigade combat teams are maintained at full readiness levels“. A paper tiger...'
     
    Would seriously be interested in hearing your analysis...


    https://s20.postimg.org/aqugtqe59/psycho.jpg
    , @FB
    Oh...almost forgot...for Pete's sake...

    '...And, I do agree; it’s better than drowning in vodka...'
     
    And while Russians are 'drowning in vodka'...they still manage to graduate twice as many engineers as the US...despite less than half the population...


    https://s20.postimg.org/cxyphltp9/20150609_Engineering_Fo.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. nickels says:

    Another obvious death from this Russian technical coup d’etat is the whole notion that ‘diversity makes us stronger’.
    Russia has no such notions (to my knowledge), and the fact that a handfull of crazed Asiatic scientists could so thoroughly clean the technological clocks of a highly transgenderized, feminized and ‘man-bun’ized Western science carnival, means a return to the all white (slightly Judaized) patriarchal scientific culture of the 1950′s is absolutely essential if America is not to be overrun by the Mongolian hordes.

    On a side note, for the student of Russian, Putin never ceases to present a historic speech of epic impact once every few years, for translating bliss!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @peterAUS
    A good find.

    Elements I've found interesting:

    ....completely change warfare as we know it.
     
    Yeah.
    Before these Russsian/Putin new wonderweapons:
    USA would’ve destroyed Russia xxx times over and Russia, retaliating, would’ve destroyed USA yyy times over. And most of the world along thte way.
    Now, after these Russian weapons:
    USA will destroyed Russia yy times over only and Russia, retaliating, will destroyed USA xxxx times over. And most of the world along the way.
    And that’s new and of extreme strategic and political importance.
    Pathetic really.

    Not so pathetic is diverting resources into having those weapons from better purposes. But, nothing new there. Worked well for Soviet Union. Why wouldn’t for Russia. Same guys on top. .And bottom.

    And in all those wonderweapons

    They’re building a new heavy ICBM
     
    The crux of the matter, though, is:

    So what is he up to, then? Again, we must look back to the Cold War. During that conflict, the Russians twice managed to convince the US that they had a major edge in strategic weapons, first bombers and then missiles. In both cases, the US was comfortably ahead,
     
    My take: how nice. That US xxx capability was actually xxxx and Russian instead yyyy was actually yy. Great.

    There’s also a domestic political angle. The Russian presidential election is on March 18th, and Putin is presumably trying to bring the opinion the country more in line with the election results.
     
    Agree.

    The other big question missed by the media is how all of this is being funded. Russia’s GDP is smaller than that of South Korea in nominal terms, and just behind Germany in PPP terms. Even with the mess that most of the west has made of military equipment procurement, it’s hard to see them being able to fund a strategic buildup of this magnitude, particularly when combined with ongoing operations in Syria and Ukraine, and the modernization of their conventional forces that we see articles about every so often.
    Ultimately, since the end of the Cold War, the Russians have established themselves as masters of military vaporware. Their systems arrive late or not at all, and it’s impossible to definitively say just how effective they are when they get there. Putin’s latest announcement of a bunch of repackaged Cold War-era concepts is entirely in line with traditional Russian strategy.
     
    Yup.

    Those Armata tanks are due in 2030. These “new” weapons will need the 7% growth rate to be sustainable. Oil is down for along time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...Those Armata tanks are due in 2030. These “new” weapons will need the 7% growth rate to be sustainable...'
     
    Interesting...

    Clearly there is a rigorous mathematical analysis behind this assertion...would you be kind enough to share that with us...?

    '...Oil is down for along [sic] time...'
     
    Interesting again...

    Where exactly does one get a degree in fortune-telling...?


    https://s20.postimg.org/eyp92dkot/Fig-2-1-_Fortune-teller.jpg
    , @bluedog
    Maybe maybe not the world is changing or haven't you noticed,the 800 lb chimp has been reduced to nothing more than a monkey swinging by it tail on a limb,then add in the fact that Russia gets a real bang for the buck rather than our trillion dollar boondoggles like the F-35....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @FB

    '...who confidently put forth the argument that the Soviets could never achieve the metallurgy to make large rocket engines, hence the reason why large Soviet rockets consisted of large clusters of smaller engines...'
     
    Yes...the large cluster of smaller engines was the approach for the Soviet manned moon rocket...N1...which used 30 NK33s...

    However...this had nothing to do with metallurgy...the problem with a big engine...like von Braun's F1...is combustion instability...

    This was the major challenge faced by the F1 program...and arguably the entire Apollo program...the very large combustion chamber...[the F1 is still the biggest single-chamber engine ever built]...brought with it a very complex gas flow inside the chamber that was difficult to solve...

    In fact many technical books have been written on that subject...here is a <a short excerpt from the wiki on the F1...

    '...Early development tests revealed serious combustion instability problems which sometimes caused catastrophic failure.

    Initially, progress on this problem was slow, as it was intermittent and unpredictable...Eventually, engineers developed a diagnostic technique of detonating small explosive charges (which they called "bombs") outside the combustion chamber, through a tangential tube (RDX, C4 or black powder were used) while the engine was firing.

    This allowed them to determine exactly how the running chamber responded to variations in pressure, and to determine how to nullify these oscillations.

    The designers could then quickly experiment with different co-axial fuel-injector designs to obtain the one most resistant to instability. These problems were addressed from 1959 through 1961.

    Eventually, engine combustion was so stable, it would self-damp artificially induced instability within one-tenth of a second...'
     
    The RD170 which I mentioned in my previous comment is even more powerful than the F1...but uses four combustion chambers [and nozzles]...all of them fed by a common turbopump...

    Using multiple small engines has its drawbacks...we note that the SpaceX Falcon Heavy that made its maiden flight last month with great fanfare...used a total of 27 Merlin 1D engines...9 in the Falcon heavy core...and 9 each in two strap on boosters...

    Each of those Merlins have just half the power of an NK33...

    Interesting. I always wondered about reliability. How to ensure even ignition in large clusters of rockets. I thought it was a production issue. Series production of smaller, less stressed components.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. peterAUS says:
    @Beckow

    Maybe. Depends on a lot of variables.
     
    I think it is a fairly good assumption that after a nuclear war we would all be worse off. I think parts of the world would survive, but life would be worse for everyone.

    I am very positive. The best rational response to increased risk of annihilation is to live well. In some ways the geo-political circus is liberating because it puts a lot of things in perspective. There is also the amusing part of it as one watches the creme-the-crop 'elites' go deep into an-ever more absurdist thinking, looking for Putin under their bed, losing even a semblance of having some principles.

    How far are they going to take it? I have always wondered how far absurd thinking can go, seeing designated 'smart people' go nuts over silly made-up narratives is fun. Let's enjoy the moment...

    I think it is a fairly good assumption that after a nuclear war we would all be worse off.

    Definitely.

    I think parts of the world would survive, but life would be worse for everyone.

    I guess that is the most, if not only, important part of all this “whose dick is bigger” nonsense.
    Well….if the Big Boys go full at each other, one of projections was/is that we’d get a “nuclear winter”.
    Another was that the levels of radiation around the world would get to lethal levels. Not lethal as “5 days” but more like “a couple of months”. Anyway, I believe they are all available somewhere on the Internet.
    Or, the world of mutants living in stone age. That definitely qualifies as “much worse”.

    I am very positive. The best rational response to increased risk of annihilation is to live well. In some ways the geo-political circus is liberating because it puts a lot of things in perspective.

    Agree.
    Depends of age of course.
    We, oldies, fine with us really.
    For our offspring and those under,say, 30…….not good.

    There is also the amusing part of it as one watches the creme-the-crop ‘elites’ go deep into an-ever more absurdist thinking, looking for Putin under their bed, losing even a semblance of having some principles.

    An individual perception.
    Another would be “look at these pompous idiots, not even aware how stupid they are”. And they do have my/our life in their hands. Hence, what does that make of me? What kind of person I am when have these as masters of my life and death? Let alone all these around who are so into their leaders?Anyway……..

    How far are they going to take it? I have always wondered how far absurd thinking can go, seeing designated ‘smart people’ go nuts over silly made-up narratives is fun.

    As I wrote before somewhere around, my theory is:
    We, humans, simply didn’t evolve our core nature along our intellectual capability.
    In essence, we are still, by nature, in Babylon era. Then, though, we were slaughtering each other with edged and blunt weapons. We evolved, intellectually, into nuclear weapons of megatons yield. Something like that.
    We’ll pay for that difference.

    There are even some theories that we aren’t the first doing all that; those “pre-diluvian” civilizations, cataclysm, reset, Gobekli Tepe etc. Anyway.

    Let’s enjoy the moment…

    Yup.
    Off I go for the beach.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. FB says:
    @(((They))) Live
    Large engines are good for some rockets, but SpaceX are doing just fine with their "small" Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses

    FB will say that the RD-180 is better than the Merlin, true, but strangely the Falcon 9 is a better rocket than the Atlas 5, its not all about size

    SpaceX and Blue Origin are also working on staged combustion engines, both will be finished soon, Blue will launch around 2020, New Glenn will have 7 engines on the first stage, next year spaceX may launch the BSF next year, it will also have 7 engines, the BFR will have 31 engines

    Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only

    ‘…SpaceX are doing just fine with their “small” Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses…’

    ‘Clearly better’how technically speaking…?

    Stating an opinion is fine…as long as it’s coming from a credible rocket scientist who is able to explain technically his reasoning…

    So I will wait for the response…

    Many small engines…27 total in the Falcon heavy…means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight…

    When you add more engines you increase the chance of an engine failure…it’s a simple numerical and statistical fact…which is why you don’t see aircraft with 27 engines…

    ‘…SpaceX and Blue Origin are also working on staged combustion engines, both will be finished soon…’

    ‘Will be’ is the very definition of vaporware…

    Of course the many non-qualified people calling the new Russian technologies vaporware…do not seem capable of understanding that when it comes to the US…

    ‘…Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only…’

    ‘May not’ is in reality Never Will…

    Blue Origin…headed by noted ‘rocket scientist’ Jeff Bezos [of Amazon and Washington Post]…is making some pretty big accomplishments…

    ‘…The first developmental test flight of the New Shepard,[5] named after the first American in space Alan Shepard, was April 29, 2015.

    The uncrewed vehicle flew to its planned test altitude of more than 93.5 km (307,000 ft) and achieved a top speed of Mach 3 (3,675 km/h; 2,284 mph)…’

    We note here that speed of Mach 3 is ~1 km/s…

    And we also note that orbital velocity for low earth orbit is about ~8 km/s…so…clearly they are pretty close…LOL…

    As for the Bezos BE4 vaporware engine…its stated goal is a chamber pressure of 1,950 psi…half that of the RD180…[and don't hold your breath either...]

    We note also that its stated thrust goal is 550,000 lb…three times as much as the SpaceX Merlin…so perhaps Bezos didn’t get your memo that a large number of smaller engines is ‘better’…

    Anyway…the US has a lot more to worry about than trying to catch up in high pressure engine technology…they have not had human space flight capability for seven years now…

    Even a low pressure engine will get you to space as long as you have everything else worked out…ie life support systems etc.

    We will all be thrilled if the day ever comes that Musk and/or Bezos actually send a human into orbit…

    Notice I said orbit…not space…big difference…will explain later…[or maybe you would like to give it a shot…?}

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    the Falcon 9 is better than the Atlas 5 and similar sized rockets because it delivers the same payload to orbit for a lower price, the customer paying for the launch doesn't care about chamber pressure, they only want their satellite to reach orbit

    The Falcon Heavy could lose one or more engines and still reach orbit, engine out is one of its features

    The Shuttle main engine used staged combustion

    The SpaceX/Blue Origin engines are NOT vaporware both are on the test stand now and will be used on rockets

    SpaceX will send people to space later this year, in fact they could have done it years ago using the dragon 1

    I know you can't admit it but SpaceX are clearly ahead of the Russians and everyone else, failure to admit this is failure to understand what they are doing
    , @Erebus
    Great post on turbo pump pressures above, but a nit begs picking in this one...

    Many small engines…27 total in the Falcon heavy…means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight…
     
    is diametrically opposed by SpaceX's claim that...

    With its nine first-stage Merlin engines clustered together, Falcon 9 can sustain up to two engine shutdowns during flight and still successfully complete its mission.
     
    and the Falcon Heavy...

    ... under most payload scenarios... can sustain more than one unplanned engine shutdown at any point in flight and still successfully complete its mission.
     
    Musk may be master of hyperbole, but I doubt SpaceX are lying here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. FB says:
    @Kiza
    My favorite scenario for the end of the World (yes, the end - not just everyone worse off as you say) is not even related to any Western created crisis point such as Eastern Ghouta or Donbas etc. The end of the World would start as a random effect of the totally unneccesary military build up on Russia’s borders. A drunken Estonian “air-defence” officer orders a shoot-down of a Russian military transport plane full of military officers for rotation on the way to Kaliningrad, because it missed the very narrow international airspace corridor by a couple of hundred meters. Putin cannot let that random and dumb act pass as he let pass so many deliberate US provocations before: MH17, Su-24, the assasinations of ambassadors and generals, destruction of field hospitals, sabotages etc etc.

    Another thought that has been occupying my mind is about the Putin’s successor. If it turns out to be the man who is apparently the one most responsible for the stellar efficiency of the Russian MIC, Dmitry Rogozin, a former Russian ambassador to NATO, then I remember that he was also the one on whose civilian plane NATO/US pirates harassed with menacingly armed military jets. I believe that from that moment on the Russians realised that their leaders cannot fly anywhere in the international airspace without own fighter jet escort. Rogozin, after his civilian jet almost got shotdown by the biggest humanitarians and the most honest people on the planet, would now be as tolerant of NATO/US crap as Putin? Do not think so. In other words, one day when Putin steps down or is assasinated, after his replacement starts paybacks, the Western crapsters will wish for the thuggish dictator Putin to be back. Rogozin is a very cool-headed guy, but he strikes me as an eye for an eye sort of guy.

    On the funny side, I find it pleasant that two positive commenters managed to beat the usual troll brigade to Saker’s articles and post before them.

    Agree with you on Rogozin…

    He is not the kind to turn the other cheek…

    While working as Russia’s representative to Nato in Brussels he famously quipped that he would love to plant a poplar on that fine big lawn…

    The poplar being known in Russian as ‘topol’ as in the Topol M roadmobile ICBM…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. FB says:
    @Philip Owen
    Those Armata tanks are due in 2030. These "new" weapons will need the 7% growth rate to be sustainable. Oil is down for along time.

    ‘…Those Armata tanks are due in 2030. These “new” weapons will need the 7% growth rate to be sustainable…’

    Interesting…

    Clearly there is a rigorous mathematical analysis behind this assertion…would you be kind enough to share that with us…?

    ‘…Oil is down for along [sic] time…’

    Interesting again…

    Where exactly does one get a degree in fortune-telling…?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    There was a Russian language announcement by the defence minister nearly a year ago about the Armata. It was in Russia Gazette. I have actually visited Russian factories including those owned by the Ministry of Defence Industry. Maths beyond the eyesight theorem is not needed. Anyway, there is no capital around. Most private firms capable of investment did it already and are carrying too. Uch debt.
    , @Philip Owen
    The oil price comes from Prof Minford.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. FB says:
    @Faker
    Hey Faker,

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia, possible boycotts of the World Cup (although I think ultimately they will relocate the tournament so that TV networks don't lose money) - oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help... poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?

    ‘…Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos…’

    I agree…nobody in the village idiot demographic…

    Of course the reaction in Washington was slightly more telling…as US senators quickly urged Trump to start arms negotiations with Russia…

    ‘…A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing including a cruise missile and a nuclear underwater drone, which are not currently limited by the New START treaty, and would be destabilizing if deployed…’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. FB says:
    @peterAUS

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.
     
    Correction:
    The "Team Russia" everywhere bought it. A peculiar mix of character types.
    That's not important, though. What is important is that an average Russian, perhaps, bought it, so that daily life there just became a bit more bearable. And, I do agree; it's better than drowning in vodka. Or emigrating into that miserable West just about to fall apart.
    Not sure about the latest, though; just last evening, while strolling along the beach, I came across a new Russian couple. Ah, well....

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia
     
    Ah, well, that's not important, really. Those superweapons will take care of all that. Somehow.

    – oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help… poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)
     
    Are you sure it wasn't the result of that multidimensional chess played by The Great Leader in Kremlin? The resident "Team Russia" will explain all that to you/us here.

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?
     
    Of course.
    Pays well. Better than doing that from Russia. Food's better too, and last, but not the least, the climate.

    Hey Petey…

    I recall on another thread your self-described military career as an officer commanding a battalion-size unit…

    Certainly your comments since then have only served to…shall we say…‘cement’ your reputation…

    So I was wondering if you could give us a take on this article…by former Canadian diplomat Patrick Armstrong…

    He gets into the ‘nuts and bolts’ as you like to do here…

    ‘…The Chinese have a genius for pithy expressions and few are more packed with meaning, while immediately understandable, than “paper tiger”.

    NATO is one, but paper tigers that overestimate their powers can be dangerous…’

    He talks some real numbers here…like you like to do…you know divisions strengths etc…

    ‘…So, altogether, bringing everything home from the wars NATO is fighting around the world, under the most optimistic assumptions, assuming that everything is there and working…

    …(fewer than half of France’s tanks were operational, German painted broomsticks, British recruiting shortfalls), crossing your fingers and hoping, NATO could possibly cobble together two and a half dozen divisions: or one-fifth of the number Germany thought it would need…’

    And…he quotes noted weapons expert Scott Ritter…who although not exactly in your league [who is...]…is still considered credible…

    ‘…“only five of the U.S. Army’s 15 armored brigade combat teams are maintained at full readiness levels“. A paper tiger…’

    Would seriously be interested in hearing your analysis…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @peterAUS

    .....especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia’s corruption natually extends to its “military-industrial complex”.

    Questioning Russia’s capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin’s approach to Martyanov’s, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.
     

    Agree, up to a point.

    Corruption notwithstanding and the "Team Russia" cheering for their Great Leader and his team, I do believe that Russia can produce such weaponry.

    Not important, IMHO.

    Soviet Union was going to shit and it was produciing quite good weaponry.
    The same pattern being repeated now is simply......funny.

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
    Now, it is good for lining the pockets of fat cats at the top, but, not so good on making the life of lower strata of society happy.
    The same strata that had enough of Soviet shit and brought all that Potemkin village now.

    I have a feeling that Russian elites know all that, just, they don't have another option.
    They haven't been able to develop a coherent alternative vision of society and got locked into competition with similar ilk in the West.

    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those "superweapons" less they'll allocate for the common man there.
    That will create an environment for an internal dissent.
    How is that internal dissent going to work out, or not, we'll see.

    Maybe it will make the team in Kremlin listen and do something good.
    Or...maybe it will destabilize the regime enough to create a crisis.
    That crisis could, of badly managed by both parties, escalate in a serious confrontation with The Empire.
    And, the only important then would be: nukes or not.
    If yes, ah, well.....it was sort of good while it lasted. Especially for the fat cats.

    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those “superweapons” less they’ll allocate for the common man there.

    Logically, of course, this would appear to be true. On the other hand, official sources indicate that Russian military expenditures (2.85% in 2018 and in absolute terms lower than the UK) are actually declining (9% in ruble terms in 2018). Are they to be believed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Are they to be believed?
     
    Depends.

    For the "Team Russia" and the team "USA bad" for sure they are to be believed.

    For the rest, a minority for sure, a simple principle: "Do you really trust anything coming out of Washington and Moscow"?

    And, declining whatever...does not matter. And it's not just money; it's overall resource being commited to that effort. The resource that could've been used to actually do something good for an average Russian there.

    But, free will at work.

    Arms race, last time, collapsed Soviet Union from within.
    Not even 30 years later we see the very same method at work.

    Good.
    , @Philip Owen
    Maybe they aren't building submarines any more?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Faker
    Hey Faker,

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia, possible boycotts of the World Cup (although I think ultimately they will relocate the tournament so that TV networks don't lose money) - oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help... poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?

    oh and Kim Jong Un folded

    This seems to be a quite common view, but is it true? North Korea has proposed bilateral negotiations for years, the US has consistently refused, or placed preconditions that constituted an effective refusal. Now the US, after making lots of threats, accepts talks with no preconditions.

    Who has folded?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    That was my reaction as well. Eerily reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US blusters then completely folds then does an end zone dance for 50 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. FB says:
    @peterAUS

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.
     
    Correction:
    The "Team Russia" everywhere bought it. A peculiar mix of character types.
    That's not important, though. What is important is that an average Russian, perhaps, bought it, so that daily life there just became a bit more bearable. And, I do agree; it's better than drowning in vodka. Or emigrating into that miserable West just about to fall apart.
    Not sure about the latest, though; just last evening, while strolling along the beach, I came across a new Russian couple. Ah, well....

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia
     
    Ah, well, that's not important, really. Those superweapons will take care of all that. Somehow.

    – oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help… poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)
     
    Are you sure it wasn't the result of that multidimensional chess played by The Great Leader in Kremlin? The resident "Team Russia" will explain all that to you/us here.

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?
     
    Of course.
    Pays well. Better than doing that from Russia. Food's better too, and last, but not the least, the climate.

    Oh…almost forgot…for Pete’s sake…

    ‘…And, I do agree; it’s better than drowning in vodka…’

    And while Russians are ‘drowning in vodka’…they still manage to graduate twice as many engineers as the US…despite less than half the population…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. FB says:
    @Faker
    Hey Faker,

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia, possible boycotts of the World Cup (although I think ultimately they will relocate the tournament so that TV networks don't lose money) - oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help... poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?

    ‘…oh and Kim Jong Un folded…’

    Oh yes that…quite spectacular how Kim folded…

    …By getting Trump to agree to negotiations…as opposed to US carrying out that ‘Bloody Nose’ and ‘Decapitating Strike’ that the Big Men in DC have been threatening for months…

    ‘…I won the fight…didn’t you see how I hit him on the fist with my face…?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Faker
    Do you mean like when Reagan agreed to meet Gorbatchev in Reykjavik and a couple years later the mighty USRR, which for decades had a segment running on the nightly news saying the U.S. was about to collapse, was history, only to fall back to third-world status?

    Of course Kim folded, saying he would de-nuclearize if his family was guaranteed to stay in power (there is a guy who thinks of his people first apparently).

    You guys are a joke!

    All I can think about when you guys drone on about Russia's military might is Shakespeare:

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Faker says:
    @FB

    '...oh and Kim Jong Un folded...'
     
    Oh yes that...quite spectacular how Kim folded...

    ...By getting Trump to agree to negotiations...as opposed to US carrying out that 'Bloody Nose' and 'Decapitating Strike' that the Big Men in DC have been threatening for months...

    '...I won the fight...didn't you see how I hit him on the fist with my face...?
     
    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/49/49/74/494974d4a0892a7d821d37c98a03fe9e.jpg

    Do you mean like when Reagan agreed to meet Gorbatchev in Reykjavik and a couple years later the mighty USRR, which for decades had a segment running on the nightly news saying the U.S. was about to collapse, was history, only to fall back to third-world status?

    Of course Kim folded, saying he would de-nuclearize if his family was guaranteed to stay in power (there is a guy who thinks of his people first apparently).

    You guys are a joke!

    All I can think about when you guys drone on about Russia’s military might is Shakespeare:

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident X
    You're funny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. peterAUS says:
    @for-the-record
    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those “superweapons” less they’ll allocate for the common man there.

    Logically, of course, this would appear to be true. On the other hand, official sources indicate that Russian military expenditures (2.85% in 2018 and in absolute terms lower than the UK) are actually declining (9% in ruble terms in 2018). Are they to be believed?

    Are they to be believed?

    Depends.

    For the “Team Russia” and the team “USA bad” for sure they are to be believed.

    For the rest, a minority for sure, a simple principle: “Do you really trust anything coming out of Washington and Moscow”?

    And, declining whatever…does not matter. And it’s not just money; it’s overall resource being commited to that effort. The resource that could’ve been used to actually do something good for an average Russian there.

    But, free will at work.

    Arms race, last time, collapsed Soviet Union from within.
    Not even 30 years later we see the very same method at work.

    Good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    The resource that could’ve been used to actually do something good for an average Russian there.
     
    Keeping Sergei6Pack(ov) and his family from getting nuked isn't "something good"? For him, and for the rest of the world too? Who knew? You're upside down in more ways than 1.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. FB says:

    ‘…Of course Kim folded, saying he would de-nuclearize…’

    Well you are certainly persistent for an imbecile…

    When did North Korea ever say they would de-nuclearize…?

    Please provide a link…

    Here is the actual story…[as opposed to the delusional village idiot version]…

    North and South Koreabn talks have been progressing very well…ever since the breakthrough with the Olympics…

    South Koreans elected a leader Moon Jae In…who is in favor of peace with DPRK…and has opposed publicly US threats of war and President Donald Dump’s hard line…

    Also the Russians and Chinese have been urging the so-called double-freeze…where North Korea freezes its Nuclear tests…and the US freezes its provocative military exercises…

    This is what has happened…the US folded…like a cheap suitcase…full of bluff and bluster which got called…

    Because nobody would have any more of the US BS…first of all the South Koreans…who have made it plain that they are not on board with any US plan to attack the North…

    [Not that the US ever would have grew a pair to do so anyway...they had ample opportunity to shoot down the many DPRK missiles that overflew Japan...with their so-called 'ballistic missile defense' which doesn't actually work...see my technical comment here...]

    Now…Donald Dump is all of a sudden ready to negotiate…with no preconditions…

    Knockout Win for Kim

    Everyone always knew even little North Korea could wipe the floor with delusional US…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Faker
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Russia Today article:

    "Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place. Surprisingly, Kim also made concessions towards the never-ending joint US-South Korean drills, which have greatly contributed to the ongoing tensions in the region. “He [KIM] understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue,” the Security Adviser noted during his announcement. The South Korean official further credited Trump’s leadership and the US policy of “maximum pressure” for bringing North Korea to the table."


    https://www.rt.com/usa/420830-korea-kim-trump-letter/
    , @Erebus
    Not to mention:
    - how & where exactly they got those Huasong 12 & 15 rocket engines, and
    - the "9 Bridges" deal for N. Korean development Putin and Moon announced in Vladivostok, and
    - China's statement that they will honour their treaty if N. Korea is attacked,

    When did North Korea ever say they would de-nuclearize…?
     
    There's some confusion about whether the DPRK has offered to abandon its nukes, or to simply freeze the program in place, but if the S. Korean officials that stated last week that N. Korea is willing to abandon its nuclear program for security guarantees are to be believed, N. Korea indeed appears to have agreed to some variant of "de-nuclearization". Lots of mainstream links on that.

    I have no idea where N/S Korea rapprochement is going, but it sure looks like the USM's dominance of the ECS is on the wane. A new security structure is forming in that theatre, and it is not unlikely that Putin's announcement was related to that development.
    , @Kiza
    Even if we would give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he is genuinely suing for peace, even his tough and dumb talk could have been an internal manoeuver to relax the real US crazies, his chances of pulling off peace on the Korean Peninsula against US MIC are close to absolute zero. He would be knocking off billions, if not trillions, out of the pockets of the “deserving dual citizen patriots”.

    As one wise commenter wrote ironically on moonofalabama: What would be next, peace in Palestine? Trump will sooner end near some grassy knoll then initiate peace in Korea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. peterAUS says:

    There is one element of all this bullshit re Putin speech that, still, somehow eludes me.

    I know why Putin said all that.
    I know why Putin Team likes that arms race. The same reason Washington elites like it. Money.

    I get that the regime in Moscow is concerned about The Empire’s push to execute the regime change in Kremlin and are creating countermeasures.

    What I don’t get is this, commentariat here and all over the Internet, fascination and obsession with conventional war between superpowers.
    A big number of commentators, and authors in Russia’s sphere (but not The Empire’s) are obsessed with that repelling of an invasion of Rodina by The Empire. Ghosts of Napoleon, Hitler, blah, blah.
    I get the emotional appeal there,but, still.

    They really believe that The Empire is going to try to invade, by conventional forces, Russia proper.

    What puzzles me, is why they do not get that the another scenario is much more likely: collapsing and changing the regime through internal unrest?
    Because they believe Russia is impervious to that? Hehe…sure it is.
    And the arms race simply can’t help there; on the contrary actually. It contributes to that unrest. As the last time.

    Or, more likely, they know the truth there but seek pure on-line escapism.
    And the puppet masters in Kremlin are more than happy to provide that. Can’t argue that.
    Besides, no harm there. Keeps the depression at bay, especially at middle-age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Faker says:
    @FB

    '...Of course Kim folded, saying he would de-nuclearize...'
     
    Well you are certainly persistent for an imbecile...

    When did North Korea ever say they would de-nuclearize...?

    Please provide a link...

    Here is the actual story...[as opposed to the delusional village idiot version]...

    North and South Koreabn talks have been progressing very well...ever since the breakthrough with the Olympics...

    South Koreans elected a leader Moon Jae In...who is in favor of peace with DPRK...and has opposed publicly US threats of war and President Donald Dump's hard line...

    Also the Russians and Chinese have been urging the so-called double-freeze...where North Korea freezes its Nuclear tests...and the US freezes its provocative military exercises...

    This is what has happened...the US folded...like a cheap suitcase...full of bluff and bluster which got called...

    Because nobody would have any more of the US BS...first of all the South Koreans...who have made it plain that they are not on board with any US plan to attack the North...

    [Not that the US ever would have grew a pair to do so anyway...they had ample opportunity to shoot down the many DPRK missiles that overflew Japan...with their so-called 'ballistic missile defense' which doesn't actually work...see my technical comment here...]

    Now...Donald Dump is all of a sudden ready to negotiate...with no preconditions...

    Knockout Win for Kim

    Everyone always knew even little North Korea could wipe the floor with delusional US...

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Russia Today article:

    “Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place. Surprisingly, Kim also made concessions towards the never-ending joint US-South Korean drills, which have greatly contributed to the ongoing tensions in the region. “He [KIM] understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue,” the Security Adviser noted during his announcement. The South Korean official further credited Trump’s leadership and the US policy of “maximum pressure” for bringing North Korea to the table.”

    https://www.rt.com/usa/420830-korea-kim-trump-letter/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Faker
    Worse than folded... the guy groveled, crawled, genuflected.
    , @FB

    '...“Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place...'
     
    Chung Eui-yong...the person quoted there is a South Korean National Security Adviser...

    This is not a statement from DPRK...which did not make public any such statement...

    '...Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made...'
     
    'This period of time beinig until the Kim-Trump talks in May...the above from Trump's own tweet...

    We not here that Kim sent a letter with a personal inivitation to Trump...which Trump has accepted...

    This is far from North Korea saying it will de-nuclearize...

    There never was any such statement and we shall see what comes of the talks...May is only weeks away and the DPRK promising not to fly any more missile tests is in practical terms meaningless...

    The fact is that you have been saying here that DPRK has agreed to de-nuclearize...

    That is demonstrably false...

    DPRK has maintined the same line it has from the beginning...that it is will to discuss the issue of giving up nukes...under specific circumstances...such as a treaty with security guarantees...ie a non-aggression treaty with the US...

    So the DPRK position has not changed one iota...it is Dump and his fire and fury BS that has been jettisoned...

    Right after the US realized that it could never successfully carry out a military attack against heavily defended DPRK...which is not Iraq or Libya by any stretch...

    Naturally the US loser mentality is to try to see a 'win' in every situation...even in a case where the US has obviously reversed their position...

    Everybody who has been watching this is not surprised that the US caved...they were completely isolated on DPRK...and their military threats were not credible...end of story...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @FB

    '...SpaceX are doing just fine with their “small” Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses...'
     
    'Clearly better'...how technically speaking...?

    Stating an opinion is fine...as long as it's coming from a credible rocket scientist who is able to explain technically his reasoning...

    So I will wait for the response...

    Many small engines...27 total in the Falcon heavy...means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight...

    When you add more engines you increase the chance of an engine failure...it's a simple numerical and statistical fact...which is why you don't see aircraft with 27 engines...

    '...SpaceX and Blue Origin are also working on staged combustion engines, both will be finished soon...'
     
    'Will be' is the very definition of vaporware...

    Of course the many non-qualified people calling the new Russian technologies vaporware...do not seem capable of understanding that when it comes to the US...

    '...Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only...'
     
    'May not' is in reality Never Will...

    Blue Origin...headed by noted 'rocket scientist' Jeff Bezos [of Amazon and Washington Post]...is making some pretty big accomplishments...

    '...The first developmental test flight of the New Shepard,[5] named after the first American in space Alan Shepard, was April 29, 2015.

    The uncrewed vehicle flew to its planned test altitude of more than 93.5 km (307,000 ft) and achieved a top speed of Mach 3 (3,675 km/h; 2,284 mph)...'
     
    We note here that speed of Mach 3 is ~1 km/s...

    And we also note that orbital velocity for low earth orbit is about ~8 km/s...so...clearly they are pretty close...LOL...

    As for the Bezos BE4 vaporware engine...its stated goal is a chamber pressure of 1,950 psi...half that of the RD180...[and don't hold your breath either...]

    We note also that its stated thrust goal is 550,000 lb...three times as much as the SpaceX Merlin...so perhaps Bezos didn't get your memo that a large number of smaller engines is 'better'...

    Anyway...the US has a lot more to worry about than trying to catch up in high pressure engine technology...they have not had human space flight capability for seven years now...

    Even a low pressure engine will get you to space as long as you have everything else worked out...ie life support systems etc.

    We will all be thrilled if the day ever comes that Musk and/or Bezos actually send a human into orbit...

    Notice I said orbit...not space...big difference...will explain later...[or maybe you would like to give it a shot...?}

    the Falcon 9 is better than the Atlas 5 and similar sized rockets because it delivers the same payload to orbit for a lower price, the customer paying for the launch doesn’t care about chamber pressure, they only want their satellite to reach orbit

    The Falcon Heavy could lose one or more engines and still reach orbit, engine out is one of its features

    The Shuttle main engine used staged combustion

    The SpaceX/Blue Origin engines are NOT vaporware both are on the test stand now and will be used on rockets

    SpaceX will send people to space later this year, in fact they could have done it years ago using the dragon 1

    I know you can’t admit it but SpaceX are clearly ahead of the Russians and everyone else, failure to admit this is failure to understand what they are doing

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    You will notice my reply to you above said this...

    '...Stating an opinion is fine…as long as it’s coming from a credible rocket scientist who is able to explain technically his reasoning…'
     
    It is clear that you are not a rocket scientist and have made not even a layman's attempt to explain your reasoning...

    You are simply repeating a layman's opinion that the Falcon 9 is 'better' than the Atlas V...based on a supposedly 'cheaper' launch cost...

    But 'cheapness' is not the primary concern in rocket launches...reliability is...

    We note that SpaceX Falcon 9 has had two catastrophic failures in 50 total launches...

    Atlas V has a perfect success rate...

    '...In its more than 75 launches (as of March 2018), starting with its maiden launch in August 2002, Atlas V has had a perfect mission success rate.

    This is in contrast to the industry failure rate of 5–10%...'
     
    Clearly your talk of Falcon 9 being 'better' is considered by actual industry professionals as quite ridiculous...

    ...which is why the US military is not switching from the Atlas to the Falcon...fortunately these decisions are made by sober scientists not chat room space cadets...

    '...SpaceX will send people to space later this year, in fact they could have done it years ago using the dragon 1...'
     
    'Coulda woulda shoulda' is not an operating principle that is used in spaceflight...

    The Dragon spacecraft is not human-rated...it is used to deliver cargo to the ISS [with a spotty record]...

    Turning a cargo ship with no human life support systems into a crewed vehicle is a very ambitious and difficult undertaking...

    ...in which neither Boeing nor Spacex have any track record whatsoever...

    The fact that you can make such a ridiculous layman statement speaks volumes about your non-existent qualifications to even be in this discussion...

    As for SpaceX 'will' send people to space later this year...well...the latest real info suggests otherwise...[if ever...]

    Just a few weeks ago...January 17...the Government Accountability Office [GAO] informed a congressional hearing on the status of the program...as reported by the WaPo...

    '...In prepared testimony submitted to a congressional hearing on the status of the program, the Government Accountability Office said ongoing “delays and uncertain final certification dates raise questions about whether the United States will have uninterrupted access to the [space station] after 2019...'
     
    The 'certification' refers to achieving human-rated seal of approval from Nasa...which is a daunting technical specification...

    Few Nasa aerospace professionals believe that either SpaceX or Boeing are ever going to get there...

    '...If SpaceX and Boeing, the companies NASA has hired to fly its astronauts to space, can’t meet NASA’s rigorous requirements for human spaceflight by late next year, the space agency would have to continue to rely on the Russians...'
     
    'Late next year' means end of 2019...so clearly your statement that SpaceX 'will' fly humans this year is delusional...

    The people in a position to judge are saying they are doubtful for even end of next year...

    '...“We are here today looking at not one, but two companies that are behind schedule, may not meet safety and reliability requirements and could even slip into cost overruns,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.), the chairman of the House Science subcommittee on space...'
     

    '...He added that the “situation gets even worse when we look at safety and reliability concerns surrounding these two new systems.”

    As a result, NASA may have to seek additional funding or accept greater risk. “Neither of those options is viable,” he said...'
     

    '...Before they fly humans, Boeing and SpaceX must overcome complex technical problems with their spacecraft, the GAO said...'
     

    '...Before it allows SpaceX to fly, NASA must first determine whether it can safely fuel its rocket while the astronauts are on board — an issue that the both the GAO and the agency’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said could be a safety risk.

    In 2016, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket exploded into a massive fireball while it was being fueled ahead of an engine test...'
     
    That was one of two SpaceX failures...resulting in the loss of the payload...an Israeli satellite...

    The other SpaceX catastrophic failure occurred the year prior...June 2015...on an ISS cargo resupply mission...

    '...It disintegrated 139 seconds into the flight after launch from Cape Canaveral, just before the first stage was to separate from the second stage.

    It was the ninth flight for SpaceX's uncrewed Dragon cargo spacecraft and the seventh SpaceX operational mission contracted to NASA under a Commercial Resupply Services contract...'
     
    I'm sure that was a real confidence builder for the folks at Nasa...who will be responsible for certifying the human-rating for any spacecraft...a failure on just the seventh flight does not leave a good impression...

    So technically speaking both the SpaceX and Boeing human sapceflight 'programs' are at this point vaporware...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Faker says:
    @Faker
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Russia Today article:

    "Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place. Surprisingly, Kim also made concessions towards the never-ending joint US-South Korean drills, which have greatly contributed to the ongoing tensions in the region. “He [KIM] understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue,” the Security Adviser noted during his announcement. The South Korean official further credited Trump’s leadership and the US policy of “maximum pressure” for bringing North Korea to the table."


    https://www.rt.com/usa/420830-korea-kim-trump-letter/

    Worse than folded… the guy groveled, crawled, genuflected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    I admire your tenacity in wanting to have Nork fight a war to embiggen your ego.

    No war is always preferable to war.


    In other news:

    Cuba Embassy NOT under attack by sonic weapons.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/finally-a-likely-explanation-for-the-sonic-weapon-used-at-the-us-embassy-in-cuba
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Erebus says:
    @FB

    '...SpaceX are doing just fine with their “small” Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses...'
     
    'Clearly better'...how technically speaking...?

    Stating an opinion is fine...as long as it's coming from a credible rocket scientist who is able to explain technically his reasoning...

    So I will wait for the response...

    Many small engines...27 total in the Falcon heavy...means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight...

    When you add more engines you increase the chance of an engine failure...it's a simple numerical and statistical fact...which is why you don't see aircraft with 27 engines...

    '...SpaceX and Blue Origin are also working on staged combustion engines, both will be finished soon...'
     
    'Will be' is the very definition of vaporware...

    Of course the many non-qualified people calling the new Russian technologies vaporware...do not seem capable of understanding that when it comes to the US...

    '...Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only...'
     
    'May not' is in reality Never Will...

    Blue Origin...headed by noted 'rocket scientist' Jeff Bezos [of Amazon and Washington Post]...is making some pretty big accomplishments...

    '...The first developmental test flight of the New Shepard,[5] named after the first American in space Alan Shepard, was April 29, 2015.

    The uncrewed vehicle flew to its planned test altitude of more than 93.5 km (307,000 ft) and achieved a top speed of Mach 3 (3,675 km/h; 2,284 mph)...'
     
    We note here that speed of Mach 3 is ~1 km/s...

    And we also note that orbital velocity for low earth orbit is about ~8 km/s...so...clearly they are pretty close...LOL...

    As for the Bezos BE4 vaporware engine...its stated goal is a chamber pressure of 1,950 psi...half that of the RD180...[and don't hold your breath either...]

    We note also that its stated thrust goal is 550,000 lb...three times as much as the SpaceX Merlin...so perhaps Bezos didn't get your memo that a large number of smaller engines is 'better'...

    Anyway...the US has a lot more to worry about than trying to catch up in high pressure engine technology...they have not had human space flight capability for seven years now...

    Even a low pressure engine will get you to space as long as you have everything else worked out...ie life support systems etc.

    We will all be thrilled if the day ever comes that Musk and/or Bezos actually send a human into orbit...

    Notice I said orbit...not space...big difference...will explain later...[or maybe you would like to give it a shot...?}

    Great post on turbo pump pressures above, but a nit begs picking in this one…

    Many small engines…27 total in the Falcon heavy…means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight…

    is diametrically opposed by SpaceX’s claim that…

    With its nine first-stage Merlin engines clustered together, Falcon 9 can sustain up to two engine shutdowns during flight and still successfully complete its mission.

    and the Falcon Heavy…

    … under most payload scenarios… can sustain more than one unplanned engine shutdown at any point in flight and still successfully complete its mission.

    Musk may be master of hyperbole, but I doubt SpaceX are lying here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    In spaceflight there is a big difference between making claims and actual demonstrated capability...

    As for the Falcon 9 engine failure...we have had one such instance...on a cargo resupply mission to the ISS in 2012...on its very first such flight...

    '...During the launch, one of the nine engines suffered a sudden loss of pressure about 80 seconds into the flight, and an immediate early shutdown of that engine occurred; debris could be seen in the telescopic video of the night launch.

    The remaining eight engines fired for a longer period of time and the flight control software adjusted the trajectory to insert Dragon into a near flawless orbit...'
     
    So there you have proof that the more engines you have...the more that one is likely to fail...it is a statistical fact...ie all engines [or any complex device for that matter] will fail sooner or later...this is a quantifiable engineering principle and is called mean time before failure [MTBF]...

    If you have a one-engine rocket...and it has a certain demonstrated MTBF...then x number of flights will be completed before a failure...

    If you have 9 engines...then you have just reduced your flight success ratio by a factor of 9...[since even one engine failure...even if the mission is completed...still counts as a 'partial failure'...]

    In this one instance it turned out okay...but the basic engineering rationale for not having multiple engines is sound...the next time an engine fails it might not go so well...

    Bottom line is this...we have more chance of flights having an engine failure...but the outcome is unpredictable at this point because there is not enough empirical data to derive a probability of overall mission success...

    That flight with the failed engine was able to eventually dock with the ISS...but it was touch and go all the way...it was far from routine for the ISS crew...

    After the subsequent 2015 catastrophic Falcon 9 in-flight breakup [carrying the Dragon resupply cargo craft]...Nasa renegotiated with SpaceX for a lower price...due to the loss of the $112 million payload...

    Also the Nasa investigation contradicted the SpaceX conclusion that it was a 'single' failure...indicating multiple issues...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS

    Are they to be believed?
     
    Depends.

    For the "Team Russia" and the team "USA bad" for sure they are to be believed.

    For the rest, a minority for sure, a simple principle: "Do you really trust anything coming out of Washington and Moscow"?

    And, declining whatever...does not matter. And it's not just money; it's overall resource being commited to that effort. The resource that could've been used to actually do something good for an average Russian there.

    But, free will at work.

    Arms race, last time, collapsed Soviet Union from within.
    Not even 30 years later we see the very same method at work.

    Good.

    The resource that could’ve been used to actually do something good for an average Russian there.

    Keeping Sergei6Pack(ov) and his family from getting nuked isn’t “something good”? For him, and for the rest of the world too? Who knew? You’re upside down in more ways than 1.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Keeping Sergei6Pack(ov) and his family from getting nuked isn’t “something good”?
    For him, and for the rest of the world too? Who knew?
     
    I think that's, actually, something that will get him/them nuked more likely. You...."Team Russia" Putin fanboys simply can't see anything wrong with your Great Leader. You guys feel as a cult. Those true believers I mean; the rest are just doing their job.

    I'll try to explain (not that you'll get it):
    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.
    That...fetish....of great (conventional) land war in defense of the Rodina is funny actually.

    What is not funny, well, for an average Russian that is, is diverting resources into the arms race with West. From education, health care , social services etc. As not so long time ago. Time still in living history.
    It is funny for Russian elites, oligarchs in particular, because arms business as everybody here is oh so happy to point out re MIC, is very good for lining their pockets. And, not to miss a beat, stash/invest that money in West. Funny because the masses there buy it.

    The problem with that setup is it creates a resentment in those who can think a bit, most of the middle class. The same class that brought down Soviet Union when realized that playing the game wasn't bringing them anything good. And all that even more felt by minorities.
    Now, admit, there is a safety valve there now: immigration into West. Still, not good enough.

    That resentment shall be utilized by The Empire. It will create an internal unrest.
    That internal unrest is likely to destabilize the regime.
    And that's the crux here: unstable regime with tremendous nuclear capability.

    You’re upside down in more ways than 1.
     
    Hehe...you can't help it, a? Seeing somebody simply not buying all that "new paradigm" shit Kremlin has been trying oh so hard to sell around? You can always try harder. Or just burn the heretics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Erebus says:
    @FB

    '...Of course Kim folded, saying he would de-nuclearize...'
     
    Well you are certainly persistent for an imbecile...

    When did North Korea ever say they would de-nuclearize...?

    Please provide a link...

    Here is the actual story...[as opposed to the delusional village idiot version]...

    North and South Koreabn talks have been progressing very well...ever since the breakthrough with the Olympics...

    South Koreans elected a leader Moon Jae In...who is in favor of peace with DPRK...and has opposed publicly US threats of war and President Donald Dump's hard line...

    Also the Russians and Chinese have been urging the so-called double-freeze...where North Korea freezes its Nuclear tests...and the US freezes its provocative military exercises...

    This is what has happened...the US folded...like a cheap suitcase...full of bluff and bluster which got called...

    Because nobody would have any more of the US BS...first of all the South Koreans...who have made it plain that they are not on board with any US plan to attack the North...

    [Not that the US ever would have grew a pair to do so anyway...they had ample opportunity to shoot down the many DPRK missiles that overflew Japan...with their so-called 'ballistic missile defense' which doesn't actually work...see my technical comment here...]

    Now...Donald Dump is all of a sudden ready to negotiate...with no preconditions...

    Knockout Win for Kim

    Everyone always knew even little North Korea could wipe the floor with delusional US...

    Not to mention:
    - how & where exactly they got those Huasong 12 & 15 rocket engines, and
    - the “9 Bridges” deal for N. Korean development Putin and Moon announced in Vladivostok, and
    - China’s statement that they will honour their treaty if N. Korea is attacked,

    When did North Korea ever say they would de-nuclearize…?

    There’s some confusion about whether the DPRK has offered to abandon its nukes, or to simply freeze the program in place, but if the S. Korean officials that stated last week that N. Korea is willing to abandon its nuclear program for security guarantees are to be believed, N. Korea indeed appears to have agreed to some variant of “de-nuclearization”. Lots of mainstream links on that.

    I have no idea where N/S Korea rapprochement is going, but it sure looks like the USM’s dominance of the ECS is on the wane. A new security structure is forming in that theatre, and it is not unlikely that Putin’s announcement was related to that development.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Kiza says:
    @FB

    '...Of course Kim folded, saying he would de-nuclearize...'
     
    Well you are certainly persistent for an imbecile...

    When did North Korea ever say they would de-nuclearize...?

    Please provide a link...

    Here is the actual story...[as opposed to the delusional village idiot version]...

    North and South Koreabn talks have been progressing very well...ever since the breakthrough with the Olympics...

    South Koreans elected a leader Moon Jae In...who is in favor of peace with DPRK...and has opposed publicly US threats of war and President Donald Dump's hard line...

    Also the Russians and Chinese have been urging the so-called double-freeze...where North Korea freezes its Nuclear tests...and the US freezes its provocative military exercises...

    This is what has happened...the US folded...like a cheap suitcase...full of bluff and bluster which got called...

    Because nobody would have any more of the US BS...first of all the South Koreans...who have made it plain that they are not on board with any US plan to attack the North...

    [Not that the US ever would have grew a pair to do so anyway...they had ample opportunity to shoot down the many DPRK missiles that overflew Japan...with their so-called 'ballistic missile defense' which doesn't actually work...see my technical comment here...]

    Now...Donald Dump is all of a sudden ready to negotiate...with no preconditions...

    Knockout Win for Kim

    Everyone always knew even little North Korea could wipe the floor with delusional US...

    Even if we would give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he is genuinely suing for peace, even his tough and dumb talk could have been an internal manoeuver to relax the real US crazies, his chances of pulling off peace on the Korean Peninsula against US MIC are close to absolute zero. He would be knocking off billions, if not trillions, out of the pockets of the “deserving dual citizen patriots”.

    As one wise commenter wrote ironically on moonofalabama: What would be next, peace in Palestine? Trump will sooner end near some grassy knoll then initiate peace in Korea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. FB says:
    @Faker
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Russia Today article:

    "Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place. Surprisingly, Kim also made concessions towards the never-ending joint US-South Korean drills, which have greatly contributed to the ongoing tensions in the region. “He [KIM] understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue,” the Security Adviser noted during his announcement. The South Korean official further credited Trump’s leadership and the US policy of “maximum pressure” for bringing North Korea to the table."


    https://www.rt.com/usa/420830-korea-kim-trump-letter/

    ‘…“Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place…’

    Chung Eui-yong…the person quoted there is a South Korean National Security Adviser…

    This is not a statement from DPRK…which did not make public any such statement…

    ‘…Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made…’

    ‘This period of time beinig until the Kim-Trump talks in May…the above from Trump’s own tweet…

    We not here that Kim sent a letter with a personal inivitation to Trump…which Trump has accepted…

    This is far from North Korea saying it will de-nuclearize…

    There never was any such statement and we shall see what comes of the talks…May is only weeks away and the DPRK promising not to fly any more missile tests is in practical terms meaningless…

    The fact is that you have been saying here that DPRK has agreed to de-nuclearize…

    That is demonstrably false…

    DPRK has maintined the same line it has from the beginning…that it is will to discuss the issue of giving up nukes…under specific circumstances…such as a treaty with security guarantees…ie a non-aggression treaty with the US…

    So the DPRK position has not changed one iota…it is Dump and his fire and fury BS that has been jettisoned…

    Right after the US realized that it could never successfully carry out a military attack against heavily defended DPRK…which is not Iraq or Libya by any stretch…

    Naturally the US loser mentality is to try to see a ‘win’ in every situation…even in a case where the US has obviously reversed their position…

    Everybody who has been watching this is not surprised that the US caved…they were completely isolated on DPRK…and their military threats were not credible…end of story…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Faker
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
    See you in May!
    , @kemerd
    I am afraid Faker has a point. Indeed, NK did not release an official statement but they did not deny his statement, either.

    On the other hand, I think this is another step in placing a wedge between the south and the US. I think, NK will demand withdrawal of all US forces as a condition for de-nuclearization. This, of course, is unacceptable by the US as that would ruin its policy of China encirclement but and helps keep South's leash tight.

    In the end, the NK will look as the reasonable party while US the aggressive and the South leadership and its citizenry will get it. And likely, make the south elect more and more of nationalist figures. I think that is the plan

    , @TT
    FB, didn't we had both said last year, Kim win Trumps hands down when come to calling bluff. Kim already tested Trumps is paper tiger by threaten to shoot down US plane in international airspace.

    Now that he had completed all his nuke missiles testing, enjoyed a Deluxe Winter Olympics(pretty sure Samsung gave truck load of S9 phones to please NK not to whack its Olympics), its time to sit down for another round of game with Uncle Scam.

    China news mention Kim will only negotiate without any precondition. But latest news, he agreed to de-nuclearize...without saying under what condition. I believe kim will walk away with all he wants, with nuke.

    Dumps: Little Rocket man, you said agreed to de-nuclearize if i meet up without pre-condition, so don't make me lose face ok. The whole world is watching me now....

    Kim: ok ok...Dotard, we NK always kept our promise, we will de-nuclearize if ....if...if...
    US & everyone do first under UNS law. A Nuke free world.

    Dumps: oh damn it LRM, im doomed. Now how am i gonna face the world?

    Kim: Don't worry Dotard, i will teach you a face saving way. You announce to the world NK has agreed to de-nuke, so US will stop all war games & shut down SK bases. Then i silent, who know.

    Dumps: you are real genius man, deal. I always said im a born great negotiator. All the de-nuke fees will be in my pocket. Now i can boast how i achieve what all past Potus had failed. Don't you leak ok.

    Kim: sure, promise as usual. You are true great negotiator. Here, your kimchi present for all your great peace effort.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Faker says:
    @FB

    '...“Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place...'
     
    Chung Eui-yong...the person quoted there is a South Korean National Security Adviser...

    This is not a statement from DPRK...which did not make public any such statement...

    '...Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made...'
     
    'This period of time beinig until the Kim-Trump talks in May...the above from Trump's own tweet...

    We not here that Kim sent a letter with a personal inivitation to Trump...which Trump has accepted...

    This is far from North Korea saying it will de-nuclearize...

    There never was any such statement and we shall see what comes of the talks...May is only weeks away and the DPRK promising not to fly any more missile tests is in practical terms meaningless...

    The fact is that you have been saying here that DPRK has agreed to de-nuclearize...

    That is demonstrably false...

    DPRK has maintined the same line it has from the beginning...that it is will to discuss the issue of giving up nukes...under specific circumstances...such as a treaty with security guarantees...ie a non-aggression treaty with the US...

    So the DPRK position has not changed one iota...it is Dump and his fire and fury BS that has been jettisoned...

    Right after the US realized that it could never successfully carry out a military attack against heavily defended DPRK...which is not Iraq or Libya by any stretch...

    Naturally the US loser mentality is to try to see a 'win' in every situation...even in a case where the US has obviously reversed their position...

    Everybody who has been watching this is not surprised that the US caved...they were completely isolated on DPRK...and their military threats were not credible...end of story...

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
    See you in May!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. FB says:
    @(((They))) Live
    the Falcon 9 is better than the Atlas 5 and similar sized rockets because it delivers the same payload to orbit for a lower price, the customer paying for the launch doesn't care about chamber pressure, they only want their satellite to reach orbit

    The Falcon Heavy could lose one or more engines and still reach orbit, engine out is one of its features

    The Shuttle main engine used staged combustion

    The SpaceX/Blue Origin engines are NOT vaporware both are on the test stand now and will be used on rockets

    SpaceX will send people to space later this year, in fact they could have done it years ago using the dragon 1

    I know you can't admit it but SpaceX are clearly ahead of the Russians and everyone else, failure to admit this is failure to understand what they are doing

    You will notice my reply to you above said this…

    ‘…Stating an opinion is fine…as long as it’s coming from a credible rocket scientist who is able to explain technically his reasoning…’

    It is clear that you are not a rocket scientist and have made not even a layman’s attempt to explain your reasoning…

    You are simply repeating a layman’s opinion that the Falcon 9 is ‘better’ than the Atlas V…based on a supposedly ‘cheaper’ launch cost…

    But ‘cheapness’ is not the primary concern in rocket launches…reliability is…

    We note that SpaceX Falcon 9 has had two catastrophic failures in 50 total launches…

    Atlas V has a perfect success rate…

    ‘…In its more than 75 launches (as of March 2018), starting with its maiden launch in August 2002, Atlas V has had a perfect mission success rate.

    This is in contrast to the industry failure rate of 5–10%…’

    Clearly your talk of Falcon 9 being ‘better’ is considered by actual industry professionals as quite ridiculous…

    …which is why the US military is not switching from the Atlas to the Falcon…fortunately these decisions are made by sober scientists not chat room space cadets…

    ‘…SpaceX will send people to space later this year, in fact they could have done it years ago using the dragon 1…’

    ‘Coulda woulda shoulda’ is not an operating principle that is used in spaceflight…

    The Dragon spacecraft is not human-rated…it is used to deliver cargo to the ISS [with a spotty record]…

    Turning a cargo ship with no human life support systems into a crewed vehicle is a very ambitious and difficult undertaking…

    …in which neither Boeing nor Spacex have any track record whatsoever…

    The fact that you can make such a ridiculous layman statement speaks volumes about your non-existent qualifications to even be in this discussion…

    As for SpaceX ‘will’ send people to space later this year…well…the latest real info suggests otherwise…[if ever...]

    Just a few weeks ago…January 17…the Government Accountability Office [GAO] informed a congressional hearing on the status of the program…as reported by the WaPo…

    ‘…In prepared testimony submitted to a congressional hearing on the status of the program, the Government Accountability Office said ongoing “delays and uncertain final certification dates raise questions about whether the United States will have uninterrupted access to the [space station] after 2019…’

    The ‘certification’ refers to achieving human-rated seal of approval from Nasa…which is a daunting technical specification…

    Few Nasa aerospace professionals believe that either SpaceX or Boeing are ever going to get there…

    ‘…If SpaceX and Boeing, the companies NASA has hired to fly its astronauts to space, can’t meet NASA’s rigorous requirements for human spaceflight by late next year, the space agency would have to continue to rely on the Russians…’

    ‘Late next year’ means end of 2019…so clearly your statement that SpaceX ‘will’ fly humans this year is delusional…

    The people in a position to judge are saying they are doubtful for even end of next year…

    ‘…“We are here today looking at not one, but two companies that are behind schedule, may not meet safety and reliability requirements and could even slip into cost overruns,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.), the chairman of the House Science subcommittee on space…’

    ‘…He added that the “situation gets even worse when we look at safety and reliability concerns surrounding these two new systems.”

    As a result, NASA may have to seek additional funding or accept greater risk. “Neither of those options is viable,” he said…’

    ‘…Before they fly humans, Boeing and SpaceX must overcome complex technical problems with their spacecraft, the GAO said…’

    ‘…Before it allows SpaceX to fly, NASA must first determine whether it can safely fuel its rocket while the astronauts are on board — an issue that the both the GAO and the agency’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said could be a safety risk.

    In 2016, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket exploded into a massive fireball while it was being fueled ahead of an engine test…’

    That was one of two SpaceX failures…resulting in the loss of the payload…an Israeli satellite…

    The other SpaceX catastrophic failure occurred the year prior…June 2015…on an ISS cargo resupply mission…

    ‘…It disintegrated 139 seconds into the flight after launch from Cape Canaveral, just before the first stage was to separate from the second stage.

    It was the ninth flight for SpaceX’s uncrewed Dragon cargo spacecraft and the seventh SpaceX operational mission contracted to NASA under a Commercial Resupply Services contract…’

    I’m sure that was a real confidence builder for the folks at Nasa…who will be responsible for certifying the human-rating for any spacecraft…a failure on just the seventh flight does not leave a good impression…

    So technically speaking both the SpaceX and Boeing human sapceflight ‘programs’ are at this point vaporware…

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    I'm well aware of SpaceX failures, and know what the root cause of both was, it was not the Merlin engine, BTW I'm sure you know that ULA's Atlas was only seconds away from a launch failure back in 2016

    The US military WILL be launching satellites on the Falcon 9 and Heavy, in fact they have already at a much lower cost than ULA, its lower space launch costs that is killing ULA, using an engine with a high combustion chamber pressure does NOT seem to be saving them, why is that FB ?

    Could you give me your definition of the word vaporware, because a number of things you are call vaporware are clearly going to happen

    SpaceX will send people into orbit
    SpaceX will finish the Raptor and use it to launch a new family of rockets
    Blue Origin will finish the BE-4 and launch the New Glenn, it might be delayed but Bezos clearly has the capital to get the job done

    Which rocket company will launch the most payload to orbit this year ?

    its only a matter of time, maybe 2 years, and SpaceX will be launching more rockets than the rest of the world combined, but but high combustion chamber pressure you say

    About ten years from now SpaceX will land people on Mars while you continue to obsess about high combustion chamber pressure

    The Russians are behind for now but they have the ability to close the gap very fast, I hope they do
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. FB says:
    @Erebus
    Great post on turbo pump pressures above, but a nit begs picking in this one...

    Many small engines…27 total in the Falcon heavy…means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight…
     
    is diametrically opposed by SpaceX's claim that...

    With its nine first-stage Merlin engines clustered together, Falcon 9 can sustain up to two engine shutdowns during flight and still successfully complete its mission.
     
    and the Falcon Heavy...

    ... under most payload scenarios... can sustain more than one unplanned engine shutdown at any point in flight and still successfully complete its mission.
     
    Musk may be master of hyperbole, but I doubt SpaceX are lying here.

    In spaceflight there is a big difference between making claims and actual demonstrated capability…

    As for the Falcon 9 engine failure…we have had one such instance…on a cargo resupply mission to the ISS in 2012…on its very first such flight…

    ‘…During the launch, one of the nine engines suffered a sudden loss of pressure about 80 seconds into the flight, and an immediate early shutdown of that engine occurred; debris could be seen in the telescopic video of the night launch.

    The remaining eight engines fired for a longer period of time and the flight control software adjusted the trajectory to insert Dragon into a near flawless orbit…’

    So there you have proof that the more engines you have…the more that one is likely to fail…it is a statistical fact…ie all engines [or any complex device for that matter] will fail sooner or later…this is a quantifiable engineering principle and is called mean time before failure [MTBF]…

    If you have a one-engine rocket…and it has a certain demonstrated MTBF…then x number of flights will be completed before a failure…

    If you have 9 engines…then you have just reduced your flight success ratio by a factor of 9…[since even one engine failure...even if the mission is completed...still counts as a 'partial failure'...]

    In this one instance it turned out okay…but the basic engineering rationale for not having multiple engines is sound…the next time an engine fails it might not go so well…

    Bottom line is this…we have more chance of flights having an engine failure…but the outcome is unpredictable at this point because there is not enough empirical data to derive a probability of overall mission success…

    That flight with the failed engine was able to eventually dock with the ISS…but it was touch and go all the way…it was far from routine for the ISS crew…

    After the subsequent 2015 catastrophic Falcon 9 in-flight breakup [carrying the Dragon resupply cargo craft]…Nasa renegotiated with SpaceX for a lower price…due to the loss of the $112 million payload…

    Also the Nasa investigation contradicted the SpaceX conclusion that it was a ‘single’ failure…indicating multiple issues…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    "So there you have proof that the more engines you have…the more that one is likely to fail…it is a statistical fact…ie all engines [or any complex device for that matter] will fail sooner or later…this is a quantifiable engineering principle and is called mean time before failure [MTBF]…"

    A point in case is the soviet N1 rocket that had 4 stages, with a total of 43 engines, the 1st stage having 30 engines alone. Not surprisingly, the rocket had 4 failures in 4 attempted launches.

    Frankly, am perplexed to see someone attempt to create such a complex design since, statistically speaking, the chances of failure increase substantially.

    As for the Falcon 9 engine failure, they were lucky that the failure was not catastrophic, that is, the engine did not explode (rocket engine failures are usually catastrophic in nature).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. kemerd says:
    @FB

    '...“Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place...'
     
    Chung Eui-yong...the person quoted there is a South Korean National Security Adviser...

    This is not a statement from DPRK...which did not make public any such statement...

    '...Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made...'
     
    'This period of time beinig until the Kim-Trump talks in May...the above from Trump's own tweet...

    We not here that Kim sent a letter with a personal inivitation to Trump...which Trump has accepted...

    This is far from North Korea saying it will de-nuclearize...

    There never was any such statement and we shall see what comes of the talks...May is only weeks away and the DPRK promising not to fly any more missile tests is in practical terms meaningless...

    The fact is that you have been saying here that DPRK has agreed to de-nuclearize...

    That is demonstrably false...

    DPRK has maintined the same line it has from the beginning...that it is will to discuss the issue of giving up nukes...under specific circumstances...such as a treaty with security guarantees...ie a non-aggression treaty with the US...

    So the DPRK position has not changed one iota...it is Dump and his fire and fury BS that has been jettisoned...

    Right after the US realized that it could never successfully carry out a military attack against heavily defended DPRK...which is not Iraq or Libya by any stretch...

    Naturally the US loser mentality is to try to see a 'win' in every situation...even in a case where the US has obviously reversed their position...

    Everybody who has been watching this is not surprised that the US caved...they were completely isolated on DPRK...and their military threats were not credible...end of story...

    I am afraid Faker has a point. Indeed, NK did not release an official statement but they did not deny his statement, either.

    On the other hand, I think this is another step in placing a wedge between the south and the US. I think, NK will demand withdrawal of all US forces as a condition for de-nuclearization. This, of course, is unacceptable by the US as that would ruin its policy of China encirclement but and helps keep South’s leash tight.

    In the end, the NK will look as the reasonable party while US the aggressive and the South leadership and its citizenry will get it. And likely, make the south elect more and more of nationalist figures. I think that is the plan

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...I am afraid Faker has a point. Indeed, NK did not release an official statement but they did not deny his statement, either...'
     
    Yes faker has a point...

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31n23oVcOfL._SY445_.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. FB says:
    @kemerd
    I am afraid Faker has a point. Indeed, NK did not release an official statement but they did not deny his statement, either.

    On the other hand, I think this is another step in placing a wedge between the south and the US. I think, NK will demand withdrawal of all US forces as a condition for de-nuclearization. This, of course, is unacceptable by the US as that would ruin its policy of China encirclement but and helps keep South's leash tight.

    In the end, the NK will look as the reasonable party while US the aggressive and the South leadership and its citizenry will get it. And likely, make the south elect more and more of nationalist figures. I think that is the plan

    ‘…I am afraid Faker has a point. Indeed, NK did not release an official statement but they did not deny his statement, either…’

    Yes faker has a point…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @FB
    You will notice my reply to you above said this...

    '...Stating an opinion is fine…as long as it’s coming from a credible rocket scientist who is able to explain technically his reasoning…'
     
    It is clear that you are not a rocket scientist and have made not even a layman's attempt to explain your reasoning...

    You are simply repeating a layman's opinion that the Falcon 9 is 'better' than the Atlas V...based on a supposedly 'cheaper' launch cost...

    But 'cheapness' is not the primary concern in rocket launches...reliability is...

    We note that SpaceX Falcon 9 has had two catastrophic failures in 50 total launches...

    Atlas V has a perfect success rate...

    '...In its more than 75 launches (as of March 2018), starting with its maiden launch in August 2002, Atlas V has had a perfect mission success rate.

    This is in contrast to the industry failure rate of 5–10%...'
     
    Clearly your talk of Falcon 9 being 'better' is considered by actual industry professionals as quite ridiculous...

    ...which is why the US military is not switching from the Atlas to the Falcon...fortunately these decisions are made by sober scientists not chat room space cadets...

    '...SpaceX will send people to space later this year, in fact they could have done it years ago using the dragon 1...'
     
    'Coulda woulda shoulda' is not an operating principle that is used in spaceflight...

    The Dragon spacecraft is not human-rated...it is used to deliver cargo to the ISS [with a spotty record]...

    Turning a cargo ship with no human life support systems into a crewed vehicle is a very ambitious and difficult undertaking...

    ...in which neither Boeing nor Spacex have any track record whatsoever...

    The fact that you can make such a ridiculous layman statement speaks volumes about your non-existent qualifications to even be in this discussion...

    As for SpaceX 'will' send people to space later this year...well...the latest real info suggests otherwise...[if ever...]

    Just a few weeks ago...January 17...the Government Accountability Office [GAO] informed a congressional hearing on the status of the program...as reported by the WaPo...

    '...In prepared testimony submitted to a congressional hearing on the status of the program, the Government Accountability Office said ongoing “delays and uncertain final certification dates raise questions about whether the United States will have uninterrupted access to the [space station] after 2019...'
     
    The 'certification' refers to achieving human-rated seal of approval from Nasa...which is a daunting technical specification...

    Few Nasa aerospace professionals believe that either SpaceX or Boeing are ever going to get there...

    '...If SpaceX and Boeing, the companies NASA has hired to fly its astronauts to space, can’t meet NASA’s rigorous requirements for human spaceflight by late next year, the space agency would have to continue to rely on the Russians...'
     
    'Late next year' means end of 2019...so clearly your statement that SpaceX 'will' fly humans this year is delusional...

    The people in a position to judge are saying they are doubtful for even end of next year...

    '...“We are here today looking at not one, but two companies that are behind schedule, may not meet safety and reliability requirements and could even slip into cost overruns,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.), the chairman of the House Science subcommittee on space...'
     

    '...He added that the “situation gets even worse when we look at safety and reliability concerns surrounding these two new systems.”

    As a result, NASA may have to seek additional funding or accept greater risk. “Neither of those options is viable,” he said...'
     

    '...Before they fly humans, Boeing and SpaceX must overcome complex technical problems with their spacecraft, the GAO said...'
     

    '...Before it allows SpaceX to fly, NASA must first determine whether it can safely fuel its rocket while the astronauts are on board — an issue that the both the GAO and the agency’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said could be a safety risk.

    In 2016, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket exploded into a massive fireball while it was being fueled ahead of an engine test...'
     
    That was one of two SpaceX failures...resulting in the loss of the payload...an Israeli satellite...

    The other SpaceX catastrophic failure occurred the year prior...June 2015...on an ISS cargo resupply mission...

    '...It disintegrated 139 seconds into the flight after launch from Cape Canaveral, just before the first stage was to separate from the second stage.

    It was the ninth flight for SpaceX's uncrewed Dragon cargo spacecraft and the seventh SpaceX operational mission contracted to NASA under a Commercial Resupply Services contract...'
     
    I'm sure that was a real confidence builder for the folks at Nasa...who will be responsible for certifying the human-rating for any spacecraft...a failure on just the seventh flight does not leave a good impression...

    So technically speaking both the SpaceX and Boeing human sapceflight 'programs' are at this point vaporware...

    I’m well aware of SpaceX failures, and know what the root cause of both was, it was not the Merlin engine, BTW I’m sure you know that ULA’s Atlas was only seconds away from a launch failure back in 2016

    The US military WILL be launching satellites on the Falcon 9 and Heavy, in fact they have already at a much lower cost than ULA, its lower space launch costs that is killing ULA, using an engine with a high combustion chamber pressure does NOT seem to be saving them, why is that FB ?

    Could you give me your definition of the word vaporware, because a number of things you are call vaporware are clearly going to happen

    SpaceX will send people into orbit
    SpaceX will finish the Raptor and use it to launch a new family of rockets
    Blue Origin will finish the BE-4 and launch the New Glenn, it might be delayed but Bezos clearly has the capital to get the job done

    Which rocket company will launch the most payload to orbit this year ?

    its only a matter of time, maybe 2 years, and SpaceX will be launching more rockets than the rest of the world combined, but but high combustion chamber pressure you say

    About ten years from now SpaceX will land people on Mars while you continue to obsess about high combustion chamber pressure

    The Russians are behind for now but they have the ability to close the gap very fast, I hope they do

    Read More
    • LOL: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Nils says:

    Not within most people’s paradigm but there is a good academic case that nuclear weapons are just science fiction. Very good website: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/on-this-atom-bomb-anniversary-youre-being-lied-to-about-hiroshima-and-much-more-to-make-you-fearful/

    If you don’t have the time, then only have a look at this 360 degrees of ‘ground zero’ in Hiroshima:

    https://www.360cities.net/image/hiroshima-after-atomic-bomb-nuclear-3

    Look at what is still standing? Look at the crater, what crater… firebombing…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @FB
    In spaceflight there is a big difference between making claims and actual demonstrated capability...

    As for the Falcon 9 engine failure...we have had one such instance...on a cargo resupply mission to the ISS in 2012...on its very first such flight...

    '...During the launch, one of the nine engines suffered a sudden loss of pressure about 80 seconds into the flight, and an immediate early shutdown of that engine occurred; debris could be seen in the telescopic video of the night launch.

    The remaining eight engines fired for a longer period of time and the flight control software adjusted the trajectory to insert Dragon into a near flawless orbit...'
     
    So there you have proof that the more engines you have...the more that one is likely to fail...it is a statistical fact...ie all engines [or any complex device for that matter] will fail sooner or later...this is a quantifiable engineering principle and is called mean time before failure [MTBF]...

    If you have a one-engine rocket...and it has a certain demonstrated MTBF...then x number of flights will be completed before a failure...

    If you have 9 engines...then you have just reduced your flight success ratio by a factor of 9...[since even one engine failure...even if the mission is completed...still counts as a 'partial failure'...]

    In this one instance it turned out okay...but the basic engineering rationale for not having multiple engines is sound...the next time an engine fails it might not go so well...

    Bottom line is this...we have more chance of flights having an engine failure...but the outcome is unpredictable at this point because there is not enough empirical data to derive a probability of overall mission success...

    That flight with the failed engine was able to eventually dock with the ISS...but it was touch and go all the way...it was far from routine for the ISS crew...

    After the subsequent 2015 catastrophic Falcon 9 in-flight breakup [carrying the Dragon resupply cargo craft]...Nasa renegotiated with SpaceX for a lower price...due to the loss of the $112 million payload...

    Also the Nasa investigation contradicted the SpaceX conclusion that it was a 'single' failure...indicating multiple issues...

    “So there you have proof that the more engines you have…the more that one is likely to fail…it is a statistical fact…ie all engines [or any complex device for that matter] will fail sooner or later…this is a quantifiable engineering principle and is called mean time before failure [MTBF]…”

    A point in case is the soviet N1 rocket that had 4 stages, with a total of 43 engines, the 1st stage having 30 engines alone. Not surprisingly, the rocket had 4 failures in 4 attempted launches.

    Frankly, am perplexed to see someone attempt to create such a complex design since, statistically speaking, the chances of failure increase substantially.

    As for the Falcon 9 engine failure, they were lucky that the failure was not catastrophic, that is, the engine did not explode (rocket engine failures are usually catastrophic in nature).

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus

    The resource that could’ve been used to actually do something good for an average Russian there.
     
    Keeping Sergei6Pack(ov) and his family from getting nuked isn't "something good"? For him, and for the rest of the world too? Who knew? You're upside down in more ways than 1.

    Keeping Sergei6Pack(ov) and his family from getting nuked isn’t “something good”?
    For him, and for the rest of the world too? Who knew?

    I think that’s, actually, something that will get him/them nuked more likely. You….”Team Russia” Putin fanboys simply can’t see anything wrong with your Great Leader. You guys feel as a cult. Those true believers I mean; the rest are just doing their job.

    I’ll try to explain (not that you’ll get it):
    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.
    That…fetish….of great (conventional) land war in defense of the Rodina is funny actually.

    What is not funny, well, for an average Russian that is, is diverting resources into the arms race with West. From education, health care , social services etc. As not so long time ago. Time still in living history.
    It is funny for Russian elites, oligarchs in particular, because arms business as everybody here is oh so happy to point out re MIC, is very good for lining their pockets. And, not to miss a beat, stash/invest that money in West. Funny because the masses there buy it.

    The problem with that setup is it creates a resentment in those who can think a bit, most of the middle class. The same class that brought down Soviet Union when realized that playing the game wasn’t bringing them anything good. And all that even more felt by minorities.
    Now, admit, there is a safety valve there now: immigration into West. Still, not good enough.

    That resentment shall be utilized by The Empire. It will create an internal unrest.
    That internal unrest is likely to destabilize the regime.
    And that’s the crux here: unstable regime with tremendous nuclear capability.

    You’re upside down in more ways than 1.

    Hehe…you can’t help it, a? Seeing somebody simply not buying all that “new paradigm” shit Kremlin has been trying oh so hard to sell around? You can always try harder. Or just burn the heretics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.
     
    Not much earlier, as a few years before they developed their first nuke they were indeed invaded. Does "Barbarossa" ring a bell? Is there a bell left?

    I’ll try to explain (not that you’ll get it)
     
    I guarantee I won't get it if you're incoherent.

    Anyhow, invasion by a land force is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that a significant faction in the US' military-strategic brain trust thinks it can and must destroy Russia (using nukes if necessary) before it's too late. The Empire needs control of Eurasia's resources, or to at least prevent their control by anyone else, or it is, by its own admission, doomed. That has been the US' publicly stated, explicit, pre-eminent Imperial Imperative since the early '90s. You speak as if you are utterly unaware of it, but you can bet the Russians, Chinese, and most of your interlocutors here are. To interpret events in ignorance of the policies that drive them is to fall into the morass of nonsense and/or irrelevance you continue to dump on the table here.

    Carrying on...
    Since then, the US' elites have proved more than willing to sacrifice their citizens' well-being, indeed to create/exploit domestic socio-political divisions, in pursuit of that end. You may not be aware of this either, but there's at least as much resentment (however inchoate) in the US at being impoverished by this policy as there may be in Russia's defence against it. Russia will overwhelmingly elect Putin, whereas Trump's election has exposed both the resentment and the divisions.

    Given that, and given that all non-kinetic attempts to get them to back off have failed, and further given that all non-kinetic and kinetic efforts by the Empire towards that end have also failed, the nuclear option looms ever larger. Putin's announcement can be seen as yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better. The specifics of weapons, particularly the new ones, are confidential. Very few people are familiar with these details and none of the contributors to this forum belong to this group. Putin speech was rich in generalities and short on specifics. He actually boasts quite regularly about his unstoppable ballistic missiles so I am not sure why so much fuss about his latest claim. He usually does it when he feels threatened. Perhaps he does have some miracle weapons , more likely not. I am not sure what gives him his confidence because the US military is surely not sharing the technological details of their weapons with him. The only test of whose weapons are better, and not just weapons because war is more complex than that, is the battlefield. After the battle one can say whose weapons were better but not before. One can judge the quality of weapons based on past encounters between Russian and US technology. The overall record does not speak in favour of Russia, but trying to extrapolate the future conflict based on that evidence can be risky. So whose weapons are better? I do not know and frankly do not want to find out. It is my humble opinion that all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled. Of course according to the very well educated pro Russians with poor manners who seem to have flooded this forum I do not understand anything. Only they do, but everything is simple for a simpleton. According to them when I see a car winning a race and say that the manufacturer of that car makes faster cars I am talking nonsense because I do not have a degree in automotive repairs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree.

    As for this

    Of course according to the very well educated pro Russians with poor manners who seem to have flooded this forum I do not understand anything. Only they do, but everything is simple for a simpleton. According to them when I see a car winning a race and say that the manufacturer of that car makes faster cars I am talking nonsense because I do not have a degree in automotive repairs.
     
    I'll offer an explanation:
    That's the method Russians, in general, use when discussing/debating. It's a cultural thing, they simply can't help it. Nothing personal there, most of the time (not always), just the way they..ahm...communicate. Poor manners combined with memorized irrelevant data.
    Seldom simple observation and common sense.

    Try discussing some uncomfortable facts from Afghanistan and especially Chechnya with a retired Russian Colonel...hahaha.
    Sometimes it did feel like we, simply, lived in different worlds.

    I, personally, believe it's a proven method to preserve a position of power regardless of facts.
    Actually, similar to what "educated" class uses all the time everywhere.
    Take for example, history.
    How many times you've seen historians dismissing a guy's opinion because he is not a scholar?
    Or anything really.

    The problem with Russians is they do it on turbo-charge and with ...peculiar....manners.

    Just my 2 cents.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    What do you want? The key from apartment with safe full of money? Unlike those shitty cartoons i was watching on Soviet Tv showing Reagan pre Alzheimer dreams of lasers shooting down Soviet ICBM with ease which were just wishful thinking dreams with no technologies in sight to back , Russian videos are of those weapons which are either deployed or are in the last pre deployment stages and are backed by real technology developed just to show you your place near the lavatory. Specifics? If you cannot smell them it is not Russia problem.
    , @Erebus

    It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better.
     
    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc? If so, you must spend most of your days rolling on the floor splitting a gut.
    I'd venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.

    Buried in the hilarity, however, you voiced a wonderfully insightful assessment of the situation. To whit:

    ... all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled.
     
    If by "something foolish" you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you've hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it's saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it's exhausted.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically. It's been telling the US since at least 2007 that it will not allow itself to be strangled, and that the US will fail. Failing is what it's been doing since then. Finally, on Mar 1, Putin told the US that Russia's asymmetrical response is ready to go live, and that the US will be destroyed if it continues to try.

    In other words, in the course of the last decade the worm turned and now Russia's telling the US "Don't do something foolish". He may be bluffing, or at least partially so, but there are very cogent reasons to think that he's not, and therein lies the reason that the US now finds itself in an Imperial Dilemma.
    , @Anonymous
    Agree. Obviously Russia is a serious country that has nukes. But the claim they are "decades" ahead of us seems a wee bit exaggerated. Both the US Establishment and the pro-Russia crowd talk a lot of trash, to be blunt.

    Also, an election is coming up in Russia soon, so it is smart politics for Putin to give Russian men something to beat their chest about.

    Of course, there are those mysterious UFO objects the military reported off the coast .... could it be new technology?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. peterAUS says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better. The specifics of weapons, particularly the new ones, are confidential. Very few people are familiar with these details and none of the contributors to this forum belong to this group. Putin speech was rich in generalities and short on specifics. He actually boasts quite regularly about his unstoppable ballistic missiles so I am not sure why so much fuss about his latest claim. He usually does it when he feels threatened. Perhaps he does have some miracle weapons , more likely not. I am not sure what gives him his confidence because the US military is surely not sharing the technological details of their weapons with him. The only test of whose weapons are better, and not just weapons because war is more complex than that, is the battlefield. After the battle one can say whose weapons were better but not before. One can judge the quality of weapons based on past encounters between Russian and US technology. The overall record does not speak in favour of Russia, but trying to extrapolate the future conflict based on that evidence can be risky. So whose weapons are better? I do not know and frankly do not want to find out. It is my humble opinion that all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled. Of course according to the very well educated pro Russians with poor manners who seem to have flooded this forum I do not understand anything. Only they do, but everything is simple for a simpleton. According to them when I see a car winning a race and say that the manufacturer of that car makes faster cars I am talking nonsense because I do not have a degree in automotive repairs.

    Agree.

    As for this

    Of course according to the very well educated pro Russians with poor manners who seem to have flooded this forum I do not understand anything. Only they do, but everything is simple for a simpleton. According to them when I see a car winning a race and say that the manufacturer of that car makes faster cars I am talking nonsense because I do not have a degree in automotive repairs.

    I’ll offer an explanation:
    That’s the method Russians, in general, use when discussing/debating. It’s a cultural thing, they simply can’t help it. Nothing personal there, most of the time (not always), just the way they..ahm…communicate. Poor manners combined with memorized irrelevant data.
    Seldom simple observation and common sense.

    Try discussing some uncomfortable facts from Afghanistan and especially Chechnya with a retired Russian Colonel…hahaha.
    Sometimes it did feel like we, simply, lived in different worlds.

    I, personally, believe it’s a proven method to preserve a position of power regardless of facts.
    Actually, similar to what “educated” class uses all the time everywhere.
    Take for example, history.
    How many times you’ve seen historians dismissing a guy’s opinion because he is not a scholar?
    Or anything really.

    The problem with Russians is they do it on turbo-charge and with …peculiar….manners.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Regnum Nostrum
    It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better. The specifics of weapons, particularly the new ones, are confidential. Very few people are familiar with these details and none of the contributors to this forum belong to this group. Putin speech was rich in generalities and short on specifics. He actually boasts quite regularly about his unstoppable ballistic missiles so I am not sure why so much fuss about his latest claim. He usually does it when he feels threatened. Perhaps he does have some miracle weapons , more likely not. I am not sure what gives him his confidence because the US military is surely not sharing the technological details of their weapons with him. The only test of whose weapons are better, and not just weapons because war is more complex than that, is the battlefield. After the battle one can say whose weapons were better but not before. One can judge the quality of weapons based on past encounters between Russian and US technology. The overall record does not speak in favour of Russia, but trying to extrapolate the future conflict based on that evidence can be risky. So whose weapons are better? I do not know and frankly do not want to find out. It is my humble opinion that all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled. Of course according to the very well educated pro Russians with poor manners who seem to have flooded this forum I do not understand anything. Only they do, but everything is simple for a simpleton. According to them when I see a car winning a race and say that the manufacturer of that car makes faster cars I am talking nonsense because I do not have a degree in automotive repairs.

    What do you want? The key from apartment with safe full of money? Unlike those shitty cartoons i was watching on Soviet Tv showing Reagan pre Alzheimer dreams of lasers shooting down Soviet ICBM with ease which were just wishful thinking dreams with no technologies in sight to back , Russian videos are of those weapons which are either deployed or are in the last pre deployment stages and are backed by real technology developed just to show you your place near the lavatory. Specifics? If you cannot smell them it is not Russia problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Svigor says:

    A case in point…the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now…[since 2000]…

    IIRC, The NASA/ULA/etc are in the process of switching from RD180s to Blue Origin’s rockets. SpaceX has been eating both the Russians’ and the US gov’t’s lunch for years, though.

    Being better than NASA and ULA is nothing to brag about. That said, obviously being NASA or ULA is even less to brag about.

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket…which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 ‘spaceplane’…

    NASA/ULA are a giant boondoggle, and the crony capitalists that run our defense/space budgets would rather give business to a Russian firm than cut out their Boeing/Lockheed cronies and save the taxpayer 80%+ on launch costs by going with SpaceX. I’m not sure how long this can last; eventually it’s going to become somebody’s campaign issue and then the heat will be on.

    We can talk “advanced engines” all day, but the fact is, SpaceX is cutting everybody’s throats on overall efficiency and innovation.

    the Russian rockets/engines are one use only

    Sounds like a rapidly dwindling niche.

    ‘…SpaceX are doing just fine with their “small” Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses…’

    ‘Clearly better’…how technically speaking…?

    You don’t need a rocket scientist. Just look at the launch numbers:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition

    Check out the curve for SpaceX launches.

    Look at launch costs, too.

    Many small engines…27 total in the Falcon heavy…means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight…

    You’d think even one failure on a Falcon 9 would result in launch failure, too. It just doesn’t seem to be happening much. Or at all. SpaceX’s “failures” lately have been in landing their boosters on ships out in the Atlantic. Or should I say, “failure” and “has”? I admit I’ve only been reading about space recently, and I’m playing catchup.

    When you add more engines you increase the chance of an engine failure…it’s a simple numerical and statistical fact…which is why you don’t see aircraft with 27 engines…

    Ceteris paribus, sure, but rockets aren’t ceteris paribus. So it’s not a simple numerical and statistical fact.

    (But the aircraft analogy is a super-bad one – multi-engine airplanes can usually fly with one engine out, the reverse of the situation with rockets, AFAIK. Multi-engine aircraft certainly survive engine failure better than single-engine aircraft do, lol.)

    The Falcon Heavy could lose one or more engines and still reach orbit, engine out is one of its features

    I stand corrected, TL, thanks. Like I said, I’m still catching up.

    ‘Will be’ is the very definition of vaporware…

    If you think SpaceX is “vaporware” you’ve got your head jammed all the way up your ass.

    ‘…Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only…’

    ‘May not’ is in reality Never Will…

    This sounds a lot like “may not lose” and “in reality never will lose.” Seriously, multi-use rockets are obviously better than single-use rockets, ceteris paribus (since not all applications are ceteris paribus, I allow for the possiblity that some niche may favor single-use rockets).

    Anyway…the US has a lot more to worry about than trying to catch up in high pressure engine technology

    Oh, on that we definitely agree. :)

    All the money in space flight is currently in delivering satellites and other non-human payloads into orbit. SpaceX is right to concentrate on that, because SpaceX is a private company, not a gov’t boondoggle. It seems pretty obvious that at some point in the near future, SpaceX will get human-rated and put men into space. And probably get us to Mars first, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo

    because SpaceX is a private company, not a gov’t boondoggle
     
    Are you actually a paid shill for Musk's outfit? If you actually believe this then I suspect you couldn't pass the mirror self-recognition test - Musk gobbles up government funds like you gobble up twinkies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS

    Keeping Sergei6Pack(ov) and his family from getting nuked isn’t “something good”?
    For him, and for the rest of the world too? Who knew?
     
    I think that's, actually, something that will get him/them nuked more likely. You...."Team Russia" Putin fanboys simply can't see anything wrong with your Great Leader. You guys feel as a cult. Those true believers I mean; the rest are just doing their job.

    I'll try to explain (not that you'll get it):
    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.
    That...fetish....of great (conventional) land war in defense of the Rodina is funny actually.

    What is not funny, well, for an average Russian that is, is diverting resources into the arms race with West. From education, health care , social services etc. As not so long time ago. Time still in living history.
    It is funny for Russian elites, oligarchs in particular, because arms business as everybody here is oh so happy to point out re MIC, is very good for lining their pockets. And, not to miss a beat, stash/invest that money in West. Funny because the masses there buy it.

    The problem with that setup is it creates a resentment in those who can think a bit, most of the middle class. The same class that brought down Soviet Union when realized that playing the game wasn't bringing them anything good. And all that even more felt by minorities.
    Now, admit, there is a safety valve there now: immigration into West. Still, not good enough.

    That resentment shall be utilized by The Empire. It will create an internal unrest.
    That internal unrest is likely to destabilize the regime.
    And that's the crux here: unstable regime with tremendous nuclear capability.

    You’re upside down in more ways than 1.
     
    Hehe...you can't help it, a? Seeing somebody simply not buying all that "new paradigm" shit Kremlin has been trying oh so hard to sell around? You can always try harder. Or just burn the heretics.

    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.

    Not much earlier, as a few years before they developed their first nuke they were indeed invaded. Does “Barbarossa” ring a bell? Is there a bell left?

    I’ll try to explain (not that you’ll get it)

    I guarantee I won’t get it if you’re incoherent.

    Anyhow, invasion by a land force is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that a significant faction in the US’ military-strategic brain trust thinks it can and must destroy Russia (using nukes if necessary) before it’s too late. The Empire needs control of Eurasia’s resources, or to at least prevent their control by anyone else, or it is, by its own admission, doomed. That has been the US’ publicly stated, explicit, pre-eminent Imperial Imperative since the early ’90s. You speak as if you are utterly unaware of it, but you can bet the Russians, Chinese, and most of your interlocutors here are. To interpret events in ignorance of the policies that drive them is to fall into the morass of nonsense and/or irrelevance you continue to dump on the table here.

    Carrying on…
    Since then, the US’ elites have proved more than willing to sacrifice their citizens’ well-being, indeed to create/exploit domestic socio-political divisions, in pursuit of that end. You may not be aware of this either, but there’s at least as much resentment (however inchoate) in the US at being impoverished by this policy as there may be in Russia’s defence against it. Russia will overwhelmingly elect Putin, whereas Trump’s election has exposed both the resentment and the divisions.

    Given that, and given that all non-kinetic attempts to get them to back off have failed, and further given that all non-kinetic and kinetic efforts by the Empire towards that end have also failed, the nuclear option looms ever larger. Putin’s announcement can be seen as yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Mine:

    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.
     
    Yours:

    Not much earlier, as a few years before they developed their first nuke they were indeed invaded. Does “Barbarossa” ring a bell? Is there a bell left?
     
    Interesting, on a funny side.
    No wonder you guys have a problem in selling that mantra around.

    Anyhow, invasion by a land force is irrelevant.
     
    It is?
    Re "Barbarossa" and bells ringing?
    O.K.

    What is not irrelevant is that a significant faction in the US’ military-strategic brain trust thinks it can and must destroy Russia (using nukes if necessary) before it’s too late. The Empire needs control of Eurasia’s resources, or to at least prevent their control by anyone else, or it is, by its own admission, doomed. That has been the US’ publicly stated, explicit, pre-eminent Imperial Imperative since the early ’90s.
     
    Except that "doomed", agree actually.

    Since then, the US’ elites have proved more than willing to sacrifice their citizens’ well-being, indeed to create/exploit domestic socio-political divisions, in pursuit of that end. You may not be aware of this either, but there’s at least as much resentment (however inchoate) in the US at being impoverished by this policy as there may be in Russia’s defence against it.
     
    Oh, so you can post a paragraph without snarky attempts of wit. Not bad.
    And, agree again.

    Given that, and given that all non-kinetic attempts to get them to back off have failed, and further given that all non-kinetic and kinetic efforts by the Empire towards that end have also failed, the nuclear option looms ever larger.Putin’s announcement can be seen as yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down.
     
    Wow, another paragraph without teen snarks. Two paragraphs in a row. You O.K?
    Agree.

    So......all that what Putin said was about "yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down".
    Emphasize on "yet".
    Of course they won't back down. So, what's the big deal about?

    And, in all your reply you, for some reason, didn't mention that arms race.
    Or the effect of that arms race on Russian society.
    The effect which could be very similar to the effect the arms race had there during USSR.
    Which created certain.......issues, even problems?
    That the same/similar issues and problems could happen again?

    No prob, I understand why not.
    Back to Putin "superweapons", your "multipolar world" and "Russia great/US falling apart" mantra.
    Do you guys chant these? Once or twice per day? Does it help?
    , @Philip Owen
    The Russian obsession with resource control is a Marxist hangover. Oil still gets sold despite all those National Oil Companies. Resources are no good in the ground. Even the Norwegians and Kuwaitis still sell oil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Pavlo says:
    @Svigor

    A case in point…the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now…[since 2000]…
     
    IIRC, The NASA/ULA/etc are in the process of switching from RD180s to Blue Origin's rockets. SpaceX has been eating both the Russians' and the US gov't's lunch for years, though.

    Being better than NASA and ULA is nothing to brag about. That said, obviously being NASA or ULA is even less to brag about.

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket…which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 ‘spaceplane’…
     
    NASA/ULA are a giant boondoggle, and the crony capitalists that run our defense/space budgets would rather give business to a Russian firm than cut out their Boeing/Lockheed cronies and save the taxpayer 80%+ on launch costs by going with SpaceX. I'm not sure how long this can last; eventually it's going to become somebody's campaign issue and then the heat will be on.

    We can talk "advanced engines" all day, but the fact is, SpaceX is cutting everybody's throats on overall efficiency and innovation.

    the Russian rockets/engines are one use only
     
    Sounds like a rapidly dwindling niche.

    ‘…SpaceX are doing just fine with their “small” Merlin engine, in fact for what they are doing 9 engines is clearly better than 1 RD-180 which the Atlas 5 uses…’
     

    ‘Clearly better’…how technically speaking…?
     
    You don't need a rocket scientist. Just look at the launch numbers:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition

    Check out the curve for SpaceX launches.

    Look at launch costs, too.

    Many small engines…27 total in the Falcon heavy…means that even one engine failing will fail the entire flight…
     
    You'd think even one failure on a Falcon 9 would result in launch failure, too. It just doesn't seem to be happening much. Or at all. SpaceX's "failures" lately have been in landing their boosters on ships out in the Atlantic. Or should I say, "failure" and "has"? I admit I've only been reading about space recently, and I'm playing catchup.

    When you add more engines you increase the chance of an engine failure…it’s a simple numerical and statistical fact…which is why you don’t see aircraft with 27 engines…
     
    Ceteris paribus, sure, but rockets aren't ceteris paribus. So it's not a simple numerical and statistical fact.

    (But the aircraft analogy is a super-bad one - multi-engine airplanes can usually fly with one engine out, the reverse of the situation with rockets, AFAIK. Multi-engine aircraft certainly survive engine failure better than single-engine aircraft do, lol.)

    The Falcon Heavy could lose one or more engines and still reach orbit, engine out is one of its features
     
    I stand corrected, TL, thanks. Like I said, I'm still catching up.

    ‘Will be’ is the very definition of vaporware…
     
    If you think SpaceX is "vaporware" you've got your head jammed all the way up your ass.

    ‘…Both SpaceX and Blue may not try to achieve the same engine pressures as the Soviets/Russians because they plan to use their engines/rockets many times, the Russian rockets/engines are one use only…’
     

    ‘May not’ is in reality Never Will…
     
    This sounds a lot like "may not lose" and "in reality never will lose." Seriously, multi-use rockets are obviously better than single-use rockets, ceteris paribus (since not all applications are ceteris paribus, I allow for the possiblity that some niche may favor single-use rockets).

    Anyway…the US has a lot more to worry about than trying to catch up in high pressure engine technology
     
    Oh, on that we definitely agree. :)

    All the money in space flight is currently in delivering satellites and other non-human payloads into orbit. SpaceX is right to concentrate on that, because SpaceX is a private company, not a gov't boondoggle. It seems pretty obvious that at some point in the near future, SpaceX will get human-rated and put men into space. And probably get us to Mars first, too.

    because SpaceX is a private company, not a gov’t boondoggle

    Are you actually a paid shill for Musk’s outfit? If you actually believe this then I suspect you couldn’t pass the mirror self-recognition test – Musk gobbles up government funds like you gobble up twinkies.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @FB
    'Svigor' is simply another fanboy who knows zero about anything to do with aerospace...

    Let him believe his delusional nonsense...you can't do anything with indoctrinated koolaid drinkers...

    Reality will hit soon enough...just watch and see...
    , @Kiza
    I cannot believe the morons that unz is now attracting. Except for a few really informative commenters, such as FB, Martyanov, Beckow, Kreiger and so on, the troll morons are really polluting the comments.

    So this certifiable Hasbara troll and a moron Svigor (and his other sock puppet) turns reality completely upside down and declares probably the newest and the most blatant example of US crony capitalism embodied in all Elon Musk enterprises to be the free market working. It is not that Boeing is not a classical example of US crony capitalism, it is only that the new crony capitalism gets more promotion in the Zio-MSM and apparently by trolls in the new media.

    I have concluded that the reward scheme for these paid trolls is based on the number of comments and the number of words, so they type complete crap empty of any information or meaning just to get paid. The more you engage them in discussion, the more you increase their income.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. FB says:
    @Pavlo

    because SpaceX is a private company, not a gov’t boondoggle
     
    Are you actually a paid shill for Musk's outfit? If you actually believe this then I suspect you couldn't pass the mirror self-recognition test - Musk gobbles up government funds like you gobble up twinkies.

    ‘Svigor’ is simply another fanboy who knows zero about anything to do with aerospace…

    Let him believe his delusional nonsense…you can’t do anything with indoctrinated koolaid drinkers…

    Reality will hit soon enough…just watch and see…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Svigor says:

    How many times you’ve seen historians dismissing a guy’s opinion because he is not a scholar?
    Or anything really.

    Which is really a hallmark of ignorance; history is probably the least credentialist field there is (which is, no doubt, a constant source of irritation to credentialists who made the mistake of choosing history as their field).

    About ten years from now SpaceX will land people on Mars while you continue to obsess about high combustion chamber pressure

    Last I heard, Musk was saying 2025 for Mars landing. Maybe he’s talking out his arse, maybe not. But dismissing Musk with a hand-wave is way too 2013 for my tastes.

    The Russians are behind for now but they have the ability to close the gap very fast, I hope they do

    Maybe. Maybe not. Have the Russians shown anything at all in reusability? That’s part of SpaceX’s cost-cutting, and will key to their plan to get launches down under $10 million each. Way under, IIRC.

    So there you have proof that the more engines you have…the more that one is likely to fail…it is a statistical fact…ie all engines [or any complex device for that matter] will fail sooner or later…this is a quantifiable engineering principle and is called mean time before failure [MTBF]…

    What happened to your “one engine fail = mission fail” statement/implication? Bleeding out in the woods somewhere?

    No, it’s not proof. Maybe you need to look that word up in a dictionary; it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. There is no proof, because it’s not true. E.g., a rocket with one engine with a 10% chance of failure has a higher chance of failing than a rocket with 5 engines that each have a 1% chance of failure.

    You are simply repeating a layman’s opinion that the Falcon 9 is ‘better’ than the Atlas V…based on a supposedly ‘cheaper’ launch cost…

    But ‘cheapness’ is not the primary concern in rocket launches…reliability is…

    Reliability and cheapness are largely synonymous in this context. I.e., private enterprise, where firms actually have to pay for their mistakes, carry insurance, etc.

    We note that SpaceX Falcon 9 has had two catastrophic failures in 50 total launches…

    Atlas V has a perfect success rate…

    ULA has a perfect success rate at gorging at the public trough. They’re already shitting their pants over SpaceX, cutting back their workforce, scrambling to cut costs ($400 million to $200 million, lol), etc. Same as ILS. If you don’t think SpaceX is gonna eat their lunch, you’re in denial. Maybe ULA’s perfect launch record will keep them warm at night when they’ve lost all their business to SpaceX. Maybe RD180′s “technical superiority” will do the same for the Russians.

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/spacex-elon-musk-competition-companies-rockets-2018-3

    Once the butt-end of rocket industry jokes, SpaceX has completely disrupted the world’s market for launches with high-performance, increasingly low-cost, and ever-more-reusable rockets.

    Founded by entrepreneur Elon Musk in 2002, SpaceX did not have an easy start – it was bordering on bankruptcy in 2008 after three failed launches.

    Today the aerospace company has about $US10 billion worth of launches booked, built the world’s most powerful operational rocket, and touts an ambitious goal to colonize Mars.

    Its success has so far relied on its workhorse launcher: the 229-foot-tall Falcon 9 rocket. But continued industry dominance is anything but guaranteed.

    In the near future, Musk and SpaceX will face competition from a number of companies, including Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, that are developing reusable, next-generation rocket engines and boosters.

    Here’s how the competition in the new space race stacks up.

    Manned space flight aside, it’s easy to see how SpaceX will continue to eat ULA’s lunch; launch costs. E.g., a hypothetical:

    1. SpaceX:

    10 launches at $5m each, each carrying $100m payload.

    2. ULA:
    1 launch at $50m, carrying a $100m payload.

    Obviously the numbers are pulled from my ass. My point is, in this scenario, SpaceX can lose a rocket and its payload and still win the overall race against ULA. In this sense, the hypothetical reflects reality. You can’t spend reliability. You can spend cash. Spacex

    The thing to keep in mind is that Boeing and Lockheed have been doing aerospace since…when? I don’t even know. The fifties? The sixties? SpaceX started in 2002:

    In 2001, Elon Musk conceptualized Mars Oasis, a project to land a miniature experimental greenhouse and grow plants on Mars, “so this would be the furthest that life’s ever traveled”[22] in an attempt to regain public interest in space exploration and increase the budget of NASA.[23][24][25] Musk tried to buy cheap rockets from Russia but returned empty-handed after failing to find rockets for an affordable price.[26][27]
    Falcon 9 carrying CRS-7 Dragon on SLC-40 pad.

    On the flight home, Musk realized that he could start a company that could build the affordable rockets he needed.[27] According to early Tesla and SpaceX investor Steve Jurvetson,[28] Musk calculated that the raw materials for building a rocket actually were only three percent of the sales price of a rocket at the time. By applying vertical integration,[26] producing around 85% of launch hardware in-house,[29][30] and the modular approach from software engineering, SpaceX could cut launch price by a factor of ten and still enjoy a 70 percent gross margin.[31] SpaceX started with the smallest useful orbital rocket, instead of building a more complex and riskier launch vehicle, which could have failed and bankrupted the company.[32]

    I bet the Russians are still kicking themselves over that one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus

    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.
     
    Not much earlier, as a few years before they developed their first nuke they were indeed invaded. Does "Barbarossa" ring a bell? Is there a bell left?

    I’ll try to explain (not that you’ll get it)
     
    I guarantee I won't get it if you're incoherent.

    Anyhow, invasion by a land force is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that a significant faction in the US' military-strategic brain trust thinks it can and must destroy Russia (using nukes if necessary) before it's too late. The Empire needs control of Eurasia's resources, or to at least prevent their control by anyone else, or it is, by its own admission, doomed. That has been the US' publicly stated, explicit, pre-eminent Imperial Imperative since the early '90s. You speak as if you are utterly unaware of it, but you can bet the Russians, Chinese, and most of your interlocutors here are. To interpret events in ignorance of the policies that drive them is to fall into the morass of nonsense and/or irrelevance you continue to dump on the table here.

    Carrying on...
    Since then, the US' elites have proved more than willing to sacrifice their citizens' well-being, indeed to create/exploit domestic socio-political divisions, in pursuit of that end. You may not be aware of this either, but there's at least as much resentment (however inchoate) in the US at being impoverished by this policy as there may be in Russia's defence against it. Russia will overwhelmingly elect Putin, whereas Trump's election has exposed both the resentment and the divisions.

    Given that, and given that all non-kinetic attempts to get them to back off have failed, and further given that all non-kinetic and kinetic efforts by the Empire towards that end have also failed, the nuclear option looms ever larger. Putin's announcement can be seen as yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down.

    Mine:

    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.

    Yours:

    Not much earlier, as a few years before they developed their first nuke they were indeed invaded. Does “Barbarossa” ring a bell? Is there a bell left?

    Interesting, on a funny side.
    No wonder you guys have a problem in selling that mantra around.

    Anyhow, invasion by a land force is irrelevant.

    It is?
    Re “Barbarossa” and bells ringing?
    O.K.

    What is not irrelevant is that a significant faction in the US’ military-strategic brain trust thinks it can and must destroy Russia (using nukes if necessary) before it’s too late. The Empire needs control of Eurasia’s resources, or to at least prevent their control by anyone else, or it is, by its own admission, doomed. That has been the US’ publicly stated, explicit, pre-eminent Imperial Imperative since the early ’90s.

    Except that “doomed”, agree actually.

    Since then, the US’ elites have proved more than willing to sacrifice their citizens’ well-being, indeed to create/exploit domestic socio-political divisions, in pursuit of that end. You may not be aware of this either, but there’s at least as much resentment (however inchoate) in the US at being impoverished by this policy as there may be in Russia’s defence against it.

    Oh, so you can post a paragraph without snarky attempts of wit. Not bad.
    And, agree again.

    Given that, and given that all non-kinetic attempts to get them to back off have failed, and further given that all non-kinetic and kinetic efforts by the Empire towards that end have also failed, the nuclear option looms ever larger.Putin’s announcement can be seen as yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down.

    Wow, another paragraph without teen snarks. Two paragraphs in a row. You O.K?
    Agree.

    So……all that what Putin said was about “yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down”.
    Emphasize on “yet”.
    Of course they won’t back down. So, what’s the big deal about?

    And, in all your reply you, for some reason, didn’t mention that arms race.
    Or the effect of that arms race on Russian society.
    The effect which could be very similar to the effect the arms race had there during USSR.
    Which created certain…….issues, even problems?
    That the same/similar issues and problems could happen again?

    No prob, I understand why not.
    Back to Putin “superweapons”, your “multipolar world” and “Russia great/US falling apart” mantra.
    Do you guys chant these? Once or twice per day? Does it help?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Svigor says:

    Aerospace industry titans Boeing and Lockheed Martin formed ULA in 2005, and the company currently relies on its Delta IV Heavy launcher to get the biggest payloads into space. But that rocket costs at least $US350 million per launch – several times more expensive than SpaceX’s new and reusable $US90 million Falcon Heavy system. Plus, Delta IV Heavy can only lift half as much payload as the Falcon Heavy.

    Read that until it sinks in. Let’s compare:

    SpaceX Falcon Heavy:
    Payload to LEO: 64t
    Payload to GTO: 26t

    Reusable cost: $90m
    Expendable cost: $150m

    ULA Delta IV Heavy:

    Payload to LEO: 29t
    Payload to GTO: 14t
    Expendable cost: $350m

    SpaceX cost to LEO = $1.4m/ton
    ULA cost to LEO = $12m/ton

    SpaceX already has launch costs little more than 10% of ULA’s, and they’re looking to cut costs substantially as they perfect reuseability.

    Really that article understates what SpaceX is doing. If they keep on the same trajectory, they’re going to totally dominate space launches in a few years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. Svigor says:

    ‘Svigor’ is simply another fanboy who knows zero about anything to do with aerospace…

    Let him believe his delusional nonsense…you can’t do anything with indoctrinated koolaid drinkers…

    Reality will hit soon enough…just watch and see…

    ULA is a giant, bloated, rotting corpse. You’re not even making the right arguments. You’re talking about “perfect reliability” and “superior engines.” Those are nice things to have. The economic bottom line is the thing to have, and SpaceX has it in spades. Their innovations in reuseability are much more germane than a perfect record or a technically superior one-use engine.

    SpaceX deserves fanboys. Yes, I am now a Musk fanboy. The private firms are going to drag us into space while gov’t and gov’t cronies sit on their asses collecting checks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Svigor says:

    Hell, I’m a Bezos fanboy now, too. Musk is that good; he’s succeeded so spectacularly that now I’m willing to give Bezos the benefit of the doubt, too.

    These guys are going to make space colonization a reality by making it profitable. Gov’ts had 60 years to do it and spent it on make-work. They had their chance (though Chinese gov’t may actually prove capable of doing something useful), and they blew it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Thank you for your input...the technical professionals in the aerospace industry...from pilots to engineers to rocket scientists have noted your effusion of verbal diarrhea...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Erebus says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better. The specifics of weapons, particularly the new ones, are confidential. Very few people are familiar with these details and none of the contributors to this forum belong to this group. Putin speech was rich in generalities and short on specifics. He actually boasts quite regularly about his unstoppable ballistic missiles so I am not sure why so much fuss about his latest claim. He usually does it when he feels threatened. Perhaps he does have some miracle weapons , more likely not. I am not sure what gives him his confidence because the US military is surely not sharing the technological details of their weapons with him. The only test of whose weapons are better, and not just weapons because war is more complex than that, is the battlefield. After the battle one can say whose weapons were better but not before. One can judge the quality of weapons based on past encounters between Russian and US technology. The overall record does not speak in favour of Russia, but trying to extrapolate the future conflict based on that evidence can be risky. So whose weapons are better? I do not know and frankly do not want to find out. It is my humble opinion that all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled. Of course according to the very well educated pro Russians with poor manners who seem to have flooded this forum I do not understand anything. Only they do, but everything is simple for a simpleton. According to them when I see a car winning a race and say that the manufacturer of that car makes faster cars I am talking nonsense because I do not have a degree in automotive repairs.

    It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better.

    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc? If so, you must spend most of your days rolling on the floor splitting a gut.
    I’d venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.

    Buried in the hilarity, however, you voiced a wonderfully insightful assessment of the situation. To whit:

    … all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled.

    If by “something foolish” you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you’ve hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it’s saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it’s exhausted.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically. It’s been telling the US since at least 2007 that it will not allow itself to be strangled, and that the US will fail. Failing is what it’s been doing since then. Finally, on Mar 1, Putin told the US that Russia’s asymmetrical response is ready to go live, and that the US will be destroyed if it continues to try.

    In other words, in the course of the last decade the worm turned and now Russia’s telling the US “Don’t do something foolish”. He may be bluffing, or at least partially so, but there are very cogent reasons to think that he’s not, and therein lies the reason that the US now finds itself in an Imperial Dilemma.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum

    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc?
     
    They can discuss art, cars engines, sport and similar subjects because none of them is classified. Nothing hilarious about that unless the debate is between two nincompoops. What is hilarious is when people discuss matters of highly clasified nature of which they do not even have the slightest idea. All they are doing is spinning fantasies. Only people with the highest security clearance know something about these subjects and do not discuss them in the open.

    I’d venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.
     
    The dicsussions would still be hilarious for the same above mentioned reasons. You most likely meant deployment and that of course would be less hilarious. No worry there though. Since fairly early in my age I realized how dangerous humanity is and I have always lived on its fringes just in case it looses its collective mind, something it is never very far off of doing.

    If by “something foolish” you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you’ve hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it’s saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it’s exhausted.
     
    Russia's enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically.
     
    Not very original. Just another term he borowed from the West which coined the term first.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Svigor says:

    China is working on nuclear propulsion for space. At first blush (haven’t looked into it at all yet), I’m optimistic, because the Chinese have the resources, and more importantly, the hard-nosed attitude to make it work. Westerners are far too big a bunch of pussies to push nuclear propulsion as hard as it needs to be pushed to get through all the political and public opposition. With any luck, China will develop a huge lead here and force the US and EU to catch up. Otherwise, I see too much of a chance of us slacking off on nuclear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...China is working on nuclear propulsion for space. At first blush (haven’t looked into it at all yet)...'
     
    Well...when you do look into it...please make sure to publish your findings...

    The aerospace industry awaits your brilliant insights...[try AIAA......I'm sure you have a long history there...]


    https://thumb10.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/2342876/489110437/stock-photo-cartoon-of-a-braying-jackass-literally-rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-489110437.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Svigor says:

    [SpaceX is] producing around 85% of launch hardware in-house

    I mean God-damn, how can you not be a fanboy? Musk could be doing all this in Russia or EU and I’d still be a fanboy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Kiza says:
    @Pavlo

    because SpaceX is a private company, not a gov’t boondoggle
     
    Are you actually a paid shill for Musk's outfit? If you actually believe this then I suspect you couldn't pass the mirror self-recognition test - Musk gobbles up government funds like you gobble up twinkies.

    I cannot believe the morons that unz is now attracting. Except for a few really informative commenters, such as FB, Martyanov, Beckow, Kreiger and so on, the troll morons are really polluting the comments.

    So this certifiable Hasbara troll and a moron Svigor (and his other sock puppet) turns reality completely upside down and declares probably the newest and the most blatant example of US crony capitalism embodied in all Elon Musk enterprises to be the free market working. It is not that Boeing is not a classical example of US crony capitalism, it is only that the new crony capitalism gets more promotion in the Zio-MSM and apparently by trolls in the new media.

    I have concluded that the reward scheme for these paid trolls is based on the number of comments and the number of words, so they type complete crap empty of any information or meaning just to get paid. The more you engage them in discussion, the more you increase their income.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Well said...

    Only I doubt they are actually paid trolls...

    I have no idea how the troll industry works...but I would think that they would try to employ those with at least some credible knowledge...

    I think we have here the typical technology fanboy syndrome...ie a non-technical person who has zero credentials in the hard sciences, engineering, aerospace, piloting...etc...

    I have noted this already...and it is well known in scientific/technical circles...this phenomenon of a technically illiterate public’s fascination with ‘technology’…[which they do not understand]

    I would bet you dollars to donuts that people like this 'Svigor' buffoon could not actually solve a basic geometry problem from middle school...

    Yet they just know about satellites, space flight, or even aircraft because they read soemthing in the pop-sci press...it's quite silly really...

    They have no idea how the sausage is made...ie the pop-sci press writers have zero technical creds or hard science degrees of any kind...and behind their articles is the multi-billion dollar PR industry...whose job it is to 'encourage' articles of a certain subject matter...

    These fools should first start by understanding the PR industry...something that is within their comprehension grasp...[unlike science and math]...

    They have never been exposed to actual scientific peer-reviewed literature...since these sapheads have no way of understanding such technical journals...

    They have no reference points other than the PR flack and wikipedia...and god help that they actually learn something when a coherent technical explanation is provided...

    Typical of the dumbed down US public...they avoid hard science like the plague...and gravitate to things like reality TV and America's Got Talent...etc...


    '...does it have math...?...OMG...I don't want that...'
     
    , @Anonymous
    "I cannot believe the morons that unz is now attracting."

    I've been thinking that myself ever since you decided to start leaving your turds here. Seriously, when have you ever added anything of substance.

    The only interesting part of your comments is how you persistently accuse others of the things that you are doing. I suppose it's part of some clumsy mindless propaganda you saker drones seem to be intent on pushing.

    If criticism upsets you, snowflake, perhaps you then you should confine your reading to ideologically pure sites that are heavily censored. I hear that saker guy runs one.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled childish name calling and saker drone virtue signaling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Svigor says:

    I want space colonization. I don’t care if it’s Papua New Guineans getting us there. I admit I’m proud that SpaceX is doing it in America, but that’s waaay down my list of concerns (Hell, he’s South African, right?). But really, truth be told, I’d rather see SpaceX and Blue Origin and a wide variety of other commercial players driving space colonization, than any national gov’t.

    It’s going to be fun watching Musk deploy a vast network of VLEO comm satellites and pour the billions he makes back into space exploration. Space colonization is personal, not bureaucratic, for guys like Bezos and Musk. I hope they eat the crony capitalists’ lunch.

    I would like to hear more from Musk about asteroid mining, permanent space habitats with “gravity” provided by centripetal force, and resource extraction from Titan, and a bit less about Mars, but hey, nobody’s perfect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...I would like to hear more from Musk about asteroid mining, permanent space habitats with “gravity” provided by centripetal force...'
     
    Why ask Musk...?...any science teacher could explain this to you...[and had you been paying attention in class you might not even need to ask...]

    A 'gravity' environment in space where the gravitational force from earth is not present can be made by using a spinning wheel...

    Think of a hamster wheel...


    https://s20.postimg.org/aufk20yp9/The-_Hamster-_Wheel-_Lifestyle.jpg


    Only instead of you spinning the wheel...the wheel would be spinning while you stood there or walked along its circumference...or sat down or whatever...

    The important thing is that the 'gravity environment' is the area along the inside circumference of that wheel...

    In space y0u would not feel the wheel actually moving...since the only inertial frame of reference is the wheel itself...

    So as long as the habitable quarters were confined to the outside perimeter of that wheel it would feel quite 'normal...'

    We recall the centrifugal force pulls a spinning object out...and centripetal force resists the object from flying away...[if there is something to hold it with]

    Think of the hammer throw in the Olympics...the guy spinning that heavy ball on the end of a chain is creating a centrifugal force on the spinning ball that wants to hurl it outward...while the chain is providing the opposite centripetal force that keeps it from doing so...

    Ie they are equal and opposite forces as long as the guy spinning it holds on to it...

    In the case of the gravity wheel...the structure holding it from flying away would be the radial spokes...ie radiating from the center like a bicycle wheel...

    So to put some numbers to our gravity machine...

    Let's say the thing has an overall diameter of 10 meters [33 ft]...which gives a radius of 5 m...

    It would need to spin at about 0.22 revolutions per second in order to produce a force of 9.5 m/s^2...earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth's surface...so this would be very close...

    We find this result by recalling that centrifugal force [like any force] is mass times acceleration...in the case of a wheel it is angular acceleration...

    So we get Force = Velocity^2 / radius...[radius is 5 m]

    The circumference of a 10 m wheel is 31.4 m...[10 m * pi = 31.4 m]

    Rotating at a speed 0.22 rev/s gives an angular velocity of 6.9 m/s...

    So... 6.9^2 / 5 = 9.55 m/s^2...close to the force of gravity...

    Now the main challenge is where to get the power to spin that giant hamster wheel...

    To calculate the power we consider the hamster wheel as a flywheel...whose energy [angular kinetic energy] is given by...

    E = Inertia * angular velocity squared / 2

    Here we note that most of the mass of the wheel will be concentrated on its outside perimeter where the gravity will be felt...and where the living quarters will be...we will consider the mass of the spokes negligible...

    We make these assumptions in order to find the moment of inertia...which for a thin-walled empty cylinder [similar to our geometry...and unlike a flywheel of solid cylindrical geometry]...

    Moment of inertia for a thin-walled empty cylinder is given as mass times radius squared...

    so...10,000 kg * 5^2 = 1,250,000 kg*m^2

    The rotational energy required is given by

    E = 1/2 Inertia * angular velocity squared...[as noted above]

    Our angular velocity is given in radians per second...which is our rotational speed of 0.22 rev/s times 2pi...= 1.38 rad/s

    So our energy required is ~2.4 million joules...[1,250,000 * 1.3^2 / 2 = ~1.2 million joules...

    We recall that power is defined as energy over time...so the power required is 12. million j/s= 1.2 million watts...

    That is 1,200 kW...or 1.2 MW...which is ~1,600 horsepower...

    We consider that the ISS is capable of producing ~100 kw [134 hp] from all of its solar panels...

    So we see that this gravity machine would require about 16 times more power than is available to the entire space station...

    Where does that power come from...?

    Maybe Musk will figure it out...[but don't hold your breath...he still hasn't figured out how to build turbopumps for his rocket engines...which are built by Barber Nichols...]

    In any case it is clear that the only viable source of that much power would be nuclear...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. FB says:
    @Svigor
    Hell, I'm a Bezos fanboy now, too. Musk is that good; he's succeeded so spectacularly that now I'm willing to give Bezos the benefit of the doubt, too.

    These guys are going to make space colonization a reality by making it profitable. Gov'ts had 60 years to do it and spent it on make-work. They had their chance (though Chinese gov't may actually prove capable of doing something useful), and they blew it.

    Thank you for your input…the technical professionals in the aerospace industry…from pilots to engineers to rocket scientists have noted your effusion of verbal diarrhea…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. FB says:
    @Kiza
    I cannot believe the morons that unz is now attracting. Except for a few really informative commenters, such as FB, Martyanov, Beckow, Kreiger and so on, the troll morons are really polluting the comments.

    So this certifiable Hasbara troll and a moron Svigor (and his other sock puppet) turns reality completely upside down and declares probably the newest and the most blatant example of US crony capitalism embodied in all Elon Musk enterprises to be the free market working. It is not that Boeing is not a classical example of US crony capitalism, it is only that the new crony capitalism gets more promotion in the Zio-MSM and apparently by trolls in the new media.

    I have concluded that the reward scheme for these paid trolls is based on the number of comments and the number of words, so they type complete crap empty of any information or meaning just to get paid. The more you engage them in discussion, the more you increase their income.

    Well said…

    Only I doubt they are actually paid trolls…

    I have no idea how the troll industry works…but I would think that they would try to employ those with at least some credible knowledge…

    I think we have here the typical technology fanboy syndrome…ie a non-technical person who has zero credentials in the hard sciences, engineering, aerospace, piloting…etc…

    I have noted this already…and it is well known in scientific/technical circles…this phenomenon of a technically illiterate public’s fascination with ‘technology’…[which they do not understand]

    I would bet you dollars to donuts that people like this ‘Svigor’ buffoon could not actually solve a basic geometry problem from middle school…

    Yet they just know about satellites, space flight, or even aircraft because they read soemthing in the pop-sci press…it’s quite silly really…

    They have no idea how the sausage is made…ie the pop-sci press writers have zero technical creds or hard science degrees of any kind…and behind their articles is the multi-billion dollar PR industry…whose job it is to ‘encourage’ articles of a certain subject matter…

    These fools should first start by understanding the PR industry…something that is within their comprehension grasp…[unlike science and math]…

    They have never been exposed to actual scientific peer-reviewed literature…since these sapheads have no way of understanding such technical journals…

    They have no reference points other than the PR flack and wikipedia…and god help that they actually learn something when a coherent technical explanation is provided…

    Typical of the dumbed down US public…they avoid hard science like the plague…and gravitate to things like reality TV and America’s Got Talent…etc…

    ‘…does it have math…?…OMG…I don’t want that…’

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. FB says:
    @Svigor
    China is working on nuclear propulsion for space. At first blush (haven't looked into it at all yet), I'm optimistic, because the Chinese have the resources, and more importantly, the hard-nosed attitude to make it work. Westerners are far too big a bunch of pussies to push nuclear propulsion as hard as it needs to be pushed to get through all the political and public opposition. With any luck, China will develop a huge lead here and force the US and EU to catch up. Otherwise, I see too much of a chance of us slacking off on nuclear.

    ‘…China is working on nuclear propulsion for space. At first blush (haven’t looked into it at all yet)…’

    Well…when you do look into it…please make sure to publish your findings…

    The aerospace industry awaits your brilliant insights…[try AIAA......I'm sure you have a long history there...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Svigor says:

    So this certifiable Hasbara troll and a moron Svigor (and his other sock puppet) turns reality completely upside down and declares probably the newest and the most blatant example of US crony capitalism embodied in all Elon Musk enterprises to be the free market working. It is not that Boeing is not a classical example of US crony capitalism, it is only that the new crony capitalism gets more promotion in the Zio-MSM and apparently by trolls in the new media.

    Lol, you’re bereft of all sense, man. Do you call Mars the Moon, and the Moon Mars, too? Anyone who is paying any attention knows I’m the opposite of “Hasbara.” As for sock-puppets, I have never used one once, in my entire life. The very idea is beneath me. Like I’m a WOG, or something, lol.

    You guys are obviously obsessed with the Russia vs. USA (or world vs. USA) thing. I don’t really give a shit about it. I find you guys funny, but the idea that I’m shaking my fist back at you the way you’re shaking yours at me is pretty funny. Don’t…care. I care about space colonization. I only care about “best rocket” and “hypersonic bla bla” and “[your choice here]” insofar as it brings us closer to space colonization. If the Chinks or the Russians or the Papua New Guineans were in the lead, I’d be cheering them on.

    Big Media’s covering Musk now because he’s putting asses in seats. The conventional wisdom was to laugh at Musk back in 2012. Not so much laughing now. More like crying.

    P.S., the idea that SpaceX is crony capitalism is laughable. They’ve gotten some gov’t funding, but so has pretty much everyone in the aerospace industry. SpaceX is at the very low end among launch players in this regard. I don’t care what he’s done in terms of other industries – separate issue, AFAIC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Svigor says:

    I think we have here the typical technology fanboy syndrome…ie a non-technical person who has zero credentials in the hard sciences, engineering, aerospace, piloting…etc…

    I have noted this already…and it is well known in scientific/technical circles…this phenomenon of a technically illiterate public’s fascination with ‘technology’…[which they do not understand]

    This is credentialism. It’s a mark of limited intellect. The Earth doesn’t stop revolving around the Sun, just because a [your choice here] says the Earth revolves around the Sun.

    You have fuck all to respond with, so you cling to “muh credentialism.”

    They have no idea how the sausage is made…ie the pop-sci press writers have zero technical creds or hard science degrees of any kind…and behind their articles is the multi-billion dollar PR industry…whose job it is to ‘encourage’ articles of a certain subject matter…

    Yes, the pop-sci press is pretty bad. The problem is the huge gap between technical literature and the press. I wish there was something between the two that cut out the fluff but kept the jargon to a minimum for laymen, but I’ve yet to discover anything yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. FB says:
    @Svigor
    I want space colonization. I don't care if it's Papua New Guineans getting us there. I admit I'm proud that SpaceX is doing it in America, but that's waaay down my list of concerns (Hell, he's South African, right?). But really, truth be told, I'd rather see SpaceX and Blue Origin and a wide variety of other commercial players driving space colonization, than any national gov't.

    It's going to be fun watching Musk deploy a vast network of VLEO comm satellites and pour the billions he makes back into space exploration. Space colonization is personal, not bureaucratic, for guys like Bezos and Musk. I hope they eat the crony capitalists' lunch.

    I would like to hear more from Musk about asteroid mining, permanent space habitats with "gravity" provided by centripetal force, and resource extraction from Titan, and a bit less about Mars, but hey, nobody's perfect.

    ‘…I would like to hear more from Musk about asteroid mining, permanent space habitats with “gravity” provided by centripetal force…’

    Why ask Musk…?…any science teacher could explain this to you…[and had you been paying attention in class you might not even need to ask...]

    A ‘gravity’ environment in space where the gravitational force from earth is not present can be made by using a spinning wheel…

    Think of a hamster wheel…

    Only instead of you spinning the wheel…the wheel would be spinning while you stood there or walked along its circumference…or sat down or whatever…

    The important thing is that the ‘gravity environment’ is the area along the inside circumference of that wheel…

    In space y0u would not feel the wheel actually moving…since the only inertial frame of reference is the wheel itself…

    So as long as the habitable quarters were confined to the outside perimeter of that wheel it would feel quite ‘normal…’

    We recall the centrifugal force pulls a spinning object out…and centripetal force resists the object from flying away…[if there is something to hold it with]

    Think of the hammer throw in the Olympics…the guy spinning that heavy ball on the end of a chain is creating a centrifugal force on the spinning ball that wants to hurl it outward…while the chain is providing the opposite centripetal force that keeps it from doing so…

    Ie they are equal and opposite forces as long as the guy spinning it holds on to it…

    In the case of the gravity wheel…the structure holding it from flying away would be the radial spokes…ie radiating from the center like a bicycle wheel…

    So to put some numbers to our gravity machine…

    Let’s say the thing has an overall diameter of 10 meters [33 ft]…which gives a radius of 5 m…

    It would need to spin at about 0.22 revolutions per second in order to produce a force of 9.5 m/s^2…earth’s gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth’s surface…so this would be very close…

    We find this result by recalling that centrifugal force [like any force] is mass times acceleration…in the case of a wheel it is angular acceleration…

    So we get Force = Velocity^2 / radius…[radius is 5 m]

    The circumference of a 10 m wheel is 31.4 m…[10 m * pi = 31.4 m]

    Rotating at a speed 0.22 rev/s gives an angular velocity of 6.9 m/s…

    So… 6.9^2 / 5 = 9.55 m/s^2…close to the force of gravity…

    Now the main challenge is where to get the power to spin that giant hamster wheel…

    To calculate the power we consider the hamster wheel as a flywheel…whose energy [angular kinetic energy] is given by…

    E = Inertia * angular velocity squared / 2

    Here we note that most of the mass of the wheel will be concentrated on its outside perimeter where the gravity will be felt…and where the living quarters will be…we will consider the mass of the spokes negligible…

    We make these assumptions in order to find the moment of inertia…which for a thin-walled empty cylinder [similar to our geometry...and unlike a flywheel of solid cylindrical geometry]…

    Moment of inertia for a thin-walled empty cylinder is given as mass times radius squared…

    so…10,000 kg * 5^2 = 1,250,000 kg*m^2

    The rotational energy required is given by

    E = 1/2 Inertia * angular velocity squared…[as noted above]

    Our angular velocity is given in radians per second…which is our rotational speed of 0.22 rev/s times 2pi…= 1.38 rad/s

    So our energy required is ~2.4 million joules…[1,250,000 * 1.3^2 / 2 = ~1.2 million joules...

    We recall that power is defined as energy over time...so the power required is 12. million j/s= 1.2 million watts...

    That is 1,200 kW...or 1.2 MW...which is ~1,600 horsepower...

    We consider that the ISS is capable of producing ~100 kw [134 hp] from all of its solar panels…

    So we see that this gravity machine would require about 16 times more power than is available to the entire space station…

    Where does that power come from…?

    Maybe Musk will figure it out…[but don't hold your breath...he still hasn't figured out how to build turbopumps for his rocket engines...which are built by Barber Nichols...]

    In any case it is clear that the only viable source of that much power would be nuclear…

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Have to correct my above computation...

    the artificial gravity numbers are correct but I made a typo on my computation on the power required to turn that wheel...

    Ie...Inertia = mass times radius squared...

    So the mass of 10,000 kg * radius of 5 m (squared) = 10,000 * 25 = 250,000 kg*m^2...

    Not 1,250,000 as I had put down...

    So the energy required is 238,000 joules...which gives a power of 238,000 watts or 238 kw...which is ~320 hp...

    However...the number of 10 tons for the weight of this device is almost certainly way too low...

    I had originally figured about 50 tons...which is why that figure of 50,000 kg slipped in there...

    For a mass of this size the power of 1.200 kW is correct...ie 1,600 hp...

    Also we can get a more accurate figure by consiedering this machine as a thick-shell cylinder...which will give us a more accurate number for the inertia...

    In this case the math is...

    Inertia = 1/2 mass times (radius external squared minus radius internal squared)

    If we consider a 2 meter thick outer ring which would give headroom of 6.5 ft [2 m]...with the same outer radius of 5 m...

    This would give an inertia of just 80,000 with a 10 ton total weight...and 400,000 with a 50 ton weight which is more realistic...
    , @Alfa158
    If one percent of the ISS power capacity or, 1kW, is used to spin up the wheel, then in 1200 seconds or 20 minutes, it will be up to the speed of 1.38 radians per second. In the almost zero friction environment of space inertia will maintain the spin, with no need to expend power to maintain it. How much power the station needs to generate is a function of how quickly you need to get it up to speed. 1200 kW are only required if the space station is to be spun up to speed in one second.
    , @foolisholdman
    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning. Once it had got up to speed there would be very little, even in LEO to slow it down. True it might take a while to spin it up to speed, but once there, it would take very little to keep it going.
    , @J-P
    I can't claim to have any technical knowledge whatsoever, however, I just have to ask...once the object has been spun up to the desired speed (to provide the "gravity") by application of the above mentioned 1.2MW/1,600 horsepower, will said object not keep spinning literally forever without further energy inputs unless acted upon by another force? I believe Newton had something to say about that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. FB says:
    @FB

    '...I would like to hear more from Musk about asteroid mining, permanent space habitats with “gravity” provided by centripetal force...'
     
    Why ask Musk...?...any science teacher could explain this to you...[and had you been paying attention in class you might not even need to ask...]

    A 'gravity' environment in space where the gravitational force from earth is not present can be made by using a spinning wheel...

    Think of a hamster wheel...


    https://s20.postimg.org/aufk20yp9/The-_Hamster-_Wheel-_Lifestyle.jpg


    Only instead of you spinning the wheel...the wheel would be spinning while you stood there or walked along its circumference...or sat down or whatever...

    The important thing is that the 'gravity environment' is the area along the inside circumference of that wheel...

    In space y0u would not feel the wheel actually moving...since the only inertial frame of reference is the wheel itself...

    So as long as the habitable quarters were confined to the outside perimeter of that wheel it would feel quite 'normal...'

    We recall the centrifugal force pulls a spinning object out...and centripetal force resists the object from flying away...[if there is something to hold it with]

    Think of the hammer throw in the Olympics...the guy spinning that heavy ball on the end of a chain is creating a centrifugal force on the spinning ball that wants to hurl it outward...while the chain is providing the opposite centripetal force that keeps it from doing so...

    Ie they are equal and opposite forces as long as the guy spinning it holds on to it...

    In the case of the gravity wheel...the structure holding it from flying away would be the radial spokes...ie radiating from the center like a bicycle wheel...

    So to put some numbers to our gravity machine...

    Let's say the thing has an overall diameter of 10 meters [33 ft]...which gives a radius of 5 m...

    It would need to spin at about 0.22 revolutions per second in order to produce a force of 9.5 m/s^2...earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth's surface...so this would be very close...

    We find this result by recalling that centrifugal force [like any force] is mass times acceleration...in the case of a wheel it is angular acceleration...

    So we get Force = Velocity^2 / radius...[radius is 5 m]

    The circumference of a 10 m wheel is 31.4 m...[10 m * pi = 31.4 m]

    Rotating at a speed 0.22 rev/s gives an angular velocity of 6.9 m/s...

    So... 6.9^2 / 5 = 9.55 m/s^2...close to the force of gravity...

    Now the main challenge is where to get the power to spin that giant hamster wheel...

    To calculate the power we consider the hamster wheel as a flywheel...whose energy [angular kinetic energy] is given by...

    E = Inertia * angular velocity squared / 2

    Here we note that most of the mass of the wheel will be concentrated on its outside perimeter where the gravity will be felt...and where the living quarters will be...we will consider the mass of the spokes negligible...

    We make these assumptions in order to find the moment of inertia...which for a thin-walled empty cylinder [similar to our geometry...and unlike a flywheel of solid cylindrical geometry]...

    Moment of inertia for a thin-walled empty cylinder is given as mass times radius squared...

    so...10,000 kg * 5^2 = 1,250,000 kg*m^2

    The rotational energy required is given by

    E = 1/2 Inertia * angular velocity squared...[as noted above]

    Our angular velocity is given in radians per second...which is our rotational speed of 0.22 rev/s times 2pi...= 1.38 rad/s

    So our energy required is ~2.4 million joules...[1,250,000 * 1.3^2 / 2 = ~1.2 million joules...

    We recall that power is defined as energy over time...so the power required is 12. million j/s= 1.2 million watts...

    That is 1,200 kW...or 1.2 MW...which is ~1,600 horsepower...

    We consider that the ISS is capable of producing ~100 kw [134 hp] from all of its solar panels...

    So we see that this gravity machine would require about 16 times more power than is available to the entire space station...

    Where does that power come from...?

    Maybe Musk will figure it out...[but don't hold your breath...he still hasn't figured out how to build turbopumps for his rocket engines...which are built by Barber Nichols...]

    In any case it is clear that the only viable source of that much power would be nuclear...

    Have to correct my above computation…

    the artificial gravity numbers are correct but I made a typo on my computation on the power required to turn that wheel…

    Ie…Inertia = mass times radius squared…

    So the mass of 10,000 kg * radius of 5 m (squared) = 10,000 * 25 = 250,000 kg*m^2…

    Not 1,250,000 as I had put down…

    So the energy required is 238,000 joules…which gives a power of 238,000 watts or 238 kw…which is ~320 hp…

    However…the number of 10 tons for the weight of this device is almost certainly way too low…

    I had originally figured about 50 tons…which is why that figure of 50,000 kg slipped in there…

    For a mass of this size the power of 1.200 kW is correct…ie 1,600 hp…

    Also we can get a more accurate figure by consiedering this machine as a thick-shell cylinder…which will give us a more accurate number for the inertia…

    In this case the math is…

    Inertia = 1/2 mass times (radius external squared minus radius internal squared)

    If we consider a 2 meter thick outer ring which would give headroom of 6.5 ft [2 m]…with the same outer radius of 5 m…

    This would give an inertia of just 80,000 with a 10 ton total weight…and 400,000 with a 50 ton weight which is more realistic…

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    But there is actually much more to this artificial gravity machine...

    The small diameter of 10 meters would mean that when you are standing up...your head will feel a lot less 'gravity' than your feet...

    This could cause some physiological issues with blood flow in your body...depending on position and movement...

    If you are 1.75 m tall your head would feel a 'gravity' force of just 6.2 m/s^2...one third less than your feet...

    The same thing happens on earth...as you get higher gravity decreases...it is less on Mt Everest...but not by much...at 200 km altitude where low earth orbit sats and the space station fly...it would still be 9.5 m/s^2...

    Although here you are weightless and don't feel gravity because the orbital speed of about 7.8 km/s creates a centrifugal force that is equal to gravity...

    Ie the centrifugal force pulling the spacecraft out is in equilibrium with the force of erath's gravity...so you feel weightless...

    In any case we would need a hamster wheel diameter of about 100 meters in order to minimize this effect...

    At this size of hamster wheel the difference in 'gravity' that your head feels would be very similar to that at your feet...

    This would require a much slower rotation speed of ~0.07 revolutions per second...

    It is the tangential velocity that is relevant here...ie a smaller wheel needs to spin faster to have the same tangential velocity as a big wheel spinning slower...

    Tangential velocity being the circumference times the rotation speed...

    So we see here that a 100 m object of this size to be built in space would be much more challenging...even building a 10 meter such device would be very challenging...

    There are literally hundreds of engineering problems here...
    , @Polymath
    FB, how the heck do you get away with converting energy to power by dividing by the unit “second”? You are confusing the power that would be needed to get the wheel up to speed in one second with the power that would be needed to get it up to speed in however long it takes; and you’re also confusing a one-time expenditure of energy with an ongoing need for power. There is something called “conservation of angular momentum” involved here: once it is spinning it keeps spinning, the vacuum of space in earth orbit is not perfect but the amount of power needed to overcome that friction is minuscule.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Svigor says:

    Why ask Musk…?…any science teacher could explain this to you…[and had you been paying attention in class you might not even need to ask...]

    A ‘gravity’ environment in space where the gravitational force from earth is not present can be made by using a spinning wheel…

    Think of a hamster wheel…

    Talk about building them, you nitwit. There are concept drawings of stations from the thirties (IIRC), but nobody has built one yet.

    LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Children's Sci Fi Kemlo and the Star Men had Kemlo IMG on a rotating wheel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Svigor says:

    As for your math, we don’t know what kind of mass we’ll be dealing with, or size (Bigelow habitats will be far less dense than the ISS, for example). Or propulsion efficiency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Svigor says:

    Musk is the same way with nuclear thermal and nuclear electric power. He acts like they aren’t even a thing. I guess his policy is not to get too far into the weeds, but I like the weeds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. FB says:
    @FB
    Have to correct my above computation...

    the artificial gravity numbers are correct but I made a typo on my computation on the power required to turn that wheel...

    Ie...Inertia = mass times radius squared...

    So the mass of 10,000 kg * radius of 5 m (squared) = 10,000 * 25 = 250,000 kg*m^2...

    Not 1,250,000 as I had put down...

    So the energy required is 238,000 joules...which gives a power of 238,000 watts or 238 kw...which is ~320 hp...

    However...the number of 10 tons for the weight of this device is almost certainly way too low...

    I had originally figured about 50 tons...which is why that figure of 50,000 kg slipped in there...

    For a mass of this size the power of 1.200 kW is correct...ie 1,600 hp...

    Also we can get a more accurate figure by consiedering this machine as a thick-shell cylinder...which will give us a more accurate number for the inertia...

    In this case the math is...

    Inertia = 1/2 mass times (radius external squared minus radius internal squared)

    If we consider a 2 meter thick outer ring which would give headroom of 6.5 ft [2 m]...with the same outer radius of 5 m...

    This would give an inertia of just 80,000 with a 10 ton total weight...and 400,000 with a 50 ton weight which is more realistic...

    But there is actually much more to this artificial gravity machine…

    The small diameter of 10 meters would mean that when you are standing up…your head will feel a lot less ‘gravity’ than your feet…

    This could cause some physiological issues with blood flow in your body…depending on position and movement…

    If you are 1.75 m tall your head would feel a ‘gravity’ force of just 6.2 m/s^2…one third less than your feet…

    The same thing happens on earth…as you get higher gravity decreases…it is less on Mt Everest…but not by much…at 200 km altitude where low earth orbit sats and the space station fly…it would still be 9.5 m/s^2…

    Although here you are weightless and don’t feel gravity because the orbital speed of about 7.8 km/s creates a centrifugal force that is equal to gravity…

    Ie the centrifugal force pulling the spacecraft out is in equilibrium with the force of erath’s gravity…so you feel weightless…

    In any case we would need a hamster wheel diameter of about 100 meters in order to minimize this effect…

    At this size of hamster wheel the difference in ‘gravity’ that your head feels would be very similar to that at your feet…

    This would require a much slower rotation speed of ~0.07 revolutions per second…

    It is the tangential velocity that is relevant here…ie a smaller wheel needs to spin faster to have the same tangential velocity as a big wheel spinning slower…

    Tangential velocity being the circumference times the rotation speed…

    So we see here that a 100 m object of this size to be built in space would be much more challenging…even building a 10 meter such device would be very challenging…

    There are literally hundreds of engineering problems here…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Alfa158 says:
    @FB

    '...I would like to hear more from Musk about asteroid mining, permanent space habitats with “gravity” provided by centripetal force...'
     
    Why ask Musk...?...any science teacher could explain this to you...[and had you been paying attention in class you might not even need to ask...]

    A 'gravity' environment in space where the gravitational force from earth is not present can be made by using a spinning wheel...

    Think of a hamster wheel...


    https://s20.postimg.org/aufk20yp9/The-_Hamster-_Wheel-_Lifestyle.jpg


    Only instead of you spinning the wheel...the wheel would be spinning while you stood there or walked along its circumference...or sat down or whatever...

    The important thing is that the 'gravity environment' is the area along the inside circumference of that wheel...

    In space y0u would not feel the wheel actually moving...since the only inertial frame of reference is the wheel itself...

    So as long as the habitable quarters were confined to the outside perimeter of that wheel it would feel quite 'normal...'

    We recall the centrifugal force pulls a spinning object out...and centripetal force resists the object from flying away...[if there is something to hold it with]

    Think of the hammer throw in the Olympics...the guy spinning that heavy ball on the end of a chain is creating a centrifugal force on the spinning ball that wants to hurl it outward...while the chain is providing the opposite centripetal force that keeps it from doing so...

    Ie they are equal and opposite forces as long as the guy spinning it holds on to it...

    In the case of the gravity wheel...the structure holding it from flying away would be the radial spokes...ie radiating from the center like a bicycle wheel...

    So to put some numbers to our gravity machine...

    Let's say the thing has an overall diameter of 10 meters [33 ft]...which gives a radius of 5 m...

    It would need to spin at about 0.22 revolutions per second in order to produce a force of 9.5 m/s^2...earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth's surface...so this would be very close...

    We find this result by recalling that centrifugal force [like any force] is mass times acceleration...in the case of a wheel it is angular acceleration...

    So we get Force = Velocity^2 / radius...[radius is 5 m]

    The circumference of a 10 m wheel is 31.4 m...[10 m * pi = 31.4 m]

    Rotating at a speed 0.22 rev/s gives an angular velocity of 6.9 m/s...

    So... 6.9^2 / 5 = 9.55 m/s^2...close to the force of gravity...

    Now the main challenge is where to get the power to spin that giant hamster wheel...

    To calculate the power we consider the hamster wheel as a flywheel...whose energy [angular kinetic energy] is given by...

    E = Inertia * angular velocity squared / 2

    Here we note that most of the mass of the wheel will be concentrated on its outside perimeter where the gravity will be felt...and where the living quarters will be...we will consider the mass of the spokes negligible...

    We make these assumptions in order to find the moment of inertia...which for a thin-walled empty cylinder [similar to our geometry...and unlike a flywheel of solid cylindrical geometry]...

    Moment of inertia for a thin-walled empty cylinder is given as mass times radius squared...

    so...10,000 kg * 5^2 = 1,250,000 kg*m^2

    The rotational energy required is given by

    E = 1/2 Inertia * angular velocity squared...[as noted above]

    Our angular velocity is given in radians per second...which is our rotational speed of 0.22 rev/s times 2pi...= 1.38 rad/s

    So our energy required is ~2.4 million joules...[1,250,000 * 1.3^2 / 2 = ~1.2 million joules...

    We recall that power is defined as energy over time...so the power required is 12. million j/s= 1.2 million watts...

    That is 1,200 kW...or 1.2 MW...which is ~1,600 horsepower...

    We consider that the ISS is capable of producing ~100 kw [134 hp] from all of its solar panels...

    So we see that this gravity machine would require about 16 times more power than is available to the entire space station...

    Where does that power come from...?

    Maybe Musk will figure it out...[but don't hold your breath...he still hasn't figured out how to build turbopumps for his rocket engines...which are built by Barber Nichols...]

    In any case it is clear that the only viable source of that much power would be nuclear...

    If one percent of the ISS power capacity or, 1kW, is used to spin up the wheel, then in 1200 seconds or 20 minutes, it will be up to the speed of 1.38 radians per second. In the almost zero friction environment of space inertia will maintain the spin, with no need to expend power to maintain it. How much power the station needs to generate is a function of how quickly you need to get it up to speed. 1200 kW are only required if the space station is to be spun up to speed in one second.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I believe that the truth is somewhere in between you and FB. It is true that the gravity wheel would be spinning frictionless and that one needs to add momentum to it, the usual favorite would be by propulsion thrusters. But over time there would be small gravitational disturbances and the movements inside the wheel which would reduce the momentum and would thus require a small periodic addition of momentum.

    The only friction component of the gravity wheel could be the entry point or the space-craft docking station, as in Space Odyssey 2001.

    Finally, obviously having gravity in space would be necessary only for the long-term stay or long-range flight and this is why the gravity wheel was never been employed yet, except in SF.

    , @FB

    '...If one percent of the ISS power capacity or, 1kW, is used to spin up the wheel, then in 1200 seconds or 20 minutes, it will be up to the speed of 1.38 radians per second...'
     
    That's not correct...first some basics before we get into the math...[which you have not explained as to how you are going to get that massive flywheel turning with just one kW...but I will get to that...]

    First you missed my comment that simply being at a height of 200 km altitude...is not a zero-gravity environment...the gravity here is ~9.5 m/s^2...

    Ie if you took a giant ladder and put on a space suit and climbed to 200 km height...you would be subjected to gravity force of ~9.5 m/s^2...just 5 percent less than gravity on earth's surface...

    It is only because the orbiting spacecraft is flying at a speed of ~7.8 km/s relative to the earth's surface...that its centrifugal force equals the earth's gravity pull...which is why you feel weightless...

    This is why the control moment gyroscopes [CMGs...ie small spinning flywheels] on the ISS have electric motors... because changes in dynamic coupling and non-conservative effects mean those flywheels do not keep spinning with no power...

    If in your example...it takes 1,200 seconds to get up to rotational speed...that would require an angular acceleration of 0.00115 rad/s^2...

    Torque would be ~1,440 joules/radian...

    The power required would be ~2kW by the time it reaches its peak angular velocity of 1.38 rad/s...

    Here is the math...


    https://s20.postimg.org/rqvwmgy6l/Angular_Acceleration.png


    So the angular acceleration = 1.38 rad/s / 1200 s = 0.00115 rad/s^2

    Angular acceleration [α] is related to torque [ τ ] and inertia [ I] by...

    α = τ / I

    So rearranging that relation to solve for torque gives

    τ = α * I

    Our inertia is 1,250,000 kg*m^2 for a 50 ton wheel with radius of 5 m...[which would be unworakable for human physiological reasons as pointed out already]

    But just to stay with that particular example for illustrative purposes...

    So the torque is 0.0015 * 1,250,000 = 1,440 joule/radian...


    https://s20.postimg.org/svpyrlkkt/Power.png


    Where ω is the instantaneous angular velocity in rad/s...

    So at our final angular velocity of 1.38 rad/s...the power required is...

    1,440 * 1.38 = 1,990 watts...or ~2 kw...

    So your math that it would take 1 kW to get up to the rotation speed in 20 minutes is off by half...

    Anyway...the basic principle you mentioned is correct...ie in a frictionless environment it would take zero power for the flywheel to keep spinning in perpetuity...

    However...you leave out a crucial physical fact here...

    That wheel is producing a centrifugal force of ~9.5 kg*m/s^2 [per unit mass...ie 1 kg] = 9.5 newtons of force...almost identical to earth's gravity...

    The centripetal force acting on the spokes holding the outer ring to the central shaft is therefore also 9.5 N...

    Therefore the bearings are working against friction...they are not in a frictionless environment...but in a friction environment almost identical to that on earth...

    And we find the friction force by taking the product of the coefficient of friction and the force...[we can compute this but I won't get into that now...]

    Also the starting torque of that friction must be overcome...which we have not taken into consideration...[again something that can be computed if we know the bearing friction coefficient...]

    However...the major challenge here is the massive amount of inertia that such a huge spinning wheel would create...

    The big question is...how do you control the attitude of the spacecraft when you have such a huge rotating inertia...

    The control moment gyroscopes on the ISS are crucial to maintaining the spacecraft attitude so that its solar panels are always oriented toward the sun...and for docking maneuvers etc...

    And those gyro wheels are tiny...with inertia many orders of magnitude smaller than that of such a large wheel...

    Remember...we found that for physiological reasons...the wheel cannot be much smaller than 100 m diameter...

    A 10 m wheel would cause the blood in your body to rush to your feet when you are standing...your heart would need to overcome that centrifugal force acting downward toward your feet in order to pump blood to your brain...the same as an airplane in a steeply banked turn pulling gs will cause the pilot's blood to flow to his feet...and enough gs will cause blackout...

    For sustained habitation...a wheel of 10 m is simply not viable...it is better for the human body to be in a weightless condition than in such an environment of constant g working towards your feet...the only time this would be okay is when you are lying down and the g force is equal across your body length...

    So a massive wheel of 100 m diameter is going to weigh many hundreds of tons...its inertia will be truly massive...

    In order to be able to control the attitude of the spacecraft...even just to make small corrections...would require at least three more control gyros of equal inertia...

    They would not need to necessarily be as big because inertia is function of radius, mass and angular velocity...so a smaller radius and mass but spinning at a higher speed can still provide an equal amount of inertia...

    Now...adjusting the spacecraft attitude with those control moment gyros requires applying a force that will tilt their axis of rotation...

    Overcoming that inertia is going to require application of a huge quantity of force...that requires huge amounts of power...

    And here we get into the coupling effects...ie how changes in the inertia of one spinning wheel affect another...

    And just as with the small gyros on the ISS...there are non-conservative effects...which requires application of power to those gyros to overcome...which is why they have electric motors...

    Those gyro bearings do fail...here is an interesting Nasa technical article on that...and lessons learned...

    Bottom line is this...it will take massive amounts of power to implement an artificial gravity environment in orbit...or even in deep space outside of earth's orbit...

    Your point about spinning up the 'hamster wheel' requiring little relative power is correct [although your math is not]...

    But your simple assertion is too general to be of any practical use...and fails to take into account the other major factors I have discussed here...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. paulllll says:

    Magnificent claims are made for Russian weapons systems. And it certainly seems clear, based on what has happened in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, that the Russian military is far from incompetent these days. At the same time, Russia’s involvement in those conflicts seems to demonstrate that the Russian military is far from invincible. Meanwhile, the more extreme claims made for the Russian military, especially for its supposedly wondrous new technologies, do increasingly come off as bogus. Russian air defense systems, for example, can be invincible as long as they are never used. Russian futuristic technology can look like a game changer as long as it remains in the form of bad animation. Technical prowess is claimed for Russian weapons and this leads to sales. That perhaps is the real point of such claims. It may be that the real purpose of the Russian military is the same as the real purpose (0r a real purpose) of the US military: to be a cash cow.

    Meanwhile Russia seems to forget that there is a difference between an ally and a vassal, though Putin used to talk about this difference a lot. The US treats all other powers as vassals. As a result, the US has no real allies. It seems the US wants more to be feared than loved. Russia still has many allies, but it treats them like vassals. Here too Russia seems to emulate exactly those characteristics of the US that it once rightly critiqued. I suspect that Russia will end up with neither allies nor vassals.

    Putin attracted global attention because of some of the startlingly brave and true things he used to say, long ago. Who can ever forget Putin saying to the Western Powers, about Syria, “do you finally realize what you have done?!” He then seemed to represent a global conscience. But that morally courageous Putin is long gone. The Putin we see now wants one thing and one thing only: a seat at the table where deals are made.

    So the most important message to come out of Putin’s recent grandstanding may simply be the one he sent to Russia’s allies, which was yet another reiteration that Russia will NEVER defend an ally. I’m sure both Syria and Iran have gotten the message loud and clear by now. Russia thinks in terms of power. Those who have power that Russia must respect Russia will negotiate with for a chunk of whatever deals are made. The US is at the top of that list. The US’ key vassals are close to the top of that list too. Vassals, those nations who to some degree depend on Russia’s protection, must kowtow to Russia. They must recognize that their cooperation is a lot of what Russia brings to the table when it looks to cut deals. If they fail to cooperate they risk being left to the ruthless mercies of the US and its vassals.

    Russia thus has played an important role in the rise of the global police state, the absolute global Hegemon. Russia has been like the seemingly brave guy on the playground who challenged the bully’s rule. In the end it turned out that the seemingly brave kid really just wanted to be the bully’s liutenant. Any resistance to the bully ended up more disorganized and disheartened than before, because it was misled by the ‘brave kid’.

    Whatever Russia does, it has a fine line to walk. One must hope that Russia will somehow come to realize – though it looks like such realization cannot come via Putin or the folks around him – that realpolitik, by itself, is a road to hell. Truth and justice do matter. There is much more to real leadership than the ‘art of the deal’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I just had a very hearty laugh at your comment, with its sweeping statements and cheap, trashy moralising. In the dirtiest of dirty global fight for domination over resources, you are looking for at least a saint and probably even as much as a Son of God to come down and bring fairness to humanity. Putin is not the Son of God and the Russians are not the chosen people, unlike some US mugs who declare themselves exceptional and chosen by someone to own all those resources.

    I am guessing that most Russian allies are happy to have Russia on their side, even if they get a good dose of Realpolitic in the package, even if Russia does not send its sons and daughters to die defending them. For example, it just happens that the people of the country I originate from have been bombed and occupied ruthlessly by US and its vassals, when neither Russia nor China could help. Do I need to assure you that my little nation would have been most happy if it had an ally such as Russia to offer any kind of support (like Syria got). Therefore, the key problem of your “analysis” is that you are comparing, if not even equating, the devil incarnate (US) and the fallible human beings operating in an imperfect Realpolitic world (Russia). In other words, another commenter who has got no-idea what he is hacking the poor keyboard about.
    , @peterAUS
    A very good post.
    Agree with all.

    This

    Any resistance to the bully ended up more disorganized and disheartened than before, because it was misled by the ‘brave kid’.
     
    is the most interesting part I think.

    I believe that Novorossya is a rather good example of that.
    Maybe even Serbia and Macedonia.

    Probably some nationalist movements in West too.
    , @Johnny Rico
    https://kilodocuments.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/img_20180311_122004.jpg?w=1024&h=576
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. I wonder if there are any political implications, except strenghtening the position of Trump.
    According to prof Laslo Maracs, Amsterdam UVA university, Trump and his rich friends recognise that the USA economically no longer is able to control the world.

    Obama had to lower the two war standard to one and a half.
    What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria, just mess.

    The Russian systems now make me remember the two atomic bombs on Japan.
    Contrary to what I long supposed these bombs, with the defeat of the Japanese Kwantung army, made it possible for the emperor to end the war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. ll says:
    @Giuseppe
    Saker at his best, a panoramic examination of geopolitical reality.

    This gives hope to all who long for a multipolar world where the USA can be a normal country again.

    Anyone else react to this statement?

    “the White “indispensable nation”.”

    -Kinda suggest he says that USA is a white supremacist state bombing brown people in the interests of white people

    Read More
    • Replies: @Giuseppe

    Anyone else react to this statement?

    “the White “indispensable nation”.”

    -Kinda suggest he says that USA is a white supremacist state bombing brown people in the interests of white people
     
    Bombing, shooting, scalping, whatever it takes. Public outcry at the bombing of blond blue-eyed Finns or Swedes would soon shut down the imperial war engine. Brown people work much better. Less outrage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @kemerd
    No, you seem to not understand my point. Karlin has no expertise or information to verify whether these weapons exist or not; nor can he assess if these are the breakthrough developments as experts here argue.

    The point is that he feels the need to counter everything Russian nationalists say or do, irrespective of whether he has facts in front of him or not: I can see an American deny Russians having these weapons or their effectiveness if they exist without hard facts in front of them (as the Saker explains). But Karlin behaves the same as Americans as if he was against the survival of an independent Russia. A real Russian patriot who is an opponent of Putin and his ilk (there are a lot of reasons for doing so) would say or do nothing until hard facts are established. But he jumps to the American wagon immediately even though he (or Americans) have no way of verifying those claims.

    That is the issue and it seems Russia have a big problem of producing such people in large numbers.

    I need to question if you have even read that article, where:

    1. I do not say that Russia does not have those superweapons (namely, Status-6 and nuclear-powered cruise missile), just a list of pros and contras to consider in deciding on the likelihood that they add up to anything more than plans on paper or faulty prototypes at best.

    2. Suggested that if Russia is serious about Status-6, its stated role as a harbor destroyer makes no sense (and suggested an alternative).

    I also need to question that you read me in general.

    For a start, I am a Russian nationalist – probably the most prominent one who identifies as such writing in the Anglosphere. Neither The Saker nor especially Martyanov identify as such.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kemerd
    I read the article and that is why I found it puzzling (or not). You cite an article which you most probably found through internet search to cast doubt on what Putin says. Even worse is the fact that the article you cite is full of non-sense such as expected operational dates of these weapons (claims to be mid-2020s). How would he know that? In fact, how would you know that?

    From that I conclude the urge to cite a lousy article from a pseudo-expert can only stem from a blind hate of Russian ruling elites.

    Your claim to be being a nationalist is akin to our Turkish islamo-nationalists: they would collaborate and indeed accept to be cannon fodders of imperial forces as long as it undermines the position of their opponents, never mind that also might weaken the very core of the nation and the pose an existential threat to the state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Sergey Krieger
    Speaking about Soviet union financial irresponsibility show you are full of it. No wonder you like Karlin so much. You are currently talking to citizen of the country which is epithom of financial irresponsibility which has accumulated external and internal obligations larger than the whole world product few times over.

    ~60% (off the top of my head) of which is owed to its own citizens, and virtually 100% of which is denoted in USD, which can be inflated away should the eternal prognostications of American collapse finally materialize. US budget deficit temporarily peaked at 10% around 2009, but otherwise rarely exceeds 4%.

    USSR: Budget deficit at 12% of GDP in 1989, reaching 30% by 1991, at which point it owes $97 billion to Western banks while depleting its own foreign currency reserves. Thus, incidentally, ruling out any forcible solution to arrest its spiraling breakup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Anatoly, anyone who brings 1989-1990 as an example has no clue. You better bring on numbers of 1985... Or you are unaware who was rocking Soviet boat rather successfully starting since 1985? in 1985 situation was drastically different, but someone decided to accelerated USSR right into the wall removing brakes and anything that would prevent this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Hence and for the foreseeable future, the Russians will have to continue on their current, admittedly frustrating and even painful course, and maintain a relatively passive and evasive posture which the Empire and its sycophants will predictably interpret as a sign of weakness. Let them… and as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working.

    As an imperial sycophant, i.e. someone not into masochism, it would be nice if The Saker could give some hard limits on when precisely he would consider the “Putin Plan” to be in trouble.

    1. When the “best choice of the Ukrainian people” Poroshenko seizes back the LDNR through military force and on Ukrainian conditions (as he promised to do just yesterday).

    2. When “good friend” Erdogan shoves another “knife in our back”?

    3. When the “Western partners” organize a Maidan to overthrow Lukashenko?

    4. When Russia gives Crimea back to the Ukraine?

    5. When Arkady Babchenko drives an Abrams tank onto Red Square?

    6. When Putin is hauled before the Hague and President Navalny starts negotiating reparations terms with the Ukraine?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    My thought on the "red line" for the regime in Kremlin:
    When Putin and his team realize they'll be hauled before the Hague.

    Not before.

    The "plan"

    as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working
     
    is for the masses.

    The real plan is "enjoy while it lasts by trading terrain for time, hoping that something will change in US. Change enough to be able to cut that last deal as his predecessor."
    Not a bad plan if you are one of them.
    For the rest, ah well.....
    , @EliteCommInc.
    My encouragement to Ukranians:


    democracy is a slow process-- just because it is rife with issues -- is not cause for revolution every ten years -- especially violent revolutions.


    And one of the features of elections is that when you don't like the direction the country is going --- you can always vote for new leaders with a different direction in mind.

    the next time the west comes calling encouraging violent revolt, consider what stakes they have in the game and what they willing to invest in the success of said revolution or might simply say,


    "get lost" there's very little if anything democratic about democracy at the point of a knife. No better evidenced than by black US citizens.

    ___________________________________
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Polymath says:
    @FB
    Have to correct my above computation...

    the artificial gravity numbers are correct but I made a typo on my computation on the power required to turn that wheel...

    Ie...Inertia = mass times radius squared...

    So the mass of 10,000 kg * radius of 5 m (squared) = 10,000 * 25 = 250,000 kg*m^2...

    Not 1,250,000 as I had put down...

    So the energy required is 238,000 joules...which gives a power of 238,000 watts or 238 kw...which is ~320 hp...

    However...the number of 10 tons for the weight of this device is almost certainly way too low...

    I had originally figured about 50 tons...which is why that figure of 50,000 kg slipped in there...

    For a mass of this size the power of 1.200 kW is correct...ie 1,600 hp...

    Also we can get a more accurate figure by consiedering this machine as a thick-shell cylinder...which will give us a more accurate number for the inertia...

    In this case the math is...

    Inertia = 1/2 mass times (radius external squared minus radius internal squared)

    If we consider a 2 meter thick outer ring which would give headroom of 6.5 ft [2 m]...with the same outer radius of 5 m...

    This would give an inertia of just 80,000 with a 10 ton total weight...and 400,000 with a 50 ton weight which is more realistic...

    FB, how the heck do you get away with converting energy to power by dividing by the unit “second”? You are confusing the power that would be needed to get the wheel up to speed in one second with the power that would be needed to get it up to speed in however long it takes; and you’re also confusing a one-time expenditure of energy with an ongoing need for power. There is something called “conservation of angular momentum” involved here: once it is spinning it keeps spinning, the vacuum of space in earth orbit is not perfect but the amount of power needed to overcome that friction is minuscule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...FB, how the heck do you get away with converting energy to power by dividing by the unit “second”?..'
     
    https://s20.postimg.org/l4du72g6l/Power_Definition.png


    In consistent units...ie SI... the time unit is second...

    Power is work ...which is force * distance... ie newtons * meters...or in the case of rotational work it is joules/radians...

    Maybe you need a refresher...


    https://s20.postimg.org/4uno3tpzh/Work-_Power.png


    '...You are confusing the power that would be needed to get the wheel up to speed in one second with the power that would be needed to get it up to speed in however long it takes; and you’re also confusing a one-time expenditure of energy with an ongoing need for power...'
     
    Yes...this is basically correct...as I have already admitted...and have provided an accurate computation of how much power would be required to get it up to speed...

    However...and this is a very big one...the ongoing need for power would still be huge as I explained above...just not for the same reason I originally stated...


    '...once it is spinning it keeps spinning, the vacuum of space in earth orbit is not perfect but the amount of power needed to overcome that friction is minuscule...'
     
    This is completely incorrect...as I have discussed already in detail...and is based on a faulty assumption about the 'vacuum' of space...

    Please see my comments above and that of 'Intelligent Dasein'...

    In short the artificial gravity produces just as much bearing friction as on earth...by means of the centripetal force...

    Even more important as Dasein noted is that human movement will cause loss of angular velocity...

    So we have two very real losses...ie bearing frriction [not a vacuum] and human force interaction...both of which will shed energy as waste heat...and will need to be recovered...by application of power...

    And the biggest issue is the huge amount of power that will be required to keep the spacecraft controllable with such a huge inertia produced by the gravity wheel...

    All of these factors combined...plus the need for a much bigger wheel [due to physiological reasons] will likely increase my original power estimates greatly...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Antiwar7 says:
    @Quartermaster
    Saker has made more than a few minor misses. Putin has done some wishcasting, and that's about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test. The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems. Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don't exist either.

    Putin is a KGB thug. In spite of what most people thought, the primary function of the KGB in the west was spreading disinformation. In spite of what grinning, drooling morons Putin told about these "weapons" think, the probability of such things existing are nil.

    The Russophobia thing is another bit of idiocy Saker is in love with. The Collusion thing the DimoKKKRats are taken with doesn't exist. The Dims are simply trying to neutralize Trump, who would like to normalize relations with Russia, but can't because of the criminality that is rampant in Putin's regime. The business in Ukraine is only a symptom. The internals of Russia, however, will destroy the country.

    Quartermaster, anxiously waiting for your substantive reply to FB…

    Or do you just stop talking when proven to be full of baloney?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Anatoly Karlin
    ~60% (off the top of my head) of which is owed to its own citizens, and virtually 100% of which is denoted in USD, which can be inflated away should the eternal prognostications of American collapse finally materialize. US budget deficit temporarily peaked at 10% around 2009, but otherwise rarely exceeds 4%.

    USSR: Budget deficit at 12% of GDP in 1989, reaching 30% by 1991, at which point it owes $97 billion to Western banks while depleting its own foreign currency reserves. Thus, incidentally, ruling out any forcible solution to arrest its spiraling breakup.

    Anatoly, anyone who brings 1989-1990 as an example has no clue. You better bring on numbers of 1985… Or you are unaware who was rocking Soviet boat rather successfully starting since 1985? in 1985 situation was drastically different, but someone decided to accelerated USSR right into the wall removing brakes and anything that would prevent this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Erebus

    It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better.
     
    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc? If so, you must spend most of your days rolling on the floor splitting a gut.
    I'd venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.

    Buried in the hilarity, however, you voiced a wonderfully insightful assessment of the situation. To whit:

    ... all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled.
     
    If by "something foolish" you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you've hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it's saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it's exhausted.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically. It's been telling the US since at least 2007 that it will not allow itself to be strangled, and that the US will fail. Failing is what it's been doing since then. Finally, on Mar 1, Putin told the US that Russia's asymmetrical response is ready to go live, and that the US will be destroyed if it continues to try.

    In other words, in the course of the last decade the worm turned and now Russia's telling the US "Don't do something foolish". He may be bluffing, or at least partially so, but there are very cogent reasons to think that he's not, and therein lies the reason that the US now finds itself in an Imperial Dilemma.

    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc?

    They can discuss art, cars engines, sport and similar subjects because none of them is classified. Nothing hilarious about that unless the debate is between two nincompoops. What is hilarious is when people discuss matters of highly clasified nature of which they do not even have the slightest idea. All they are doing is spinning fantasies. Only people with the highest security clearance know something about these subjects and do not discuss them in the open.

    I’d venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.

    The dicsussions would still be hilarious for the same above mentioned reasons. You most likely meant deployment and that of course would be less hilarious. No worry there though. Since fairly early in my age I realized how dangerous humanity is and I have always lived on its fringes just in case it looses its collective mind, something it is never very far off of doing.

    If by “something foolish” you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you’ve hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it’s saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it’s exhausted.

    Russia’s enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically.

    Not very original. Just another term he borowed from the West which coined the term first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree.
    Especially with

    Russia’s enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.
     
    and, on a personal level, if I may say, with

    Since fairly early in my age I realized how dangerous humanity is and I have always lived on its fringes just in case it looses its collective mind, something it is never very far off of doing.
     
    Watching all this "Russia collusion" thing, for me, shows that we are probably getting uncomfortably close to that point.
    , @Beckow

    Russia’s enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange
     
    They have rushed the Maidan thing, and messed it up. The side that is not in a hurry is the one that has time on its side. Who has time on their side? Who is getting strategically stronger?

    If you plug in resources, demographics, technology and geography, Western Europe will decline and so will Middle East, India and Africa. China, Australia, southern part of South America and parts of East Asia will get stronger.

    Eastern Europe, Canada, US and rest of Latin America are a toss-up - it depends on what they do. They have the resources, but politically they are very weak and they can collapse demographically (Third World migration or simply being already inescapably part of the Third World.)

    Russia is well positioned. It has 1/4 of world's resources - energy, minerals, arable land, water - for a stable, well educated population of 140-160 million people. It can keep up with the technology because of its educated population. It can keep itself from being overrun by migrants from the south. And, it has the f..ing nukes. Russia usually collapses because of internal discord or a collapse of will (something to do with DNA predisposition that tends towards extremes). The current hostilities have stiffened Russia's internal will.

    Who has time on their side? US and its allies are slowly losing grip. The 'soft power' collapse is a subjective event, it might not happen for a while, or it could happen suddenly (Hollywood really sucks today). The problem is that the allies are in deep trouble. Especially the hapless, post-modern Western European societies that march under rainbow flags, demanding open borders and an end to 'hatred'. Good luck with that.

    Russia seems better positioned, their main allies like China are solid for now. They have the geographic and resources upper hand. If they play it cool, time will be on their side. Power always follows material strength. That's why Washington has rushed a few things lately, they know that time is not on their side.
    , @Erebus

    What is hilarious is when people discuss matters of highly clasified nature of which they do not even have the slightest idea.
     
    You misunderstand. Nobody's discussing the classified aspects of weapons here. What's being discussed in the comments I've read (E.G.: FB's) is whether what's being claimed is physically possible, and what sorts of engineering problems would have to be overcome to make them possible. How & whether the engineering problems have been overcome is what would be classified, not whether they'd have to be. When the former is discussed, everyone acknowledges that the conversation turns speculative.
    If Putin was claiming physically impossible properties, there wouldn't be much of a discussion, and you wouldn't have Senators writing letters pleading that POTUS open arms control talks with him.

    Russia’s enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.
     
    That was true 2 decades ago, and deceptively looked that way up to 2007 when, on the eve of the GFC, Putin made his famous Munich speech.
    Since then, the Empire stumbled while China and Russia have placed so many impediments in their way that the Imperialists are now the ones who are forced to act rashly if they want to maintain the Empire. That is where the danger now lies. It is now Russia (and China) who are forced to go slow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Beckow

    Maybe. Depends on a lot of variables.
     
    I think it is a fairly good assumption that after a nuclear war we would all be worse off. I think parts of the world would survive, but life would be worse for everyone.

    I am very positive. The best rational response to increased risk of annihilation is to live well. In some ways the geo-political circus is liberating because it puts a lot of things in perspective. There is also the amusing part of it as one watches the creme-the-crop 'elites' go deep into an-ever more absurdist thinking, looking for Putin under their bed, losing even a semblance of having some principles.

    How far are they going to take it? I have always wondered how far absurd thinking can go, seeing designated 'smart people' go nuts over silly made-up narratives is fun. Let's enjoy the moment...

    “How far are they going to take it?”

    I think Stanley Kubrick was close to being correct

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Kiza says:
    @Alfa158
    If one percent of the ISS power capacity or, 1kW, is used to spin up the wheel, then in 1200 seconds or 20 minutes, it will be up to the speed of 1.38 radians per second. In the almost zero friction environment of space inertia will maintain the spin, with no need to expend power to maintain it. How much power the station needs to generate is a function of how quickly you need to get it up to speed. 1200 kW are only required if the space station is to be spun up to speed in one second.

    I believe that the truth is somewhere in between you and FB. It is true that the gravity wheel would be spinning frictionless and that one needs to add momentum to it, the usual favorite would be by propulsion thrusters. But over time there would be small gravitational disturbances and the movements inside the wheel which would reduce the momentum and would thus require a small periodic addition of momentum.

    The only friction component of the gravity wheel could be the entry point or the space-craft docking station, as in Space Odyssey 2001.

    Finally, obviously having gravity in space would be necessary only for the long-term stay or long-range flight and this is why the gravity wheel was never been employed yet, except in SF.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    It is true that the gravity wheel would be spinning frictionless and that one needs to add momentum to it, the usual favorite would be by propulsion thrusters. But over time there would be small gravitational disturbances and the movements inside the wheel which would reduce the momentum and would thus require a small periodic addition of momentum.
     
    It would not be spinning frictionless. These gravity wheels are greatly misunderstood by the science fiction crowd who seem to erroneously assume that they are capable of exerting an endless amount of force. In fact the so-called "artificial gravity" is nothing but friction---i.e. the static friction of your feet against the interior surface of the wheel which, acting along with the normal force, provides an impediment to your instantaneous linear velocity which is experienced as the centrifugal force, that is to say the artificial gravity.

    With every step you took inside the wheel, you would be exerting a frictional force on the wheel acting in a direction opposite of the spin and would be steadily converting the wheel's angular momentum into heat. This is the cost of "feeling" the force of artificial gravity, which can be easily demonstrated by the following thought experiment.

    Suppose you were inhabiting a non-spinning toroidial space station. You and the station are both in orbital free fall and are not in relative motion. You are floating in the annulus section equidistant between the floor and the ceiling. It is only then that the wheel is spun up. Would you experience any artificial gravity? No, you would continue to float there as the ring spun past you. It would only be after making contact with some surface within the ring---perhaps by huffing and puffing and blowing your way back down to the floor---that the ring's angular momentum would impart to you a tangential velocity that you could "feel" as artificial gravity. This situation would essentially repeat itself with each step you took, as with each step you briefly reenter that state of free fall. Angular momentum would continue to be exchanged between you and the wheel with no net loss, but the frictional cost of constantly recovering that tangential velocity would be lost as heat.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Kiza says:
    @paulllll
    Magnificent claims are made for Russian weapons systems. And it certainly seems clear, based on what has happened in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, that the Russian military is far from incompetent these days. At the same time, Russia's involvement in those conflicts seems to demonstrate that the Russian military is far from invincible. Meanwhile, the more extreme claims made for the Russian military, especially for its supposedly wondrous new technologies, do increasingly come off as bogus. Russian air defense systems, for example, can be invincible as long as they are never used. Russian futuristic technology can look like a game changer as long as it remains in the form of bad animation. Technical prowess is claimed for Russian weapons and this leads to sales. That perhaps is the real point of such claims. It may be that the real purpose of the Russian military is the same as the real purpose (0r a real purpose) of the US military: to be a cash cow.

    Meanwhile Russia seems to forget that there is a difference between an ally and a vassal, though Putin used to talk about this difference a lot. The US treats all other powers as vassals. As a result, the US has no real allies. It seems the US wants more to be feared than loved. Russia still has many allies, but it treats them like vassals. Here too Russia seems to emulate exactly those characteristics of the US that it once rightly critiqued. I suspect that Russia will end up with neither allies nor vassals.

    Putin attracted global attention because of some of the startlingly brave and true things he used to say, long ago. Who can ever forget Putin saying to the Western Powers, about Syria, "do you finally realize what you have done?!" He then seemed to represent a global conscience. But that morally courageous Putin is long gone. The Putin we see now wants one thing and one thing only: a seat at the table where deals are made.

    So the most important message to come out of Putin's recent grandstanding may simply be the one he sent to Russia's allies, which was yet another reiteration that Russia will NEVER defend an ally. I'm sure both Syria and Iran have gotten the message loud and clear by now. Russia thinks in terms of power. Those who have power that Russia must respect Russia will negotiate with for a chunk of whatever deals are made. The US is at the top of that list. The US' key vassals are close to the top of that list too. Vassals, those nations who to some degree depend on Russia's protection, must kowtow to Russia. They must recognize that their cooperation is a lot of what Russia brings to the table when it looks to cut deals. If they fail to cooperate they risk being left to the ruthless mercies of the US and its vassals.

    Russia thus has played an important role in the rise of the global police state, the absolute global Hegemon. Russia has been like the seemingly brave guy on the playground who challenged the bully's rule. In the end it turned out that the seemingly brave kid really just wanted to be the bully's liutenant. Any resistance to the bully ended up more disorganized and disheartened than before, because it was misled by the 'brave kid'.

    Whatever Russia does, it has a fine line to walk. One must hope that Russia will somehow come to realize - though it looks like such realization cannot come via Putin or the folks around him - that realpolitik, by itself, is a road to hell. Truth and justice do matter. There is much more to real leadership than the 'art of the deal'.

    I just had a very hearty laugh at your comment, with its sweeping statements and cheap, trashy moralising. In the dirtiest of dirty global fight for domination over resources, you are looking for at least a saint and probably even as much as a Son of God to come down and bring fairness to humanity. Putin is not the Son of God and the Russians are not the chosen people, unlike some US mugs who declare themselves exceptional and chosen by someone to own all those resources.

    I am guessing that most Russian allies are happy to have Russia on their side, even if they get a good dose of Realpolitic in the package, even if Russia does not send its sons and daughters to die defending them. For example, it just happens that the people of the country I originate from have been bombed and occupied ruthlessly by US and its vassals, when neither Russia nor China could help. Do I need to assure you that my little nation would have been most happy if it had an ally such as Russia to offer any kind of support (like Syria got). Therefore, the key problem of your “analysis” is that you are comparing, if not even equating, the devil incarnate (US) and the fallible human beings operating in an imperfect Realpolitic world (Russia). In other words, another commenter who has got no-idea what he is hacking the poor keyboard about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. There were plans for a small centrifuge on the ISS but it was cancelled in the end, we may see something like it soon enough, its pretty easy to do all you need is two space habs and a tether between them, you can then rotate the habs for Earth gravity or Moon/Mars gravity ect

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    It is hilarious to watch how much time and energy are people prepared to waste in those pointless, heated discussions about whose weapons are better. The specifics of weapons, particularly the new ones, are confidential. Very few people are familiar with these details and none of the contributors to this forum belong to this group. Putin speech was rich in generalities and short on specifics. He actually boasts quite regularly about his unstoppable ballistic missiles so I am not sure why so much fuss about his latest claim. He usually does it when he feels threatened. Perhaps he does have some miracle weapons , more likely not. I am not sure what gives him his confidence because the US military is surely not sharing the technological details of their weapons with him. The only test of whose weapons are better, and not just weapons because war is more complex than that, is the battlefield. After the battle one can say whose weapons were better but not before. One can judge the quality of weapons based on past encounters between Russian and US technology. The overall record does not speak in favour of Russia, but trying to extrapolate the future conflict based on that evidence can be risky. So whose weapons are better? I do not know and frankly do not want to find out. It is my humble opinion that all the US bases, weaponry,etc., are not there to attack Russia but to prevent it from doing something foolish while it is getting strangled. Of course according to the very well educated pro Russians with poor manners who seem to have flooded this forum I do not understand anything. Only they do, but everything is simple for a simpleton. According to them when I see a car winning a race and say that the manufacturer of that car makes faster cars I am talking nonsense because I do not have a degree in automotive repairs.

    Agree. Obviously Russia is a serious country that has nukes. But the claim they are “decades” ahead of us seems a wee bit exaggerated. Both the US Establishment and the pro-Russia crowd talk a lot of trash, to be blunt.

    Also, an election is coming up in Russia soon, so it is smart politics for Putin to give Russian men something to beat their chest about.

    Of course, there are those mysterious UFO objects the military reported off the coast …. could it be new technology?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    Also, an election is coming up in Russia soon, so it is smart politics for Putin to give Russian men something to beat their chest about.
     
    You are absolutely right, because the Russians have nothing else to be proud of in their history. They are so devoid of any major achievements - especially in the military domain, unlike US who have accomplished so much - like Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Libya and so many more epic victories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. kemerd says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I need to question if you have even read that article, where:

    1. I do not say that Russia does not have those superweapons (namely, Status-6 and nuclear-powered cruise missile), just a list of pros and contras to consider in deciding on the likelihood that they add up to anything more than plans on paper or faulty prototypes at best.

    2. Suggested that if Russia is serious about Status-6, its stated role as a harbor destroyer makes no sense (and suggested an alternative).

    I also need to question that you read me in general.

    For a start, I am a Russian nationalist - probably the most prominent one who identifies as such writing in the Anglosphere. Neither The Saker nor especially Martyanov identify as such.

    I read the article and that is why I found it puzzling (or not). You cite an article which you most probably found through internet search to cast doubt on what Putin says. Even worse is the fact that the article you cite is full of non-sense such as expected operational dates of these weapons (claims to be mid-2020s). How would he know that? In fact, how would you know that?

    From that I conclude the urge to cite a lousy article from a pseudo-expert can only stem from a blind hate of Russian ruling elites.

    Your claim to be being a nationalist is akin to our Turkish islamo-nationalists: they would collaborate and indeed accept to be cannon fodders of imperial forces as long as it undermines the position of their opponents, never mind that also might weaken the very core of the nation and the pose an existential threat to the state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. TT says:
    @FB

    '...“Announcing the monumental breakthrough in the Korean stalemate, Chung Eui-yong noted that Kim Jong-un is now “committed to denuclearization,” and has “pledged” to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests until talks with Trump take place...'
     
    Chung Eui-yong...the person quoted there is a South Korean National Security Adviser...

    This is not a statement from DPRK...which did not make public any such statement...

    '...Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made...'
     
    'This period of time beinig until the Kim-Trump talks in May...the above from Trump's own tweet...

    We not here that Kim sent a letter with a personal inivitation to Trump...which Trump has accepted...

    This is far from North Korea saying it will de-nuclearize...

    There never was any such statement and we shall see what comes of the talks...May is only weeks away and the DPRK promising not to fly any more missile tests is in practical terms meaningless...

    The fact is that you have been saying here that DPRK has agreed to de-nuclearize...

    That is demonstrably false...

    DPRK has maintined the same line it has from the beginning...that it is will to discuss the issue of giving up nukes...under specific circumstances...such as a treaty with security guarantees...ie a non-aggression treaty with the US...

    So the DPRK position has not changed one iota...it is Dump and his fire and fury BS that has been jettisoned...

    Right after the US realized that it could never successfully carry out a military attack against heavily defended DPRK...which is not Iraq or Libya by any stretch...

    Naturally the US loser mentality is to try to see a 'win' in every situation...even in a case where the US has obviously reversed their position...

    Everybody who has been watching this is not surprised that the US caved...they were completely isolated on DPRK...and their military threats were not credible...end of story...

    FB, didn’t we had both said last year, Kim win Trumps hands down when come to calling bluff. Kim already tested Trumps is paper tiger by threaten to shoot down US plane in international airspace.

    Now that he had completed all his nuke missiles testing, enjoyed a Deluxe Winter Olympics(pretty sure Samsung gave truck load of S9 phones to please NK not to whack its Olympics), its time to sit down for another round of game with Uncle Scam.

    China news mention Kim will only negotiate without any precondition. But latest news, he agreed to de-nuclearize…without saying under what condition. I believe kim will walk away with all he wants, with nuke.

    Dumps: Little Rocket man, you said agreed to de-nuclearize if i meet up without pre-condition, so don’t make me lose face ok. The whole world is watching me now….

    Kim: ok ok…Dotard, we NK always kept our promise, we will de-nuclearize if ….if…if…
    US & everyone do first under UNS law. A Nuke free world.

    Dumps: oh damn it LRM, im doomed. Now how am i gonna face the world?

    Kim: Don’t worry Dotard, i will teach you a face saving way. You announce to the world NK has agreed to de-nuke, so US will stop all war games & shut down SK bases. Then i silent, who know.

    Dumps: you are real genius man, deal. I always said im a born great negotiator. All the de-nuke fees will be in my pocket. Now i can boast how i achieve what all past Potus had failed. Don’t you leak ok.

    Kim: sure, promise as usual. You are true great negotiator. Here, your kimchi present for all your great peace effort.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Joe Hide says:

    To Saker,
    Good article. Informationally largely correct. Realistic and logical.
    The only addition.that we Americans that are awake would make, is that this isn’t about Trump against Putin. Rather it is about the Good Guys and their Alliances against the globalists, the deep state, the international banksters, the protectors and enablers of drug cartels, human sex slavery traffickers, legal and illegal weapons traffickers, and against psychopath murderous monsters of all kinds. Trump and Putin are repositioning the predatory degenerates into weaker and more vulnerable positions. The evidence of this is, and will be, the lessening of human suffering as years and decades pass.
    To Saker, Your articles back to brilliant again. Stay on track.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. KenH says:

    Russia’s new weapons systems have the capability to shock and awe the U.S. and render our surface fleets inert and obsolete unless we have countermeasures nobody is aware of. The money we’ve earmarked for five new aircraft carriers is down the drain. If these weapons systems are truly operational then then all ships, especially aircraft carriers, will be floating death traps.

    Russia also has a great advantage in that it doesn’t have a large and increasing affirmative action work force as well as a growing third world population in need of government services. If a major war comes, government services will likely be drastically scaled back which will cause great internal strife in the U.S. which would damage any war effort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    This is an important point. I don't know how anybody within the USA can believe that we can continue to service a $20 trillion dollar national debt, import endless amounts of cheap crap by maintaining massive trade deficits, dole out welfare and transfer payments to an ever-growing population of dependents, and somehow fight a war with Russia and China at the same time. It is easy to see that any general mobilization would completely destroy the American domestic arrangement that has been taking for granted for so long. Just about everything we assume to be the ordinary condition of our daily life, all the assumptions upon which we make our plans and weave are actions, would go crashing to the ground and quite other conditions would take their place. This is why all our military threats are hollow. America simply cannot afford to go to war.
    , @prusmc
    The money for the new carriers goes to the emerging democrat strong holds. All these purchases were made before Trump came on the scene and the uniparty Congress will do nothing to stop that gravy train.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. FB says:
    @Alfa158
    If one percent of the ISS power capacity or, 1kW, is used to spin up the wheel, then in 1200 seconds or 20 minutes, it will be up to the speed of 1.38 radians per second. In the almost zero friction environment of space inertia will maintain the spin, with no need to expend power to maintain it. How much power the station needs to generate is a function of how quickly you need to get it up to speed. 1200 kW are only required if the space station is to be spun up to speed in one second.

    ‘…If one percent of the ISS power capacity or, 1kW, is used to spin up the wheel, then in 1200 seconds or 20 minutes, it will be up to the speed of 1.38 radians per second…’

    That’s not correct…first some basics before we get into the math…[which you have not explained as to how you are going to get that massive flywheel turning with just one kW...but I will get to that...]

    First you missed my comment that simply being at a height of 200 km altitude…is not a zero-gravity environment…the gravity here is ~9.5 m/s^2…

    Ie if you took a giant ladder and put on a space suit and climbed to 200 km height…you would be subjected to gravity force of ~9.5 m/s^2…just 5 percent less than gravity on earth’s surface…

    It is only because the orbiting spacecraft is flying at a speed of ~7.8 km/s relative to the earth’s surface…that its centrifugal force equals the earth’s gravity pull…which is why you feel weightless…

    This is why the control moment gyroscopes [CMGs...ie small spinning flywheels] on the ISS have electric motors… because changes in dynamic coupling and non-conservative effects mean those flywheels do not keep spinning with no power…

    If in your example…it takes 1,200 seconds to get up to rotational speed…that would require an angular acceleration of 0.00115 rad/s^2…

    Torque would be ~1,440 joules/radian…

    The power required would be ~2kW by the time it reaches its peak angular velocity of 1.38 rad/s…

    Here is the math…

    So the angular acceleration = 1.38 rad/s / 1200 s = 0.00115 rad/s^2

    Angular acceleration [α] is related to torque [ τ ] and inertia [ I] by…

    α = τ / I

    So rearranging that relation to solve for torque gives

    τ = α * I

    Our inertia is 1,250,000 kg*m^2 for a 50 ton wheel with radius of 5 m…[which would be unworakable for human physiological reasons as pointed out already]

    But just to stay with that particular example for illustrative purposes…

    So the torque is 0.0015 * 1,250,000 = 1,440 joule/radian…

    Where ω is the instantaneous angular velocity in rad/s…

    So at our final angular velocity of 1.38 rad/s…the power required is…

    1,440 * 1.38 = 1,990 watts…or ~2 kw…

    So your math that it would take 1 kW to get up to the rotation speed in 20 minutes is off by half…

    Anyway…the basic principle you mentioned is correct…ie in a frictionless environment it would take zero power for the flywheel to keep spinning in perpetuity…

    However…you leave out a crucial physical fact here…

    That wheel is producing a centrifugal force of ~9.5 kg*m/s^2 [per unit mass...ie 1 kg] = 9.5 newtons of force…almost identical to earth’s gravity…

    The centripetal force acting on the spokes holding the outer ring to the central shaft is therefore also 9.5 N…

    Therefore the bearings are working against friction…they are not in a frictionless environment…but in a friction environment almost identical to that on earth…

    And we find the friction force by taking the product of the coefficient of friction and the force…[we can compute this but I won't get into that now...]

    Also the starting torque of that friction must be overcome…which we have not taken into consideration…[again something that can be computed if we know the bearing friction coefficient...]

    However…the major challenge here is the massive amount of inertia that such a huge spinning wheel would create…

    The big question is…how do you control the attitude of the spacecraft when you have such a huge rotating inertia…

    The control moment gyroscopes on the ISS are crucial to maintaining the spacecraft attitude so that its solar panels are always oriented toward the sun…and for docking maneuvers etc…

    And those gyro wheels are tiny…with inertia many orders of magnitude smaller than that of such a large wheel…

    Remember…we found that for physiological reasons…the wheel cannot be much smaller than 100 m diameter…

    A 10 m wheel would cause the blood in your body to rush to your feet when you are standing…your heart would need to overcome that centrifugal force acting downward toward your feet in order to pump blood to your brain…the same as an airplane in a steeply banked turn pulling gs will cause the pilot’s blood to flow to his feet…and enough gs will cause blackout…

    For sustained habitation…a wheel of 10 m is simply not viable…it is better for the human body to be in a weightless condition than in such an environment of constant g working towards your feet…the only time this would be okay is when you are lying down and the g force is equal across your body length…

    So a massive wheel of 100 m diameter is going to weigh many hundreds of tons…its inertia will be truly massive…

    In order to be able to control the attitude of the spacecraft…even just to make small corrections…would require at least three more control gyros of equal inertia…

    They would not need to necessarily be as big because inertia is function of radius, mass and angular velocity…so a smaller radius and mass but spinning at a higher speed can still provide an equal amount of inertia…

    Now…adjusting the spacecraft attitude with those control moment gyros requires applying a force that will tilt their axis of rotation…

    Overcoming that inertia is going to require application of a huge quantity of force…that requires huge amounts of power…

    And here we get into the coupling effects…ie how changes in the inertia of one spinning wheel affect another…

    And just as with the small gyros on the ISS…there are non-conservative effects…which requires application of power to those gyros to overcome…which is why they have electric motors…

    Those gyro bearings do fail…here is an interesting Nasa technical article on that…and lessons learned…

    Bottom line is this…it will take massive amounts of power to implement an artificial gravity environment in orbit…or even in deep space outside of earth’s orbit…

    Your point about spinning up the ‘hamster wheel’ requiring little relative power is correct [although your math is not]…

    But your simple assertion is too general to be of any practical use…and fails to take into account the other major factors I have discussed here…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. peterAUS says:
    @paulllll
    Magnificent claims are made for Russian weapons systems. And it certainly seems clear, based on what has happened in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, that the Russian military is far from incompetent these days. At the same time, Russia's involvement in those conflicts seems to demonstrate that the Russian military is far from invincible. Meanwhile, the more extreme claims made for the Russian military, especially for its supposedly wondrous new technologies, do increasingly come off as bogus. Russian air defense systems, for example, can be invincible as long as they are never used. Russian futuristic technology can look like a game changer as long as it remains in the form of bad animation. Technical prowess is claimed for Russian weapons and this leads to sales. That perhaps is the real point of such claims. It may be that the real purpose of the Russian military is the same as the real purpose (0r a real purpose) of the US military: to be a cash cow.

    Meanwhile Russia seems to forget that there is a difference between an ally and a vassal, though Putin used to talk about this difference a lot. The US treats all other powers as vassals. As a result, the US has no real allies. It seems the US wants more to be feared than loved. Russia still has many allies, but it treats them like vassals. Here too Russia seems to emulate exactly those characteristics of the US that it once rightly critiqued. I suspect that Russia will end up with neither allies nor vassals.

    Putin attracted global attention because of some of the startlingly brave and true things he used to say, long ago. Who can ever forget Putin saying to the Western Powers, about Syria, "do you finally realize what you have done?!" He then seemed to represent a global conscience. But that morally courageous Putin is long gone. The Putin we see now wants one thing and one thing only: a seat at the table where deals are made.

    So the most important message to come out of Putin's recent grandstanding may simply be the one he sent to Russia's allies, which was yet another reiteration that Russia will NEVER defend an ally. I'm sure both Syria and Iran have gotten the message loud and clear by now. Russia thinks in terms of power. Those who have power that Russia must respect Russia will negotiate with for a chunk of whatever deals are made. The US is at the top of that list. The US' key vassals are close to the top of that list too. Vassals, those nations who to some degree depend on Russia's protection, must kowtow to Russia. They must recognize that their cooperation is a lot of what Russia brings to the table when it looks to cut deals. If they fail to cooperate they risk being left to the ruthless mercies of the US and its vassals.

    Russia thus has played an important role in the rise of the global police state, the absolute global Hegemon. Russia has been like the seemingly brave guy on the playground who challenged the bully's rule. In the end it turned out that the seemingly brave kid really just wanted to be the bully's liutenant. Any resistance to the bully ended up more disorganized and disheartened than before, because it was misled by the 'brave kid'.

    Whatever Russia does, it has a fine line to walk. One must hope that Russia will somehow come to realize - though it looks like such realization cannot come via Putin or the folks around him - that realpolitik, by itself, is a road to hell. Truth and justice do matter. There is much more to real leadership than the 'art of the deal'.

    A very good post.
    Agree with all.

    This

    Any resistance to the bully ended up more disorganized and disheartened than before, because it was misled by the ‘brave kid’.

    is the most interesting part I think.

    I believe that Novorossya is a rather good example of that.
    Maybe even Serbia and Macedonia.

    Probably some nationalist movements in West too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Kiza
    I believe that the truth is somewhere in between you and FB. It is true that the gravity wheel would be spinning frictionless and that one needs to add momentum to it, the usual favorite would be by propulsion thrusters. But over time there would be small gravitational disturbances and the movements inside the wheel which would reduce the momentum and would thus require a small periodic addition of momentum.

    The only friction component of the gravity wheel could be the entry point or the space-craft docking station, as in Space Odyssey 2001.

    Finally, obviously having gravity in space would be necessary only for the long-term stay or long-range flight and this is why the gravity wheel was never been employed yet, except in SF.

    It is true that the gravity wheel would be spinning frictionless and that one needs to add momentum to it, the usual favorite would be by propulsion thrusters. But over time there would be small gravitational disturbances and the movements inside the wheel which would reduce the momentum and would thus require a small periodic addition of momentum.

    It would not be spinning frictionless. These gravity wheels are greatly misunderstood by the science fiction crowd who seem to erroneously assume that they are capable of exerting an endless amount of force. In fact the so-called “artificial gravity” is nothing but friction—i.e. the static friction of your feet against the interior surface of the wheel which, acting along with the normal force, provides an impediment to your instantaneous linear velocity which is experienced as the centrifugal force, that is to say the artificial gravity.

    With every step you took inside the wheel, you would be exerting a frictional force on the wheel acting in a direction opposite of the spin and would be steadily converting the wheel’s angular momentum into heat. This is the cost of “feeling” the force of artificial gravity, which can be easily demonstrated by the following thought experiment.

    Suppose you were inhabiting a non-spinning toroidial space station. You and the station are both in orbital free fall and are not in relative motion. You are floating in the annulus section equidistant between the floor and the ceiling. It is only then that the wheel is spun up. Would you experience any artificial gravity? No, you would continue to float there as the ring spun past you. It would only be after making contact with some surface within the ring—perhaps by huffing and puffing and blowing your way back down to the floor—that the ring’s angular momentum would impart to you a tangential velocity that you could “feel” as artificial gravity. This situation would essentially repeat itself with each step you took, as with each step you briefly reenter that state of free fall. Angular momentum would continue to be exchanged between you and the wheel with no net loss, but the frictional cost of constantly recovering that tangential velocity would be lost as heat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...It would not be spinning frictionless. These gravity wheels are greatly misunderstood by the science fiction crowd who seem to erroneously assume that they are capable of exerting an endless amount of force...'
     
    Absolutely correct...

    As I noted in my above #119...

    Besides the force exerted by the human movement...we also have the centripetal force acting on the bearings...just like on earth as I explained above...

    '...Angular momentum would continue to be exchanged between you and the wheel with no net loss, but the frictional cost of constantly recovering that tangential velocity would be lost as heat...'
     
    That's a very sound physical explanation that takes into account conservation of energy...

    I admit that I made a basic error in terms of continuous power required to keep that wheel spinning...

    However...the critiques were even worse as you point out...and once we take into account all the other major factors...such as the power required to control the craft attitude with control moment gyros of massive inertia...we find that the overall power requirements are still huge...
    , @Kiza

    But over time there would be small gravitational disturbances and the movements inside the wheel
     
    What I called above "the movements" are possible only thanks to the friction between the soles of the feet and the wheel, you just ignored what I wrote and re-stated it as your own.

    As to any other friction, it is needed only between the wheel and any non-rotating section, but one could easily envisage a design without any non-rotating section, it really depends on what the wheel is for.

    Otherwise, you and FB totally exaggerate the energy needed to keep the wheel rotating. Based on your descriptions I am imagining poor astronauts or cosmonauts with soles of their feet constantly on fire (from friction) to spend the momentum of a "100 meter rotating wheel" - LOL. Really silly.

    Finally, you are jumping between different applications of a rotating gravitational wheel: is it for an orbital station or is it for a spaceship going somewhere? If it is for a spaceship going somewhere then the gyroscopic-effect of rotation would be negligible part of the overall linear momentum of the ship towards its destination.

    Sorry, but I have no more time to engage in this discussion, although it is somewhat interesting and a nice break from politics.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. peterAUS says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Hence and for the foreseeable future, the Russians will have to continue on their current, admittedly frustrating and even painful course, and maintain a relatively passive and evasive posture which the Empire and its sycophants will predictably interpret as a sign of weakness. Let them... and as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working.
     
    As an imperial sycophant, i.e. someone not into masochism, it would be nice if The Saker could give some hard limits on when precisely he would consider the "Putin Plan" to be in trouble.

    1. When the "best choice of the Ukrainian people" Poroshenko seizes back the LDNR through military force and on Ukrainian conditions (as he promised to do just yesterday).

    2. When "good friend" Erdogan shoves another "knife in our back"?

    3. When the "Western partners" organize a Maidan to overthrow Lukashenko?

    4. When Russia gives Crimea back to the Ukraine?

    5. When Arkady Babchenko drives an Abrams tank onto Red Square?

    6. When Putin is hauled before the Hague and President Navalny starts negotiating reparations terms with the Ukraine?

    My thought on the “red line” for the regime in Kremlin:
    When Putin and his team realize they’ll be hauled before the Hague.

    Not before.

    The “plan”

    as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working

    is for the masses.

    The real plan is “enjoy while it lasts by trading terrain for time, hoping that something will change in US. Change enough to be able to cut that last deal as his predecessor.”
    Not a bad plan if you are one of them.
    For the rest, ah well…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    How many divisions does The Hague have for that to happen?
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Just to be clear, I don't, of course, literally consider that Putin & Co. will be hauled off to the Hague in any but a miniscule fraction of possible universes. I think #1 is quite possible if not likely (I hope), #3 may happen but probably not during this decade, and #4 and higher I would basically exclude.

    My point with this is to encourage The Saker & Co. to actually draw a line in the sand so far as their faith in Grandmaster Putin's skill at 666D chess is concerned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @KenH
    Russia's new weapons systems have the capability to shock and awe the U.S. and render our surface fleets inert and obsolete unless we have countermeasures nobody is aware of. The money we've earmarked for five new aircraft carriers is down the drain. If these weapons systems are truly operational then then all ships, especially aircraft carriers, will be floating death traps.

    Russia also has a great advantage in that it doesn't have a large and increasing affirmative action work force as well as a growing third world population in need of government services. If a major war comes, government services will likely be drastically scaled back which will cause great internal strife in the U.S. which would damage any war effort.

    This is an important point. I don’t know how anybody within the USA can believe that we can continue to service a $20 trillion dollar national debt, import endless amounts of cheap crap by maintaining massive trade deficits, dole out welfare and transfer payments to an ever-growing population of dependents, and somehow fight a war with Russia and China at the same time. It is easy to see that any general mobilization would completely destroy the American domestic arrangement that has been taking for granted for so long. Just about everything we assume to be the ordinary condition of our daily life, all the assumptions upon which we make our plans and weave are actions, would go crashing to the ground and quite other conditions would take their place. This is why all our military threats are hollow. America simply cannot afford to go to war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pogohere
    Unhealthy state of affairs: Three-quarters of young Americans unfit for military service, study says

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=167028
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. peterAUS says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc?
     
    They can discuss art, cars engines, sport and similar subjects because none of them is classified. Nothing hilarious about that unless the debate is between two nincompoops. What is hilarious is when people discuss matters of highly clasified nature of which they do not even have the slightest idea. All they are doing is spinning fantasies. Only people with the highest security clearance know something about these subjects and do not discuss them in the open.

    I’d venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.
     
    The dicsussions would still be hilarious for the same above mentioned reasons. You most likely meant deployment and that of course would be less hilarious. No worry there though. Since fairly early in my age I realized how dangerous humanity is and I have always lived on its fringes just in case it looses its collective mind, something it is never very far off of doing.

    If by “something foolish” you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you’ve hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it’s saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it’s exhausted.
     
    Russia's enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically.
     
    Not very original. Just another term he borowed from the West which coined the term first.

    Agree.
    Especially with

    Russia’s enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.

    and, on a personal level, if I may say, with

    Since fairly early in my age I realized how dangerous humanity is and I have always lived on its fringes just in case it looses its collective mind, something it is never very far off of doing.

    Watching all this “Russia collusion” thing, for me, shows that we are probably getting uncomfortably close to that point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. peterAUS says:
    @Michael Kenny
    Obviously the "Putin's invincible arsenal" line isn't selling! Putin's problem is that he doesn't have a democratic culture. He's just a recycled secret policeman. It doesn't seem to have dawned on him that those of us who have lived all our lives in democracies were inevitably going to see a speech so close to the election as mere empty electioneering. Thus, he has now lurched into yet another blunder (his seventh by my count) and has ended up with the worst of both worlds. The wider public simply doesn't believe him but NATO leaders will steal his American supporters' clothes, so to speak, by pretending to believe him and use the speech to bog him down in an arms race. Thus, the more said American supporters frantically try to convince us that all these wonder weapons are real, the more they bog their champion down in the very things that brought the Soviet Union down: an unwinnable guerrilla war and an unaffordable arms race.

    Agree.
    Especially with

    an unaffordable arms race

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. prusmc says: • Website
    @KenH
    Russia's new weapons systems have the capability to shock and awe the U.S. and render our surface fleets inert and obsolete unless we have countermeasures nobody is aware of. The money we've earmarked for five new aircraft carriers is down the drain. If these weapons systems are truly operational then then all ships, especially aircraft carriers, will be floating death traps.

    Russia also has a great advantage in that it doesn't have a large and increasing affirmative action work force as well as a growing third world population in need of government services. If a major war comes, government services will likely be drastically scaled back which will cause great internal strife in the U.S. which would damage any war effort.

    The money for the new carriers goes to the emerging democrat strong holds. All these purchases were made before Trump came on the scene and the uniparty Congress will do nothing to stop that gravy train.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Obviously the “Putin’s invincible arsenal” line isn’t selling! Putin’s problem is that he doesn’t have a democratic culture. He’s just a recycled secret policeman. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on him that those of us who have lived all our lives in democracies were inevitably going to see a speech so close to the election as mere empty electioneering. Thus, he has now lurched into yet another blunder (his seventh by my count) and has ended up with the worst of both worlds. The wider public simply doesn’t believe him but NATO leaders will steal his American supporters’ clothes, so to speak, by pretending to believe him and use the speech to bog him down in an arms race. Thus, the more said American supporters frantically try to convince us that all these wonder weapons are real, the more they bog their champion down in the very things that brought the Soviet Union down: an unwinnable guerrilla war and an unaffordable arms race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree.
    Especially with

    an unaffordable arms race
     
    , @ValmMond
    Americans won't believe any story of which they are not the heroes.

    "those of us who have lived all our lives in democracies"
     
    I'm afraid, these "democracy" places of yours are just voices in your head. Actually, coming from your TV set. Democracy has been invented by and for courageous, free and smart people. Those Athenian citizens who voted for a war were the first ones to go fight the Spartans. The so called "people's representatives" in the collective West are either cowards and pussies or powerless stooges of your corporate overlords.
    Your Congress has been bought and paid for by lobbyists and foreign countries. You have dual passport-holders with big conflicts of interest conducting your foreign policy.
    Realize that terms as "democracy", "justice", "equality" etc. are empty tropes and ideological constructs. They are thrown at you not to inform you, but to exact your consent.

    "the very things that brought the Soviet Union down: an unwinnable guerrilla war and an unaffordable arms race."
     

    None of these things brought the Soviet Union down. It was the fatal, momentary naivety of the Soviet leaders and their blind trust in the West's "good intentions". We've came to our sense since.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. FB says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    It is true that the gravity wheel would be spinning frictionless and that one needs to add momentum to it, the usual favorite would be by propulsion thrusters. But over time there would be small gravitational disturbances and the movements inside the wheel which would reduce the momentum and would thus require a small periodic addition of momentum.
     
    It would not be spinning frictionless. These gravity wheels are greatly misunderstood by the science fiction crowd who seem to erroneously assume that they are capable of exerting an endless amount of force. In fact the so-called "artificial gravity" is nothing but friction---i.e. the static friction of your feet against the interior surface of the wheel which, acting along with the normal force, provides an impediment to your instantaneous linear velocity which is experienced as the centrifugal force, that is to say the artificial gravity.

    With every step you took inside the wheel, you would be exerting a frictional force on the wheel acting in a direction opposite of the spin and would be steadily converting the wheel's angular momentum into heat. This is the cost of "feeling" the force of artificial gravity, which can be easily demonstrated by the following thought experiment.

    Suppose you were inhabiting a non-spinning toroidial space station. You and the station are both in orbital free fall and are not in relative motion. You are floating in the annulus section equidistant between the floor and the ceiling. It is only then that the wheel is spun up. Would you experience any artificial gravity? No, you would continue to float there as the ring spun past you. It would only be after making contact with some surface within the ring---perhaps by huffing and puffing and blowing your way back down to the floor---that the ring's angular momentum would impart to you a tangential velocity that you could "feel" as artificial gravity. This situation would essentially repeat itself with each step you took, as with each step you briefly reenter that state of free fall. Angular momentum would continue to be exchanged between you and the wheel with no net loss, but the frictional cost of constantly recovering that tangential velocity would be lost as heat.

    ‘…It would not be spinning frictionless. These gravity wheels are greatly misunderstood by the science fiction crowd who seem to erroneously assume that they are capable of exerting an endless amount of force…’

    Absolutely correct…

    As I noted in my above #119…

    Besides the force exerted by the human movement…we also have the centripetal force acting on the bearings…just like on earth as I explained above…

    ‘…Angular momentum would continue to be exchanged between you and the wheel with no net loss, but the frictional cost of constantly recovering that tangential velocity would be lost as heat…’

    That’s a very sound physical explanation that takes into account conservation of energy…

    I admit that I made a basic error in terms of continuous power required to keep that wheel spinning…

    However…the critiques were even worse as you point out…and once we take into account all the other major factors…such as the power required to control the craft attitude with control moment gyros of massive inertia…we find that the overall power requirements are still huge…

    Read More
    • Replies: @foolisholdman
    I don't know how practical it would be, I am too lazy to do the maths, but perhaps the "artificial gravity" part of your spacecraft could be in the form of an assembly of two counter-rotating wheels, thus giving you zero (external) gyroscopic effect. Admittedly, it would put a pretty large strain on the bearings, but it would also give you a place from which to exert the force required to make the wheels rotate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. FB says:
    @Polymath
    FB, how the heck do you get away with converting energy to power by dividing by the unit “second”? You are confusing the power that would be needed to get the wheel up to speed in one second with the power that would be needed to get it up to speed in however long it takes; and you’re also confusing a one-time expenditure of energy with an ongoing need for power. There is something called “conservation of angular momentum” involved here: once it is spinning it keeps spinning, the vacuum of space in earth orbit is not perfect but the amount of power needed to overcome that friction is minuscule.

    ‘…FB, how the heck do you get away with converting energy to power by dividing by the unit “second”?..’

    In consistent units…ie SI… the time unit is second…

    Power is work …which is force * distance… ie newtons * meters…or in the case of rotational work it is joules/radians…

    Maybe you need a refresher…

    ‘…You are confusing the power that would be needed to get the wheel up to speed in one second with the power that would be needed to get it up to speed in however long it takes; and you’re also confusing a one-time expenditure of energy with an ongoing need for power…’

    Yes…this is basically correct…as I have already admitted…and have provided an accurate computation of how much power would be required to get it up to speed…

    However…and this is a very big one…the ongoing need for power would still be huge as I explained above…just not for the same reason I originally stated…

    ‘…once it is spinning it keeps spinning, the vacuum of space in earth orbit is not perfect but the amount of power needed to overcome that friction is minuscule…’

    This is completely incorrect…as I have discussed already in detail…and is based on a faulty assumption about the ‘vacuum’ of space…

    Please see my comments above and that of ‘Intelligent Dasein’…

    In short the artificial gravity produces just as much bearing friction as on earth…by means of the centripetal force…

    Even more important as Dasein noted is that human movement will cause loss of angular velocity…

    So we have two very real losses…ie bearing frriction [not a vacuum] and human force interaction…both of which will shed energy as waste heat…and will need to be recovered…by application of power…

    And the biggest issue is the huge amount of power that will be required to keep the spacecraft controllable with such a huge inertia produced by the gravity wheel…

    All of these factors combined…plus the need for a much bigger wheel [due to physiological reasons] will likely increase my original power estimates greatly…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    In my innovation days, I was asked to find other applications for the bearing monitor of the London Eye. Heavily loaded slow speed bearings are rather difficult to monitor. The power consumption to move the wheel was minute. 500 W maximum demand. Accelerations were of course very modest but frequent - passenger loading for every car.

    The question of spokes and a bearing in space is interesting. I don't see the need. A ring could be fitted with actuators to compensate for fluctuations in I. That said, the best place to dock a ship would be at the centre with requirements to spin the ship to match the space station and to compensate for momentum changes as ships docked and left. Also, maintaining the circular shape of the ring against uneven loading would require spokes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @FB

    '...Those Armata tanks are due in 2030. These “new” weapons will need the 7% growth rate to be sustainable...'
     
    Interesting...

    Clearly there is a rigorous mathematical analysis behind this assertion...would you be kind enough to share that with us...?

    '...Oil is down for along [sic] time...'
     
    Interesting again...

    Where exactly does one get a degree in fortune-telling...?


    https://s20.postimg.org/eyp92dkot/Fig-2-1-_Fortune-teller.jpg

    There was a Russian language announcement by the defence minister nearly a year ago about the Armata. It was in Russia Gazette. I have actually visited Russian factories including those owned by the Ministry of Defence Industry. Maths beyond the eyesight theorem is not needed. Anyway, there is no capital around. Most private firms capable of investment did it already and are carrying too. Uch debt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @FB

    '...Those Armata tanks are due in 2030. These “new” weapons will need the 7% growth rate to be sustainable...'
     
    Interesting...

    Clearly there is a rigorous mathematical analysis behind this assertion...would you be kind enough to share that with us...?

    '...Oil is down for along [sic] time...'
     
    Interesting again...

    Where exactly does one get a degree in fortune-telling...?


    https://s20.postimg.org/eyp92dkot/Fig-2-1-_Fortune-teller.jpg

    The oil price comes from Prof Minford.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Not to worry.
    We have Common Core math!

    Augmented by Common Core science.

    What could measure up to that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. Cyrano says:
    @Anonymous
    Agree. Obviously Russia is a serious country that has nukes. But the claim they are "decades" ahead of us seems a wee bit exaggerated. Both the US Establishment and the pro-Russia crowd talk a lot of trash, to be blunt.

    Also, an election is coming up in Russia soon, so it is smart politics for Putin to give Russian men something to beat their chest about.

    Of course, there are those mysterious UFO objects the military reported off the coast .... could it be new technology?

    Also, an election is coming up in Russia soon, so it is smart politics for Putin to give Russian men something to beat their chest about.

    You are absolutely right, because the Russians have nothing else to be proud of in their history. They are so devoid of any major achievements – especially in the military domain, unlike US who have accomplished so much – like Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Libya and so many more epic victories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. USSA says:

    In which Saker pops the last crucial zit every USA apparatchik tries to cover up. The thing that dooms US mobilization is the third-degree path dependence of its kleptocratic defense industrial base. Monopsony procurement anchors a rigid hierarchy of dependent firms. Profit recapture requires revenue growth based on malversation at the highest echelons of DoD. The revolving door is only one part. The thing that casts the corruption in concrete is institutionalized diversion of resources from current work to more and more prospective programs. This is procurement fraud, but the Pentagon cannot stamp it out. Suppression would destabilize the revolving door. It’s a vicious cycle that dissipates expenditure. That’s why the US spends ten times as much as Russia, and pisses away 95% of it, falling further and further behind.

    People will be surprised at how brittle the US regime turns out to be. When the beltway goose succumbs to gavage, smaller, saner successor states can emerge by the simple expedient of accepting the responsibility the US government shirks. By acceding to the UN Charter, the International Bill of Human Rights, and the Rome Statute, states gain the legal sovereignty that the US regime forfeited long ago. It’s secession at a stroke, authorized by international law and precedent. The inducement, the newest deal, is the American peoples’ right to peace and development. These principles of customary international law require diversion of resources from war back to economic and social rights. American states and regions simply turn to the authority Saker mentions: a multipolar world jointly administered by sovereign nations respectful of international law. That’s here now. It’s already in place. The only thing that keeps Americans from seeing it is immersive state propaganda.

    Russians know that because they’ve been through it. When COMECON collapsed, successor states like Russia had no time to reconstitute their state. They grabbed at the only support they had, the Helsinki Final Act. That is why Russia has leapfrogged the US in human rights compliance and international standing as advocates of rule of law.

    It’s time to do to the USA what we did to the USSR. Make it go away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. ValmMond says:
    @Michael Kenny
    Obviously the "Putin's invincible arsenal" line isn't selling! Putin's problem is that he doesn't have a democratic culture. He's just a recycled secret policeman. It doesn't seem to have dawned on him that those of us who have lived all our lives in democracies were inevitably going to see a speech so close to the election as mere empty electioneering. Thus, he has now lurched into yet another blunder (his seventh by my count) and has ended up with the worst of both worlds. The wider public simply doesn't believe him but NATO leaders will steal his American supporters' clothes, so to speak, by pretending to believe him and use the speech to bog him down in an arms race. Thus, the more said American supporters frantically try to convince us that all these wonder weapons are real, the more they bog their champion down in the very things that brought the Soviet Union down: an unwinnable guerrilla war and an unaffordable arms race.

    Americans won’t believe any story of which they are not the heroes.

    “those of us who have lived all our lives in democracies”

    I’m afraid, these “democracy” places of yours are just voices in your head. Actually, coming from your TV set. Democracy has been invented by and for courageous, free and smart people. Those Athenian citizens who voted for a war were the first ones to go fight the Spartans. The so called “people’s representatives” in the collective West are either cowards and pussies or powerless stooges of your corporate overlords.
    Your Congress has been bought and paid for by lobbyists and foreign countries. You have dual passport-holders with big conflicts of interest conducting your foreign policy.
    Realize that terms as “democracy”, “justice”, “equality” etc. are empty tropes and ideological constructs. They are thrown at you not to inform you, but to exact your consent.

    “the very things that brought the Soviet Union down: an unwinnable guerrilla war and an unaffordable arms race.”

    None of these things brought the Soviet Union down. It was the fatal, momentary naivety of the Soviet leaders and their blind trust in the West’s “good intentions”. We’ve came to our sense since.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @FB

    '...I would like to hear more from Musk about asteroid mining, permanent space habitats with “gravity” provided by centripetal force...'
     
    Why ask Musk...?...any science teacher could explain this to you...[and had you been paying attention in class you might not even need to ask...]

    A 'gravity' environment in space where the gravitational force from earth is not present can be made by using a spinning wheel...

    Think of a hamster wheel...


    https://s20.postimg.org/aufk20yp9/The-_Hamster-_Wheel-_Lifestyle.jpg


    Only instead of you spinning the wheel...the wheel would be spinning while you stood there or walked along its circumference...or sat down or whatever...

    The important thing is that the 'gravity environment' is the area along the inside circumference of that wheel...

    In space y0u would not feel the wheel actually moving...since the only inertial frame of reference is the wheel itself...

    So as long as the habitable quarters were confined to the outside perimeter of that wheel it would feel quite 'normal...'

    We recall the centrifugal force pulls a spinning object out...and centripetal force resists the object from flying away...[if there is something to hold it with]

    Think of the hammer throw in the Olympics...the guy spinning that heavy ball on the end of a chain is creating a centrifugal force on the spinning ball that wants to hurl it outward...while the chain is providing the opposite centripetal force that keeps it from doing so...

    Ie they are equal and opposite forces as long as the guy spinning it holds on to it...

    In the case of the gravity wheel...the structure holding it from flying away would be the radial spokes...ie radiating from the center like a bicycle wheel...

    So to put some numbers to our gravity machine...

    Let's say the thing has an overall diameter of 10 meters [33 ft]...which gives a radius of 5 m...

    It would need to spin at about 0.22 revolutions per second in order to produce a force of 9.5 m/s^2...earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth's surface...so this would be very close...

    We find this result by recalling that centrifugal force [like any force] is mass times acceleration...in the case of a wheel it is angular acceleration...

    So we get Force = Velocity^2 / radius...[radius is 5 m]

    The circumference of a 10 m wheel is 31.4 m...[10 m * pi = 31.4 m]

    Rotating at a speed 0.22 rev/s gives an angular velocity of 6.9 m/s...

    So... 6.9^2 / 5 = 9.55 m/s^2...close to the force of gravity...

    Now the main challenge is where to get the power to spin that giant hamster wheel...

    To calculate the power we consider the hamster wheel as a flywheel...whose energy [angular kinetic energy] is given by...

    E = Inertia * angular velocity squared / 2

    Here we note that most of the mass of the wheel will be concentrated on its outside perimeter where the gravity will be felt...and where the living quarters will be...we will consider the mass of the spokes negligible...

    We make these assumptions in order to find the moment of inertia...which for a thin-walled empty cylinder [similar to our geometry...and unlike a flywheel of solid cylindrical geometry]...

    Moment of inertia for a thin-walled empty cylinder is given as mass times radius squared...

    so...10,000 kg * 5^2 = 1,250,000 kg*m^2

    The rotational energy required is given by

    E = 1/2 Inertia * angular velocity squared...[as noted above]

    Our angular velocity is given in radians per second...which is our rotational speed of 0.22 rev/s times 2pi...= 1.38 rad/s

    So our energy required is ~2.4 million joules...[1,250,000 * 1.3^2 / 2 = ~1.2 million joules...

    We recall that power is defined as energy over time...so the power required is 12. million j/s= 1.2 million watts...

    That is 1,200 kW...or 1.2 MW...which is ~1,600 horsepower...

    We consider that the ISS is capable of producing ~100 kw [134 hp] from all of its solar panels...

    So we see that this gravity machine would require about 16 times more power than is available to the entire space station...

    Where does that power come from...?

    Maybe Musk will figure it out...[but don't hold your breath...he still hasn't figured out how to build turbopumps for his rocket engines...which are built by Barber Nichols...]

    In any case it is clear that the only viable source of that much power would be nuclear...

    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning. Once it had got up to speed there would be very little, even in LEO to slow it down. True it might take a while to spin it up to speed, but once there, it would take very little to keep it going.

    Read More
    • Replies: @skrik

    an assembly of two counter-rotating wheels
     
    Neat idea! Just put an electric motor in the hub 'joining' the two wheels, with one of the wheels connected to the stator and the other to the rotor. Spins up perfectly synchronized, all on its own! rgds
    , @CanSpeccy

    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning.
     
    Whatever power is required to keep the capsule spinning is no more than the power exerted by astronauts walking around inside, which is not much, and only that if they generally walk in the direction counter to the direction of capsule rotation. If some walked in the other direction, the effect of astronauts walking back and forth would cancel out and the speed of capsule rotation would be unaffected. Is that not so?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. edNels says:

    The development of standard size ocean shipping containers has been occurring for over 50 years. Whole dedicated ships and dock facilities were in place by the mid 1960′s and have continuously expanded to overtake all other systems except bulk.

    However even as long back as…(+/-) 1980′s there was still extensive dockside surveying of cargo for many reasons including quality, legitimacy, infestation, smuggling etc. When the containers reached a certain stage of dominating the amount of cargo coming into port at docks, inspections became more spotty, and also moved to other designations where cargo was ”devanned” often out of state with non union labor (how cool is that?$).

    But the idea that ”Containers” could be used to HIDE things, isn’t new! They even use them for Illegal Immigration! So, bad things can be in containers going down the Freeway, and it looks so ordinary, nobody even looks into them anymore, it would be Too Expensive, and take too much valuable real estate to do so more clever surveillance is employed instead of open inspection requiring untold time and labor.

    Supposedly there are huge X-ray devices that could see inside and see it, but who know’s how good that works? The way they do things since the bldgs collapsed, no telling if there could be stuff secreted away prepositioned like by the bad guys huh?

    They never should have let those containers get away like that, ruined the waterfronts all over the world, nothing but tin cans everywhere. Stevadores are more in danger of getting board from the sameness of the damned things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. @Erebus

    Nobody is going to invade Russia with conventional forces. Ever.That option died after Soviet Union developed the first thermonuclear nuke, if not earlier.
     
    Not much earlier, as a few years before they developed their first nuke they were indeed invaded. Does "Barbarossa" ring a bell? Is there a bell left?

    I’ll try to explain (not that you’ll get it)
     
    I guarantee I won't get it if you're incoherent.

    Anyhow, invasion by a land force is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that a significant faction in the US' military-strategic brain trust thinks it can and must destroy Russia (using nukes if necessary) before it's too late. The Empire needs control of Eurasia's resources, or to at least prevent their control by anyone else, or it is, by its own admission, doomed. That has been the US' publicly stated, explicit, pre-eminent Imperial Imperative since the early '90s. You speak as if you are utterly unaware of it, but you can bet the Russians, Chinese, and most of your interlocutors here are. To interpret events in ignorance of the policies that drive them is to fall into the morass of nonsense and/or irrelevance you continue to dump on the table here.

    Carrying on...
    Since then, the US' elites have proved more than willing to sacrifice their citizens' well-being, indeed to create/exploit domestic socio-political divisions, in pursuit of that end. You may not be aware of this either, but there's at least as much resentment (however inchoate) in the US at being impoverished by this policy as there may be in Russia's defence against it. Russia will overwhelmingly elect Putin, whereas Trump's election has exposed both the resentment and the divisions.

    Given that, and given that all non-kinetic attempts to get them to back off have failed, and further given that all non-kinetic and kinetic efforts by the Empire towards that end have also failed, the nuclear option looms ever larger. Putin's announcement can be seen as yet another attempt at a non-kinetic attempt to get the Empire to back down.

    The Russian obsession with resource control is a Marxist hangover. Oil still gets sold despite all those National Oil Companies. Resources are no good in the ground. Even the Norwegians and Kuwaitis still sell oil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    The Russian obsession with resource control is a Marxist hangover.
     
    Really? I wasn't aware that the Russians had an "obsession with resource control" beyond what any sovereign would have. Please elaborate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Quartermaster
    Saker has made more than a few minor misses. Putin has done some wishcasting, and that's about all.

    The nuke powered cruise missile is good example. merely testing it would result in irradiating everything in the flight path. The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test. The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems. Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don't exist either.

    Putin is a KGB thug. In spite of what most people thought, the primary function of the KGB in the west was spreading disinformation. In spite of what grinning, drooling morons Putin told about these "weapons" think, the probability of such things existing are nil.

    The Russophobia thing is another bit of idiocy Saker is in love with. The Collusion thing the DimoKKKRats are taken with doesn't exist. The Dims are simply trying to neutralize Trump, who would like to normalize relations with Russia, but can't because of the criminality that is rampant in Putin's regime. The business in Ukraine is only a symptom. The internals of Russia, however, will destroy the country.

    Russia does not bluff, especially with the lives of hundreds of millions at stake – beleiveing whqt Putin says is true. Of course it is, and you know it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Beckow says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc?
     
    They can discuss art, cars engines, sport and similar subjects because none of them is classified. Nothing hilarious about that unless the debate is between two nincompoops. What is hilarious is when people discuss matters of highly clasified nature of which they do not even have the slightest idea. All they are doing is spinning fantasies. Only people with the highest security clearance know something about these subjects and do not discuss them in the open.

    I’d venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.
     
    The dicsussions would still be hilarious for the same above mentioned reasons. You most likely meant deployment and that of course would be less hilarious. No worry there though. Since fairly early in my age I realized how dangerous humanity is and I have always lived on its fringes just in case it looses its collective mind, something it is never very far off of doing.

    If by “something foolish” you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you’ve hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it’s saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it’s exhausted.
     
    Russia's enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically.
     
    Not very original. Just another term he borowed from the West which coined the term first.

    Russia’s enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange

    They have rushed the Maidan thing, and messed it up. The side that is not in a hurry is the one that has time on its side. Who has time on their side? Who is getting strategically stronger?

    If you plug in resources, demographics, technology and geography, Western Europe will decline and so will Middle East, India and Africa. China, Australia, southern part of South America and parts of East Asia will get stronger.

    Eastern Europe, Canada, US and rest of Latin America are a toss-up – it depends on what they do. They have the resources, but politically they are very weak and they can collapse demographically (Third World migration or simply being already inescapably part of the Third World.)

    Russia is well positioned. It has 1/4 of world’s resources – energy, minerals, arable land, water – for a stable, well educated population of 140-160 million people. It can keep up with the technology because of its educated population. It can keep itself from being overrun by migrants from the south. And, it has the f..ing nukes. Russia usually collapses because of internal discord or a collapse of will (something to do with DNA predisposition that tends towards extremes). The current hostilities have stiffened Russia’s internal will.

    Who has time on their side? US and its allies are slowly losing grip. The ‘soft power’ collapse is a subjective event, it might not happen for a while, or it could happen suddenly (Hollywood really sucks today). The problem is that the allies are in deep trouble. Especially the hapless, post-modern Western European societies that march under rainbow flags, demanding open borders and an end to ‘hatred’. Good luck with that.

    Russia seems better positioned, their main allies like China are solid for now. They have the geographic and resources upper hand. If they play it cool, time will be on their side. Power always follows material strength. That’s why Washington has rushed a few things lately, they know that time is not on their side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anatoly Karlin

    Hence and for the foreseeable future, the Russians will have to continue on their current, admittedly frustrating and even painful course, and maintain a relatively passive and evasive posture which the Empire and its sycophants will predictably interpret as a sign of weakness. Let them... and as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working.
     
    As an imperial sycophant, i.e. someone not into masochism, it would be nice if The Saker could give some hard limits on when precisely he would consider the "Putin Plan" to be in trouble.

    1. When the "best choice of the Ukrainian people" Poroshenko seizes back the LDNR through military force and on Ukrainian conditions (as he promised to do just yesterday).

    2. When "good friend" Erdogan shoves another "knife in our back"?

    3. When the "Western partners" organize a Maidan to overthrow Lukashenko?

    4. When Russia gives Crimea back to the Ukraine?

    5. When Arkady Babchenko drives an Abrams tank onto Red Square?

    6. When Putin is hauled before the Hague and President Navalny starts negotiating reparations terms with the Ukraine?

    My encouragement to Ukranians:

    democracy is a slow process– just because it is rife with issues — is not cause for revolution every ten years — especially violent revolutions.

    And one of the features of elections is that when you don’t like the direction the country is going — you can always vote for new leaders with a different direction in mind.

    the next time the west comes calling encouraging violent revolt, consider what stakes they have in the game and what they willing to invest in the success of said revolution or might simply say,

    “get lost” there’s very little if anything democratic about democracy at the point of a knife. No better evidenced than by black US citizens.

    ___________________________________

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @FB

    '...It would not be spinning frictionless. These gravity wheels are greatly misunderstood by the science fiction crowd who seem to erroneously assume that they are capable of exerting an endless amount of force...'
     
    Absolutely correct...

    As I noted in my above #119...

    Besides the force exerted by the human movement...we also have the centripetal force acting on the bearings...just like on earth as I explained above...

    '...Angular momentum would continue to be exchanged between you and the wheel with no net loss, but the frictional cost of constantly recovering that tangential velocity would be lost as heat...'
     
    That's a very sound physical explanation that takes into account conservation of energy...

    I admit that I made a basic error in terms of continuous power required to keep that wheel spinning...

    However...the critiques were even worse as you point out...and once we take into account all the other major factors...such as the power required to control the craft attitude with control moment gyros of massive inertia...we find that the overall power requirements are still huge...

    I don’t know how practical it would be, I am too lazy to do the maths, but perhaps the “artificial gravity” part of your spacecraft could be in the form of an assembly of two counter-rotating wheels, thus giving you zero (external) gyroscopic effect. Admittedly, it would put a pretty large strain on the bearings, but it would also give you a place from which to exert the force required to make the wheels rotate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. skrik says:
    @foolisholdman
    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning. Once it had got up to speed there would be very little, even in LEO to slow it down. True it might take a while to spin it up to speed, but once there, it would take very little to keep it going.

    an assembly of two counter-rotating wheels

    Neat idea! Just put an electric motor in the hub ‘joining’ the two wheels, with one of the wheels connected to the stator and the other to the rotor. Spins up perfectly synchronized, all on its own! rgds

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. “The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or self-sacrifice”

    Never is a pretty strong word, and by that I mean that this is such a silly statement that it begs the question whether the author has any experience whatsoever to draw from.

    If he’d written that this generation lacks those virtues, I couldn’t argue because I don’t really know by and large what kind of people the 21st Century military employs. But having grown up in an extended family full of servicemen, I can attest that “never” is a sweeping generalization that smells of the body part from which it came.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  147. Erebus says:
    @Philip Owen
    The Russian obsession with resource control is a Marxist hangover. Oil still gets sold despite all those National Oil Companies. Resources are no good in the ground. Even the Norwegians and Kuwaitis still sell oil.

    The Russian obsession with resource control is a Marxist hangover.

    Really? I wasn’t aware that the Russians had an “obsession with resource control” beyond what any sovereign would have. Please elaborate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Look at the TV series Sophia, which is a good list of Russian nationalist concerns. There is one conversation between a Russian and an Italian discussing the vast but unexploited/able riches of Russia. Or read Sputnik I Pogrom. Read the Russians writing/translated on Russia Insider. Watch RT. Watch Dimitry Kisleyev sometime. The explanation for US interest in controlling Russia is often the desire to control resources.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Svigor says:

    In short the artificial gravity produces just as much bearing friction as on earth…by means of the centripetal force…

    Assuming you have bearings, which isn’t a good assumption. You can turn the whole station. This is pretty famously depicted in 2001. It isn’t even a good assumption vis-a-vis spacecraft, let alone habitats.

    As for Earth’s gravity and atmosphere, neither is properly assumed; there are other places to put habitats and craft.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...This is pretty famously depicted in 2001...'
     
    ...which is a science fiction movie...

    Again...thanks for your lobotomized contribution...

    '...As for Earth’s gravity and atmosphere, neither is properly assumed; there are other places to put habitats and craft...'
     
    Where would that be...?

    Out your wazoo...?

    If I wanted to hear from a crazy cat lady I would go to the funny farm...


    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-v9SQwmcJjOo/UQVfNhLm0-I/AAAAAAAAALA/Avi1aTfv2l0/s1600/crazy-lady+2.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Svigor says:

    “The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or self-sacrifice”

    Never is a pretty strong word, and by that I mean that this is such a silly statement that it begs the question whether the author has any experience whatsoever to draw from.

    If he’d written that this generation lacks those virtues, I couldn’t argue because I don’t really know by and large what kind of people the 21st Century military employs. But having grown up in an extended family full of servicemen, I can attest that “never” is a sweeping generalization that smells of the body part from which it came.

    Cultural differences rear their ugly heads. Did Americans ever push draftees into combat under threat of summary execution? With 1 rifle per 3 men, said rifle to be picked up when the previous man dies? Did Americans ever purge half the officers from their army when ideological purity demanded it? I think not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Did Americans ever had any need to do any of those drastic things? Oceans on both sides and weak neighbors are a nice thing. You have no understanding what is to be threatened and what it takes to repeal invaders set upon your utter extermination or subgugetion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Svigor says:

    Re spinning a wheel, I was wondering about a wheel spun from the outside. I.e., picture a ship with the wheel aligned “horizontally,” with the entire “outer” surface of the wheel in contact with the structure of the ship. I g**gled for an hour but I have 0 engineering skills so I had no way of describing what I was looking for, and got bumpkiss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  151. Aedib says:
    @Faker
    Hey Faker,

    Nobody bought the corny Super NES missile videos.

    In the days that followed cartoon-network-hour at the Kremlin, the West announced the delivery of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia, possible boycotts of the World Cup (although I think ultimately they will relocate the tournament so that TV networks don't lose money) - oh and Kim Jong Un folded (perhaps Kim had imagined Xi and Putin would actually help... poor guy, he probably was not familiar with Serbia, Iraq, Lybia and Novorussia). :-)

    Say, Faker are you going to be predicting the upcoming apocalypse in the west while living in Florida for the rest of your life?

    Just another one entering into the Butthurt team.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Svigor says:

    Are you actually a paid shill for Musk’s outfit? If you actually believe this then I suspect you couldn’t pass the mirror self-recognition test – Musk gobbles up government funds like you gobble up twinkies.

    As I said already, SpaceX is at the far low end of taxpayer teat consumption in the aerospace biz. ULA is the godzilla here, and conflating Musk’s other ventures with SpaceX fools no one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Svigor says:

    If you want a giant gov’t boondoggle, you need look no further than NASA’s Space Launch System. $20 billion for 0 launches. And they want $200+ billion more to get us to Mars. LoL.

    But ULA’s pretty great if you want to burn money: roughly 10x SpaceX’s launch costs. A Crony capitalist’s dream.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  154. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @foolisholdman
    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning. Once it had got up to speed there would be very little, even in LEO to slow it down. True it might take a while to spin it up to speed, but once there, it would take very little to keep it going.

    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning.

    Whatever power is required to keep the capsule spinning is no more than the power exerted by astronauts walking around inside, which is not much, and only that if they generally walk in the direction counter to the direction of capsule rotation. If some walked in the other direction, the effect of astronauts walking back and forth would cancel out and the speed of capsule rotation would be unaffected. Is that not so?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    No...it's not just about astronauts walking around...

    If you had read my posts on this you would realize that the major challenge here is changing the attitude of the spacecraft...which needs to maneuver for a number of reasons...

    The huge amount of inertia of a 100 meter diameter hamster wheel [this would be the size required for physiological reasons as I already explained...]...would be very difficult to counter...

    The craft...like an aircraft...needs to be able to rotate about all three axes...its longitudinal...horizonatl and vertical axes...

    The space station is equipped with gyros that are manipulated with electric motors to do that...but these gyros would have to many orders of magnitude greater and use huge amounts of power due to the inertia of that huge wheel...

    Counter-rotating does not solve the inertia problem...in fact it doubles it...inertia of a spinning wheel acts in one plane...having a second one rotating opposite merely cancels the torque...as with a helicopter with coaxial blades turning in the opposite direction...

    This type of helicopter does not need a tail rotor whose only function is to stop the fuselage from rotating counter to the rotor rotation...

    But the coaxial helicopter still needs to be able to change direction...which is accomplished by changing the attitude of the rotor blades...

    This change in direction causes quite large gyroscopic forces...larger than in the single rotor craft...due to the larger inertia in that plane of rotation...

    This is because inertia is defined as 'an object going in a certain direction wants to keep going in that direction'...as per Newton's First Law...

    The rotational inertia of a chopper rotor...either single or coaxial is huge...due to its large diamter and mass...

    The size we are talking about here with this wheel is monstrous...and so is its propensity to 'want' to keep going where it is pointed...

    Overcoming that in a chopper is done by using the air as something to 'grip' to if you will...the aerodynamic forces generated to change the chopper's direction can easily exceed the inertia of the rotor...due to the viscosity of the air...

    You don't have that in space...you can only change direction in one of two ways...either with thrusters...[where does the fuel for that come from...?]...or with control moment gyros as used on the space station...

    These comprise three in total to affect a change in attitude about each of the three axes...

    They also require force to change their own inertia and make the craft roll...pitch up or down...or yaw side to side...

    The power for that comes from electric motors...

    Since the space station has little inertia of its own...this works quite well...

    With a huge rotating mass the size of a football stadium the power required to change directions would be unbelievable...

    At some point I may crunch some basic numbers...since people seem to have a hard time understanding the physical principles involved...
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    Is that not so?
     
    Not really, no. Any astronaut walking in the retrograde direction would impart a small amount of additional angular momentum to the wheel as he stepped off with his traction foot, and the same amount of angular momentum would transfer back to the astronaut when he stepped down upon his landing foot. For an astronaut walking in the prograde direction, this would be exactly reversed. In neither case is net angular momentum either lost or gained by the system when considering these interactions alone, but in both cases a small amount of friction is required to accelerate the astronaut against the surface so that he once again "feels" the artificial gravity. This process is not reversible and the energy thus expended will be lost as heat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Kiza
    I cannot believe the morons that unz is now attracting. Except for a few really informative commenters, such as FB, Martyanov, Beckow, Kreiger and so on, the troll morons are really polluting the comments.

    So this certifiable Hasbara troll and a moron Svigor (and his other sock puppet) turns reality completely upside down and declares probably the newest and the most blatant example of US crony capitalism embodied in all Elon Musk enterprises to be the free market working. It is not that Boeing is not a classical example of US crony capitalism, it is only that the new crony capitalism gets more promotion in the Zio-MSM and apparently by trolls in the new media.

    I have concluded that the reward scheme for these paid trolls is based on the number of comments and the number of words, so they type complete crap empty of any information or meaning just to get paid. The more you engage them in discussion, the more you increase their income.

    “I cannot believe the morons that unz is now attracting.”

    I’ve been thinking that myself ever since you decided to start leaving your turds here. Seriously, when have you ever added anything of substance.

    The only interesting part of your comments is how you persistently accuse others of the things that you are doing. I suppose it’s part of some clumsy mindless propaganda you saker drones seem to be intent on pushing.

    If criticism upsets you, snowflake, perhaps you then you should confine your reading to ideologically pure sites that are heavily censored. I hear that saker guy runs one.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled childish name calling and saker drone virtue signaling.

    Read More
    • LOL: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. FB says:
    @Svigor

    In short the artificial gravity produces just as much bearing friction as on earth…by means of the centripetal force…
     
    Assuming you have bearings, which isn't a good assumption. You can turn the whole station. This is pretty famously depicted in 2001. It isn't even a good assumption vis-a-vis spacecraft, let alone habitats.

    As for Earth's gravity and atmosphere, neither is properly assumed; there are other places to put habitats and craft.

    ‘…This is pretty famously depicted in 2001…’

    …which is a science fiction movie…

    Again…thanks for your lobotomized contribution…

    ‘…As for Earth’s gravity and atmosphere, neither is properly assumed; there are other places to put habitats and craft…’

    Where would that be…?

    Out your wazoo…?

    If I wanted to hear from a crazy cat lady I would go to the funny farm…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Svigor

    Why ask Musk…?…any science teacher could explain this to you…[and had you been paying attention in class you might not even need to ask...]

    A ‘gravity’ environment in space where the gravitational force from earth is not present can be made by using a spinning wheel…

    Think of a hamster wheel…
     
    Talk about building them, you nitwit. There are concept drawings of stations from the thirties (IIRC), but nobody has built one yet.

    LOL.

    Children’s Sci Fi Kemlo and the Star Men had Kemlo IMG on a rotating wheel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Giuseppe says:
    @ll
    Anyone else react to this statement?

    "the White “indispensable nation”."

    -Kinda suggest he says that USA is a white supremacist state bombing brown people in the interests of white people

    Anyone else react to this statement?

    “the White “indispensable nation”.”

    -Kinda suggest he says that USA is a white supremacist state bombing brown people in the interests of white people

    Bombing, shooting, scalping, whatever it takes. Public outcry at the bombing of blond blue-eyed Finns or Swedes would soon shut down the imperial war engine. Brown people work much better. Less outrage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. FB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning.
     
    Whatever power is required to keep the capsule spinning is no more than the power exerted by astronauts walking around inside, which is not much, and only that if they generally walk in the direction counter to the direction of capsule rotation. If some walked in the other direction, the effect of astronauts walking back and forth would cancel out and the speed of capsule rotation would be unaffected. Is that not so?

    No…it’s not just about astronauts walking around…

    If you had read my posts on this you would realize that the major challenge here is changing the attitude of the spacecraft…which needs to maneuver for a number of reasons…

    The huge amount of inertia of a 100 meter diameter hamster wheel [this would be the size required for physiological reasons as I already explained...]…would be very difficult to counter…

    The craft…like an aircraft…needs to be able to rotate about all three axes…its longitudinal…horizonatl and vertical axes…

    The space station is equipped with gyros that are manipulated with electric motors to do that…but these gyros would have to many orders of magnitude greater and use huge amounts of power due to the inertia of that huge wheel…

    Counter-rotating does not solve the inertia problem…in fact it doubles it…inertia of a spinning wheel acts in one plane…having a second one rotating opposite merely cancels the torque…as with a helicopter with coaxial blades turning in the opposite direction…

    This type of helicopter does not need a tail rotor whose only function is to stop the fuselage from rotating counter to the rotor rotation…

    But the coaxial helicopter still needs to be able to change direction…which is accomplished by changing the attitude of the rotor blades…

    This change in direction causes quite large gyroscopic forces…larger than in the single rotor craft…due to the larger inertia in that plane of rotation…

    This is because inertia is defined as ‘an object going in a certain direction wants to keep going in that direction’…as per Newton’s First Law…

    The rotational inertia of a chopper rotor…either single or coaxial is huge…due to its large diamter and mass…

    The size we are talking about here with this wheel is monstrous…and so is its propensity to ‘want’ to keep going where it is pointed…

    Overcoming that in a chopper is done by using the air as something to ‘grip’ to if you will…the aerodynamic forces generated to change the chopper’s direction can easily exceed the inertia of the rotor…due to the viscosity of the air…

    You don’t have that in space…you can only change direction in one of two ways…either with thrusters…[where does the fuel for that come from...?]…or with control moment gyros as used on the space station…

    These comprise three in total to affect a change in attitude about each of the three axes…

    They also require force to change their own inertia and make the craft roll…pitch up or down…or yaw side to side…

    The power for that comes from electric motors…

    Since the space station has little inertia of its own…this works quite well…

    With a huge rotating mass the size of a football stadium the power required to change directions would be unbelievable…

    At some point I may crunch some basic numbers…since people seem to have a hard time understanding the physical principles involved…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    The London Eye I discussed previously has a diameter of 120 m. Enough to be comfortable as a generator of artificial gravity. Much bigger wheels could be built. 500 W actuators would not consume huge amounts of fuel for a wheel in Earth orbit with regular resupply. A space ark would require gyroscopic control and a bearing at the centre as you suggest but given the likely time available for attitude control, forces need not be large. In fact should not be large for crew comfort not just structural reasons.
    , @CanSpeccy

    If you had read my posts on this you would realize that the major challenge here is changing the attitude of the spacecraft…which needs to maneuver for a number of reasons…/blockquote>Um, yes, well, sorry. Point now taken.
     

     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @CanSpeccy

    I think you are wrong about the power needed to keep the wheel spinning.
     
    Whatever power is required to keep the capsule spinning is no more than the power exerted by astronauts walking around inside, which is not much, and only that if they generally walk in the direction counter to the direction of capsule rotation. If some walked in the other direction, the effect of astronauts walking back and forth would cancel out and the speed of capsule rotation would be unaffected. Is that not so?

    Is that not so?

    Not really, no. Any astronaut walking in the retrograde direction would impart a small amount of additional angular momentum to the wheel as he stepped off with his traction foot, and the same amount of angular momentum would transfer back to the astronaut when he stepped down upon his landing foot. For an astronaut walking in the prograde direction, this would be exactly reversed. In neither case is net angular momentum either lost or gained by the system when considering these interactions alone, but in both cases a small amount of friction is required to accelerate the astronaut against the surface so that he once again “feels” the artificial gravity. This process is not reversible and the energy thus expended will be lost as heat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    OK!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Svigor

    “The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or self-sacrifice”

    Never is a pretty strong word, and by that I mean that this is such a silly statement that it begs the question whether the author has any experience whatsoever to draw from.

    If he’d written that this generation lacks those virtues, I couldn’t argue because I don’t really know by and large what kind of people the 21st Century military employs. But having grown up in an extended family full of servicemen, I can attest that “never” is a sweeping generalization that smells of the body part from which it came.
     
    Cultural differences rear their ugly heads. Did Americans ever push draftees into combat under threat of summary execution? With 1 rifle per 3 men, said rifle to be picked up when the previous man dies? Did Americans ever purge half the officers from their army when ideological purity demanded it? I think not.

    Did Americans ever had any need to do any of those drastic things? Oceans on both sides and weak neighbors are a nice thing. You have no understanding what is to be threatened and what it takes to repeal invaders set upon your utter extermination or subgugetion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Felix Keverich

    No, you seem to not understand my point. Karlin has no expertise or information to verify whether these weapons exist or not; nor can he assess if these are the breakthrough developments as experts here argue.
     
    Neither does Martyanov! The dude apparently used to be a sailor in the Soviet navy, but that was decades ago.

    Overreliance on Western sources is a arguably one weakness in Karlin's analysis, however it's probably due to the paucity of publicly available Russian research on this subject. Russia doesn't have anything resembling the think-tank industry that exists in the West, the Kremlin doesn't want Russians to have a public debate on the issues of foreign policy and national security, because allowing a public debate will encourage criticism, and Kremlin doesn't take criticism well...

    Consequently, we find ourselves relying on Western sources when trying to assess Russia's military capabilities, but that's mainly Kremlin's own fault for trying to keep this information hidden (from the Russian public).

    I don’t believe your the lack of understanding of Russian Federation. Today’s Russia is not old Soviet Union, now they have free press and i can’t recall the name of the TV personality but he has a weekly TV interview of various Russians with different political views. Do you know Putin has a regular TV interview where people can ask him or may be even challenge his positions/policies. Good luck finding such a political leader in the so called free west, where the sheeple are fed a constant barrage of propaganda. Also the various Think Tanks you are marvelling are funded by mega corporations and guess who they shill for? Thanks

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Dimitry Kisleyev is the name you want.

    Putin enjoys the advantage of not being confronted with his political opponents. So his authority is not questioned. It makes him look much more authoritative than a candidate who has to deal with debate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Erebus says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    Is it also hilarious when wine lovers debate vintages, car fans debate engines, art lovers debate painters, sports fans debate teams/players etc, etc?
     
    They can discuss art, cars engines, sport and similar subjects because none of them is classified. Nothing hilarious about that unless the debate is between two nincompoops. What is hilarious is when people discuss matters of highly clasified nature of which they do not even have the slightest idea. All they are doing is spinning fantasies. Only people with the highest security clearance know something about these subjects and do not discuss them in the open.

    I’d venture that debating the nature and capabilities of weapons that may go active in a town near you is [a] not hilarious, and [b] may be existentially vastly more important than anything else one could debate.
     
    The dicsussions would still be hilarious for the same above mentioned reasons. You most likely meant deployment and that of course would be less hilarious. No worry there though. Since fairly early in my age I realized how dangerous humanity is and I have always lived on its fringes just in case it looses its collective mind, something it is never very far off of doing.

    If by “something foolish” you mean anything militarily kinetic that would put an immediate stop to the strangulation process, you’ve hit the nail dead centre. Yes, Russia is being strangled, but what it’s saying is that its resistance to that process is has a long way to go before it’s exhausted.
     
    Russia's enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.

    In 2004, Putin told the US that its pullout from the ABM treaty will force Russia to respond asymmetrically.
     
    Not very original. Just another term he borowed from the West which coined the term first.

    What is hilarious is when people discuss matters of highly clasified nature of which they do not even have the slightest idea.

    You misunderstand. Nobody’s discussing the classified aspects of weapons here. What’s being discussed in the comments I’ve read (E.G.: FB’s) is whether what’s being claimed is physically possible, and what sorts of engineering problems would have to be overcome to make them possible. How & whether the engineering problems have been overcome is what would be classified, not whether they’d have to be. When the former is discussed, everyone acknowledges that the conversation turns speculative.
    If Putin was claiming physically impossible properties, there wouldn’t be much of a discussion, and you wouldn’t have Senators writing letters pleading that POTUS open arms control talks with him.

    Russia’s enemies are not in a hurry. Their main objective is to proceed slowly in order not to provoke any rush reaction that could result in a nuclear exchange.

    That was true 2 decades ago, and deceptively looked that way up to 2007 when, on the eve of the GFC, Putin made his famous Munich speech.
    Since then, the Empire stumbled while China and Russia have placed so many impediments in their way that the Imperialists are now the ones who are forced to act rashly if they want to maintain the Empire. That is where the danger now lies. It is now Russia (and China) who are forced to go slow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @peterAUS
    My thought on the "red line" for the regime in Kremlin:
    When Putin and his team realize they'll be hauled before the Hague.

    Not before.

    The "plan"

    as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working
     
    is for the masses.

    The real plan is "enjoy while it lasts by trading terrain for time, hoping that something will change in US. Change enough to be able to cut that last deal as his predecessor."
    Not a bad plan if you are one of them.
    For the rest, ah well.....

    How many divisions does The Hague have for that to happen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Are you actually reading ol' Petey's comments...?

    Sheesh man...that takes some strong discipline...

    Seems pretty clear he's lost his marbles...


    https://s20.postimg.org/fs7tv4pul/79341-geezer-lost-marbles.jpg
    , @peterAUS
    As many as The Hague had to get Milosevic there.

    That guy arrested by his own people.
    Promised, by those very people, that he would NOT be delivered to The Hague.
    Delivered then, by those, his own people to The Hague.
    And, then, he, somehow, died there. Nobody cared.

    Both Presidents, quite skillful in the game, made some enemies in the West. Expansion and such.
    Ah, yes, the dead one was also, for a quite some time, praised as a very good partner etc.

    There is more.
    The dead one also, to keep on good terms with Western partners, betrayed his own people in a little rebellious enclave. Little as around 200 000 people.
    After promising them he'd act to defend them should the opponent attack.
    Cyrano here could enlighten you about that. Or plenty of Serbian refugees currently living in Australia. Have a beer with some, and listen.

    Yes, I know that any parallel with the current President who's pissing of The Empire has no meaning.
    Superweapons will take care of all that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “At some point I may crunch some basic numbers…since people seem to have a hard time understanding the physical principles involved…”

    When I was a child and they were introducing us to rigid body motion they let us stand on a little square with casters. Then they had us hold out a small bicycle wheel vertically and spun it up until it was going quite fast. Once it was up to speed they asked us to turn to a horizontal orientation from vertical. Rotating the wheel in the manner caused an unexpected, to us children, movement around the platform.

    This is a simple way to convince someone of the reality of the principles you have just outlined even if they don’t believe your math.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  166. @FB

    '...FB, how the heck do you get away with converting energy to power by dividing by the unit “second”?..'
     
    https://s20.postimg.org/l4du72g6l/Power_Definition.png


    In consistent units...ie SI... the time unit is second...

    Power is work ...which is force * distance... ie newtons * meters...or in the case of rotational work it is joules/radians...

    Maybe you need a refresher...


    https://s20.postimg.org/4uno3tpzh/Work-_Power.png


    '...You are confusing the power that would be needed to get the wheel up to speed in one second with the power that would be needed to get it up to speed in however long it takes; and you’re also confusing a one-time expenditure of energy with an ongoing need for power...'
     
    Yes...this is basically correct...as I have already admitted...and have provided an accurate computation of how much power would be required to get it up to speed...

    However...and this is a very big one...the ongoing need for power would still be huge as I explained above...just not for the same reason I originally stated...


    '...once it is spinning it keeps spinning, the vacuum of space in earth orbit is not perfect but the amount of power needed to overcome that friction is minuscule...'
     
    This is completely incorrect...as I have discussed already in detail...and is based on a faulty assumption about the 'vacuum' of space...

    Please see my comments above and that of 'Intelligent Dasein'...

    In short the artificial gravity produces just as much bearing friction as on earth...by means of the centripetal force...

    Even more important as Dasein noted is that human movement will cause loss of angular velocity...

    So we have two very real losses...ie bearing frriction [not a vacuum] and human force interaction...both of which will shed energy as waste heat...and will need to be recovered...by application of power...

    And the biggest issue is the huge amount of power that will be required to keep the spacecraft controllable with such a huge inertia produced by the gravity wheel...

    All of these factors combined...plus the need for a much bigger wheel [due to physiological reasons] will likely increase my original power estimates greatly...

    In my innovation days, I was asked to find other applications for the bearing monitor of the London Eye. Heavily loaded slow speed bearings are rather difficult to monitor. The power consumption to move the wheel was minute. 500 W maximum demand. Accelerations were of course very modest but frequent – passenger loading for every car.

    The question of spokes and a bearing in space is interesting. I don’t see the need. A ring could be fitted with actuators to compensate for fluctuations in I. That said, the best place to dock a ship would be at the centre with requirements to spin the ship to match the space station and to compensate for momentum changes as ships docked and left. Also, maintaining the circular shape of the ring against uneven loading would require spokes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @skrik
    Talking of 'un-spoked' rings,

    «Niven says that MIT students attending the 1971 World Science Fiction Convention chanted, "The Ringworld is unstable! The Ringworld is unstable!"»
    ~[The Ringworld Engineers]

    IIRC, a gyro reacts at 90° to any 'sideways' push; with contra-rotating twin-gyros, the 2nd 90° reaction should 'come back' at the 1st attempted push location - resulting in a) no 'tilt' but b) beginning a 'translation' of the whole show in the direction of the 1st stimulus, seems to me.

    Apropos docking, my 'electric motor in the hub' in #145 would itself be mounted on a 'stationary platform' WRT the two wheels' opposite rotations; it would make no sense whatsoever to spin any arriving/departing ship.

    FB: "needs to be able to rotate about all three axes"

    Me: Err, which way is 'up' in orbit; why not choose some 'compromise' orientation - parallel to Earth's spin, say, and just 'trim' to maintain that? People walking inside 'the rim' could not enjoy the view too much anyway. rgds

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. El Dato says:
    @Faker
    Worse than folded... the guy groveled, crawled, genuflected.

    I admire your tenacity in wanting to have Nork fight a war to embiggen your ego.

    No war is always preferable to war.

    In other news:

    Cuba Embassy NOT under attack by sonic weapons.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/finally-a-likely-explanation-for-the-sonic-weapon-used-at-the-us-embassy-in-cuba

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Erebus

    The Russian obsession with resource control is a Marxist hangover.
     
    Really? I wasn't aware that the Russians had an "obsession with resource control" beyond what any sovereign would have. Please elaborate.

    Look at the TV series Sophia, which is a good list of Russian nationalist concerns. There is one conversation between a Russian and an Italian discussing the vast but unexploited/able riches of Russia. Or read Sputnik I Pogrom. Read the Russians writing/translated on Russia Insider. Watch RT. Watch Dimitry Kisleyev sometime. The explanation for US interest in controlling Russia is often the desire to control resources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    The explanation for US interest in controlling Russia is often the desire to control resources.
     
    Not just often, always.
    The US' Defence Planning Guidance of 1994 makes it quite explicit that the Empire's primary objective is to: "... prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

    That is what it is all about. Russia has denied them control of Russia's, quite "unfairly" in SoS H.R. Clinton's words, but has moved (along with China) to prevent the rest of Eurasia's resource wealth from falling into their hands. The drive to Global Hegemony has stalled on that very point.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Vidi says:
    @FB
    Well...here we have a typical example of someone who clearly knows nothing about physics or engineering making some wild technical statements...such as...

    '...The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems.

    Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don’t exist either...'
     
    I had noted previously this phenomenon of an uninformed public's fascination with 'technology'...

    '...In a culture and at a historical time where ‘technology’ is fascinating to people…[despite the fact that they do not understand even the basic physical and technical side of it]… it is seen as a source of national power…'
     
    That from my comment #60 on the Martyanov article thread...

    The simple observation is that people who know absolutely nothing about things like metallurgy...should not make sweeping statements about technology superiority...which can be disproved quite effortlessly...

    A case in point...the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now...[since 2000]...

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket...which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 'spaceplane'...

    Now let's explore how Russian metallurgy is a key factor in the RD180 engine's unmatched performance capability...and why the US has not been able to replicate that technology...

    I will get to the technical details in a moment...

    But first we note that during the Ukraine crisis of 2014 when Russia talked about possibly stopping the export of RD180 engines to the US [bye bye X37...]...the big question immediately asked was whether the US could replicate the RD180 metallurgy...which is the key to its capability...

    The DoD's RD180 study committee expressed confidence the US could in fact replicate this technology...

    '...U.S. Can Replicate RD-180 Metallurgy Technology, Engine Study Committee Chair Says...'

    '...The head of the Defense Department’s RD-180 rocket study committee believes the United States could replicate the coding and metallurgy technology involved with the Russian-produced engine...'
     
    But others doubted this assessment [and rightly so...]

    '...Critics of the idea of replicating the RD-180 domestically have said the U.S. doesn’t have the expertise like Russia to reproduce its metallurgy...

    ...which is the study of physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements and their mixtures, known as alloys...'
     
    Now I will explain in technical terms why metallurgy is the key to the Russian high efficiency rocket engine technology...

    The key to the RD180...and in fact Russian engine technology going back to the 1960s...has been a more efficient engine cycle known as 'Staged Combustion Cycle'...

    '...its main advantage relative to other rocket engine power cycles is high fuel efficiency, measured through specific impulse, while its main disadvantage is engineering complexity...'
     
    '...Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949....

    The first generation of successful staged combustion cycle engines was perfected by the Russians by the 1960s...with the NK33 engine...

    '...The NK-33 series engines are high-pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle bipropellant rocket engines.

    They use oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps... These kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through failures.

    The United States had not investigated oxygen-rich combustion technologies until the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator project in the early 2000s....

    The Soviets, however, perfected the metallurgy behind this method...'
     
    Interesting story here...the US had heard about the advanced NK33 engine but was skeptical...

    '...In the 1990s, [US rocket engine company] Aerojet was contacted and eventually visited Kuznetsov's plant.

    Upon meeting initial skepticism about the high specific impulse and other specifications, Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing.

    Oxidizer-rich staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but deemed impossible.

    The Russian RD-180 engine, purchased by Lockheed Martin (subsequently by United Launch Alliance) for the Atlas III and V rockets, also employs this technique...'
     

    '...Word of the engines eventually spread to America. Nearly 30 years after they were built, disbelieving rocket engineers were led to the warehouse.

    One of the engines was later taken to America, and the precise specification of the engine was demonstrated on a test stand...'
     

    '...The NK-33 closed-cycle technology works by sending the auxiliary engines' exhaust into the main combustion chamber. This made the engine design unique.

    This technology was believed to be impossible by Western rocket engineers...'
     

    '...The fully heated liquid O2 flows through the pre-burner and into the main chamber in this design.

    The extremely hot oxygen-rich mixture made the engine dangerous: it was known to melt 3-inch (76 mm) thick castings "like candle wax"...'
     
    It is to be noted that the US has not to this day created a staged combustion cycle [aka closed cycle] engine of its own...

    This...despite the fact that Nasa scientists nearly 40 years ago called on the US to develop such engines...


    https://s20.postimg.org/al3a3zmf1/Nasa_Staged_Combustion_Cycle_Paper.jpg


    We note here also the specific technical details about chamber pressure of 4,000 psi...which is what the RD180 engine achieves...

    Chamber pressure 3,870 psi...
     
    We also note that the Rocketdyne F1 engine designed by Werner von Braun for the Apollo program achieved a chamber pressure 1/4 of that...1,015 psi...

    And also note that the SpaceX Merlin engine achieves barely 1/3'rd at 1,415 psi...

    As noted already...the US has yet to build a high-pressure rocket engine...[the newest Russian engines...which it is not selling...are well over 4,000 psi...]

    As noted in the introductory remarks of that Nasa paper of 1980...high chamber pressure is essential to rocket engine performance...

    Here is the explanation for that...in thermodynamics which is the study of energy and heat engines...we know that any type of heat engine...be it a rocket engine, a jet engine, a piston engine, or even an air conditioner [also a heat engine]...works with only two types of energy...heat and pressure...

    Only pressure energy can be converted directly to work energy...by means of expanding that pressure through a nozzle...which converts pressure into speed...ie kinetic energy...[it is the same principle as the nozzle on your garden hose...if you don't have water pressure there will be no water shooting out...]

    Heat energy by itself [ie without pressure] cannot be turned into work energy...[ie thrust]...heat energy only serves to make the pressure energy do more work...than it would on its own...

    The higher the pressure...the greater the speed of that fluid exiting the nozzle...whether in a garden hose or a rocket or jet engine nozzle...and the greater the thrust...

    The only way to achieve high pressure of the rocket fuel [kerosene] and oxydizer [liquid oxygen] is to pump those liquids up to a high pressure using a turbopump...

    ...which is the heart of a liquid fuel rocket engine...

    In a simple gas generator cycle as used on US engines...a small amount of fuel is burned to drive the turbopump...and the exhaust is simply dumped overboard...


    https://s20.postimg.org/yssgmfs31/gas_generator.jpg


    We see the orange arrow showing the gas leaving the turbine is dumped overboard...

    This means that the turbopump can be small but the pressure it can put out is likewise small...[incidentally...SpaceX does not make its own turbopumps...those are made by Barber Nichols...]

    The Russian high pressure engines use much more powerful turbopumps in order to get that high chamber pressure...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png


    Here we see that the exhaust gas exiting the pre-burner flows into the main combustion chamber where it adds to the thrust...instead of being dumped overboard...

    Making these very powerful turbopumps is a technology the US has never mastered...hence their reliance on outdated gas generator cycle rocket engines...

    This is a fundamental shortcoming of US space technology...

    Incidentally the most powerful turbopump is found on the world's most powerful rocket engine...the Russian RD170...

    The turbopump puts out 170 megawatts...which is ~230,000 HP...that's the kind of power it takes to achieve high pressure in the fuel and oxydizer of a very large engine...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/RD-170_rocket_engine.jpg


    and here is an interesting documentary about the previously mnentioned NK33 engine from the '60s...which wowed US rocket scientists in the '90s...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM

    I will address the issue of nuclear aircraft and cruise missile propulsion in my next technical comment...

    IMHO, that was a knockout blow to Quartermaster’s ignorant rantings that the Russians are behind in metallurgy. The RD-180 engine can tolerate an oxidizer-rich and high-pressure mixture that would melt the best American alloys like “candle wax”. The U.S. still can’t do it, even after decades of trying.

    The metallurgical advantage isn’t minor. Of course, it enables practical hypersonic weapons, as Putin has announced. But I suspect that Russia also has the upper hand in engines for fighter jets, such as the one for the Su-57; I don’t know when or even if the U.S. will ever catch up.

    Yes, as the Saker says, Americans need to stop their denial and anger, and start the next stage of grief. If they can make it through all five stages, maybe the U.S. will start behaving like a civilized country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...The metallurgical advantage isn’t minor. Of course, it enables practical hypersonic weapons, as Putin has announced.

    But I suspect that Russia also has the upper hand in engines for fighter jets, such as the one for the Su-57...'
     
    Yes...I was going to get to that on Martyanov's thread where I discussed first the Kinzhal and the technical feasibility of that...

    Might do it here when I find the time...lots to unpack there...

    Also the nuclear propulsion jet engine for the cruise missile...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. FB says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    How many divisions does The Hague have for that to happen?

    Are you actually reading ol’ Petey’s comments…?

    Sheesh man…that takes some strong discipline…

    Seems pretty clear he’s lost his marbles…

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I do skip the long ones, as much due to the poor writing as to the immature and ego driven content but I couldn't resist reusing the reply that Stalin is reported to have used when threatened by the Vatican.
    , @Kiza
    FB, I for one do not read the mumblings of this semi-comprehensible contrarian, but whilst scrolling I did notice that the mug likes to quote someone and just add "Agree", as if this is the most important qualification for any comment at unz.com, that our old Pete agrees. Reminds me of this other mug Karlin who uses the high pulpit of his yellow privilege to elevate his otherwise low intellectual authority.

    Because I do not read them, I do not know which of the two mugs came up with the idea that someone would haul Putin to the Hague, but it should be noted that it was someone very similar to Karlin (a self-declared Russian/Serbian nationalist and a Western collaborator) who came to power in Serbia thanks to the officially first color revolution (by MI6 and CIA) and then contrary to the constitution and all the laws of the country delivered Milosevic to the conqueror's kangaroo justice in the Hague (which did not even provide the accused with proper medical assistance). The character who broke the laws to deliver Milosevic to the Hague I would not call a Serbian, in as much as I would not call Karlin a Russian. Speaking the language even without an accent, as one of his troll supporters claimed, does not make Karlin a Russian. The best name for people such as Karlin is - compradors.

    I really have no time for empty comments of these characters, who only come here to the Saker's as trollish pests, some of them paid to do so. But I could only imagine how Saker would make minced meat of Karlin if he were to come to comment on his empty, illogical write ups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. peterAUS says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    How many divisions does The Hague have for that to happen?

    As many as The Hague had to get Milosevic there.

    That guy arrested by his own people.
    Promised, by those very people, that he would NOT be delivered to The Hague.
    Delivered then, by those, his own people to The Hague.
    And, then, he, somehow, died there. Nobody cared.

    Both Presidents, quite skillful in the game, made some enemies in the West. Expansion and such.
    Ah, yes, the dead one was also, for a quite some time, praised as a very good partner etc.

    There is more.
    The dead one also, to keep on good terms with Western partners, betrayed his own people in a little rebellious enclave. Little as around 200 000 people.
    After promising them he’d act to defend them should the opponent attack.
    Cyrano here could enlighten you about that. Or plenty of Serbian refugees currently living in Australia. Have a beer with some, and listen.

    Yes, I know that any parallel with the current President who’s pissing of The Empire has no meaning.
    Superweapons will take care of all that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    You talking to me, Cro-magnon? If I was you I wouldn’t gloat too much about your military “successes” against the Serbs. You know that in a fair fight you wouldn’t last a month against Serbia.

    In the 90’s you simply took advantage of unfavorable international situation (for the Serbs), same as in WW2, when you took advantage of Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia to commit your crimes.

    The success of Oluja was mostly as a result of the air cover by the greatest democracy of them all.

    How about the siege of Vukovar – which the Cromagnons named: Croatia’s Stalingrad. Shouldn’t you have named it Croatia’s Berlin or something – since that’s who’s side you were on in WW2?

    Or maybe because not too many heroic things happened in Berlin – from German perspective. But let’s go along with Stalingrad comparison – since you too are retarded and you can’t keep even your historical references straight.

    The real Stalingrad held, the Croat “Stalingrad” - Vukovar fell to the Serbs – so even from that perspective the reference is baloney. Either way, your luck is going to run out one day, you won’t have “the greatest democracy of them all” to protect you, and you know that on your own you are cowards – what are you going to do then?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @FB
    No...it's not just about astronauts walking around...

    If you had read my posts on this you would realize that the major challenge here is changing the attitude of the spacecraft...which needs to maneuver for a number of reasons...

    The huge amount of inertia of a 100 meter diameter hamster wheel [this would be the size required for physiological reasons as I already explained...]...would be very difficult to counter...

    The craft...like an aircraft...needs to be able to rotate about all three axes...its longitudinal...horizonatl and vertical axes...

    The space station is equipped with gyros that are manipulated with electric motors to do that...but these gyros would have to many orders of magnitude greater and use huge amounts of power due to the inertia of that huge wheel...

    Counter-rotating does not solve the inertia problem...in fact it doubles it...inertia of a spinning wheel acts in one plane...having a second one rotating opposite merely cancels the torque...as with a helicopter with coaxial blades turning in the opposite direction...

    This type of helicopter does not need a tail rotor whose only function is to stop the fuselage from rotating counter to the rotor rotation...

    But the coaxial helicopter still needs to be able to change direction...which is accomplished by changing the attitude of the rotor blades...

    This change in direction causes quite large gyroscopic forces...larger than in the single rotor craft...due to the larger inertia in that plane of rotation...

    This is because inertia is defined as 'an object going in a certain direction wants to keep going in that direction'...as per Newton's First Law...

    The rotational inertia of a chopper rotor...either single or coaxial is huge...due to its large diamter and mass...

    The size we are talking about here with this wheel is monstrous...and so is its propensity to 'want' to keep going where it is pointed...

    Overcoming that in a chopper is done by using the air as something to 'grip' to if you will...the aerodynamic forces generated to change the chopper's direction can easily exceed the inertia of the rotor...due to the viscosity of the air...

    You don't have that in space...you can only change direction in one of two ways...either with thrusters...[where does the fuel for that come from...?]...or with control moment gyros as used on the space station...

    These comprise three in total to affect a change in attitude about each of the three axes...

    They also require force to change their own inertia and make the craft roll...pitch up or down...or yaw side to side...

    The power for that comes from electric motors...

    Since the space station has little inertia of its own...this works quite well...

    With a huge rotating mass the size of a football stadium the power required to change directions would be unbelievable...

    At some point I may crunch some basic numbers...since people seem to have a hard time understanding the physical principles involved...

    The London Eye I discussed previously has a diameter of 120 m. Enough to be comfortable as a generator of artificial gravity. Much bigger wheels could be built. 500 W actuators would not consume huge amounts of fuel for a wheel in Earth orbit with regular resupply. A space ark would require gyroscopic control and a bearing at the centre as you suggest but given the likely time available for attitude control, forces need not be large. In fact should not be large for crew comfort not just structural reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. pogohere says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This is an important point. I don't know how anybody within the USA can believe that we can continue to service a $20 trillion dollar national debt, import endless amounts of cheap crap by maintaining massive trade deficits, dole out welfare and transfer payments to an ever-growing population of dependents, and somehow fight a war with Russia and China at the same time. It is easy to see that any general mobilization would completely destroy the American domestic arrangement that has been taking for granted for so long. Just about everything we assume to be the ordinary condition of our daily life, all the assumptions upon which we make our plans and weave are actions, would go crashing to the ground and quite other conditions would take their place. This is why all our military threats are hollow. America simply cannot afford to go to war.

    Unhealthy state of affairs: Three-quarters of young Americans unfit for military service, study says

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=167028

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. FB says:
    @Vidi
    IMHO, that was a knockout blow to Quartermaster's ignorant rantings that the Russians are behind in metallurgy. The RD-180 engine can tolerate an oxidizer-rich and high-pressure mixture that would melt the best American alloys like "candle wax". The U.S. still can't do it, even after decades of trying.

    The metallurgical advantage isn't minor. Of course, it enables practical hypersonic weapons, as Putin has announced. But I suspect that Russia also has the upper hand in engines for fighter jets, such as the one for the Su-57; I don't know when or even if the U.S. will ever catch up.

    Yes, as the Saker says, Americans need to stop their denial and anger, and start the next stage of grief. If they can make it through all five stages, maybe the U.S. will start behaving like a civilized country.

    ‘…The metallurgical advantage isn’t minor. Of course, it enables practical hypersonic weapons, as Putin has announced.

    But I suspect that Russia also has the upper hand in engines for fighter jets, such as the one for the Su-57…’

    Yes…I was going to get to that on Martyanov’s thread where I discussed first the Kinzhal and the technical feasibility of that…

    Might do it here when I find the time…lots to unpack there…

    Also the nuclear propulsion jet engine for the cruise missile…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza

    the nuclear propulsion jet engine for the cruise missile…
     
    Wow, we could spend day and night discussing interesting (existing) technology here.

    Somewhat related, in a discussion here recently I came up with this maybe silly concept of a concentrated/focused nuclear blast. Instead of exploding into a 360 degree spatial angle, could a nuclear explosion be focused into as small a spatial angle as only 1 degree? Just in a most general sense - why does a nuclear/thermonuclear explosion have to be 360 degree? Is this a present level of technology limitation or is there any firm physical principle which precludes focusing? The stars appear to be able to do it but astrophysics does not appear to be sure how.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @peterAUS
    My thought on the "red line" for the regime in Kremlin:
    When Putin and his team realize they'll be hauled before the Hague.

    Not before.

    The "plan"

    as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the US continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working
     
    is for the masses.

    The real plan is "enjoy while it lasts by trading terrain for time, hoping that something will change in US. Change enough to be able to cut that last deal as his predecessor."
    Not a bad plan if you are one of them.
    For the rest, ah well.....

    Just to be clear, I don’t, of course, literally consider that Putin & Co. will be hauled off to the Hague in any but a miniscule fraction of possible universes. I think #1 is quite possible if not likely (I hope), #3 may happen but probably not during this decade, and #4 and higher I would basically exclude.

    My point with this is to encourage The Saker & Co. to actually draw a line in the sand so far as their faith in Grandmaster Putin’s skill at 666D chess is concerned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    #1 Will not even be tried.

    #2 Guaranteed at some point in some form, because that's how Erdogan deals with everybody.

    #3 Will be tried and will fail as usual. Probably.

    The RF government's plan may or may not be the best plan possible, but it's the best that could have been devised by cautious, risk-averse men who never wanted conflict with the United States to begin with but have had it repeatedly thrust upon them.

    Still don't think Saker has quite reached the level of the MAGAtards who see every act of the Donald as some overwhelming triumph and change their worldview on a dime to match whatever brainfart the old man is chasing today.
    , @peterAUS
    Can't disagree.
    Nobody knows, of course, for sure.

    As for likelihood of certain options, well, human nature being what it is....I think that the last option is not that unlikely.

    Who would've thought in mid 90s that Serbs would give their President on a platter to The Empire?
    Who would've thought in early years of this millennium that Qaddafi would be killed as a dog in a ditch and his murder transmitted over Internet?
    And, when we are on the topic that the elderly Ceausescu couple would have that treatment, even after they got captured ?

    All powerful leaders who do not deliver what's promised tend to be simply sacrificed by coming elites simply to placate the masses.

    One way to find out, of course.

    , @peterAUS
    One little detail more.

    With the Great Leader, multidimensional chess and superweapons, among other awesome things, there is a tiny little........oversight...perhaps.
    Just perhaps.

    Novorossya defense absolutely depending on Kremlin.

    The time and resources not used to create an independent, in effect, an army of that tiny republic. In fact, rudimentary effort, somehow, got doused at the very beginning. An assassination, unsolved of course, here and there of potential local leaders, have no relation to that.

    Not enough time?
    Not enough smarts in that part of the world?
    Not enough resources?

    Muslims in Bosnia could do that in the period '92 to '94. There and then, in that environment.
    And Novorossya couldn't.
    Yeah........

    Not important, probably. Yes, that must be it. Irrelevant.

    Perhaps Cyrano here could add his view re "Krajina" in Croatia '91-95'. Especially '95.

    Just a thought.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Vidi says:
    @peterAUS

    .....especially when you consider the scale of disfunction in the Russian government and military. Remember, this is a deeply corrupt country and Russia’s corruption natually extends to its “military-industrial complex”.

    Questioning Russia’s capabilities does not mean you wish destruction upon the country. lol Personally, I prefer Karlin’s approach to Martyanov’s, who is a mindless cheerleader for Putin regime.
     

    Agree, up to a point.

    Corruption notwithstanding and the "Team Russia" cheering for their Great Leader and his team, I do believe that Russia can produce such weaponry.

    Not important, IMHO.

    Soviet Union was going to shit and it was produciing quite good weaponry.
    The same pattern being repeated now is simply......funny.

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.
    Now, it is good for lining the pockets of fat cats at the top, but, not so good on making the life of lower strata of society happy.
    The same strata that had enough of Soviet shit and brought all that Potemkin village now.

    I have a feeling that Russian elites know all that, just, they don't have another option.
    They haven't been able to develop a coherent alternative vision of society and got locked into competition with similar ilk in the West.

    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those "superweapons" less they'll allocate for the common man there.
    That will create an environment for an internal dissent.
    How is that internal dissent going to work out, or not, we'll see.

    Maybe it will make the team in Kremlin listen and do something good.
    Or...maybe it will destabilize the regime enough to create a crisis.
    That crisis could, of badly managed by both parties, escalate in a serious confrontation with The Empire.
    And, the only important then would be: nukes or not.
    If yes, ah, well.....it was sort of good while it lasted. Especially for the fat cats.

    The regime in Kremlin or better, Russia elites are, apparently, doing the same that brought the Soviet Union down: engaging in weapons race.

    With economic support from China, Russia can afford an arms race. The U.S. can’t — especially as it is clearly decades behind in many aspects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Murali Penumarth
    I don't believe your the lack of understanding of Russian Federation. Today's Russia is not old Soviet Union, now they have free press and i can't recall the name of the TV personality but he has a weekly TV interview of various Russians with different political views. Do you know Putin has a regular TV interview where people can ask him or may be even challenge his positions/policies. Good luck finding such a political leader in the so called free west, where the sheeple are fed a constant barrage of propaganda. Also the various Think Tanks you are marvelling are funded by mega corporations and guess who they shill for? Thanks

    Dimitry Kisleyev is the name you want.

    Putin enjoys the advantage of not being confronted with his political opponents. So his authority is not questioned. It makes him look much more authoritative than a candidate who has to deal with debate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Erebus says:
    @Philip Owen
    Look at the TV series Sophia, which is a good list of Russian nationalist concerns. There is one conversation between a Russian and an Italian discussing the vast but unexploited/able riches of Russia. Or read Sputnik I Pogrom. Read the Russians writing/translated on Russia Insider. Watch RT. Watch Dimitry Kisleyev sometime. The explanation for US interest in controlling Russia is often the desire to control resources.

    The explanation for US interest in controlling Russia is often the desire to control resources.

    Not just often, always.
    The US’ Defence Planning Guidance of 1994 makes it quite explicit that the Empire’s primary objective is to: “… prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

    That is what it is all about. Russia has denied them control of Russia’s, quite “unfairly” in SoS H.R. Clinton’s words, but has moved (along with China) to prevent the rest of Eurasia’s resource wealth from falling into their hands. The drive to Global Hegemony has stalled on that very point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @for-the-record
    Bottom line: more resources they pour into those “superweapons” less they’ll allocate for the common man there.

    Logically, of course, this would appear to be true. On the other hand, official sources indicate that Russian military expenditures (2.85% in 2018 and in absolute terms lower than the UK) are actually declining (9% in ruble terms in 2018). Are they to be believed?

    Maybe they aren’t building submarines any more?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. The debate over whether or not Russia really has these weapons is over now. Russia has just successfully tested the hypersonics.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-11/russia-successfully-test-fires-hypersonic-missile

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Did y0u read some of the comments there...?

    One guy posted this link...

    Turns out Russia got these technologies from the Clintons...

    '...Stunning. Hillary Clinton Gave Russia the US Technology for Hypersonic Intercontinental Nuke Missiles...'
     
    Wait...which one of the 'five stages of grief' does this fall into...?

    I didn't know mushroom trip was among them...


    https://s20.postimg.org/6fl0wavel/magic-mushrooms-9-728.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Pavlo says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Just to be clear, I don't, of course, literally consider that Putin & Co. will be hauled off to the Hague in any but a miniscule fraction of possible universes. I think #1 is quite possible if not likely (I hope), #3 may happen but probably not during this decade, and #4 and higher I would basically exclude.

    My point with this is to encourage The Saker & Co. to actually draw a line in the sand so far as their faith in Grandmaster Putin's skill at 666D chess is concerned.

    #1 Will not even be tried.

    #2 Guaranteed at some point in some form, because that’s how Erdogan deals with everybody.

    #3 Will be tried and will fail as usual. Probably.

    The RF government’s plan may or may not be the best plan possible, but it’s the best that could have been devised by cautious, risk-averse men who never wanted conflict with the United States to begin with but have had it repeatedly thrust upon them.

    Still don’t think Saker has quite reached the level of the MAGAtards who see every act of the Donald as some overwhelming triumph and change their worldview on a dime to match whatever brainfart the old man is chasing today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. This what happens when one country (Russia) produces graduates with degrees in science and engineering while another (the USA) produces graduates with degrees in social planning and black history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    This what happens when one country (Russia) produces graduates with degrees in science and engineering while another (the USA) produces graduates with degrees in social planning and black history.
     
    It would make no difference to America's prosperity if all graduates in social planning and black history had taken engineering degrees instead. In fact, given the low standard of engineering that might result, it might make things a lot worse.

    The reason that America has lost its edge in engineering is that the most rewarding careers for the brightest grads are with Goldman Sachs, and the Internet giants, not the likes of GM, IBM, and NASA. In Russia, presumably, the contingencies of reward are different.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @FB
    Are you actually reading ol' Petey's comments...?

    Sheesh man...that takes some strong discipline...

    Seems pretty clear he's lost his marbles...


    https://s20.postimg.org/fs7tv4pul/79341-geezer-lost-marbles.jpg

    I do skip the long ones, as much due to the poor writing as to the immature and ego driven content but I couldn’t resist reusing the reply that Stalin is reported to have used when threatened by the Vatican.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @FB
    Well...here we have a typical example of someone who clearly knows nothing about physics or engineering making some wild technical statements...such as...

    '...The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems.

    Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don’t exist either...'
     
    I had noted previously this phenomenon of an uninformed public's fascination with 'technology'...

    '...In a culture and at a historical time where ‘technology’ is fascinating to people…[despite the fact that they do not understand even the basic physical and technical side of it]… it is seen as a source of national power…'
     
    That from my comment #60 on the Martyanov article thread...

    The simple observation is that people who know absolutely nothing about things like metallurgy...should not make sweeping statements about technology superiority...which can be disproved quite effortlessly...

    A case in point...the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now...[since 2000]...

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket...which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 'spaceplane'...

    Now let's explore how Russian metallurgy is a key factor in the RD180 engine's unmatched performance capability...and why the US has not been able to replicate that technology...

    I will get to the technical details in a moment...

    But first we note that during the Ukraine crisis of 2014 when Russia talked about possibly stopping the export of RD180 engines to the US [bye bye X37...]...the big question immediately asked was whether the US could replicate the RD180 metallurgy...which is the key to its capability...

    The DoD's RD180 study committee expressed confidence the US could in fact replicate this technology...

    '...U.S. Can Replicate RD-180 Metallurgy Technology, Engine Study Committee Chair Says...'

    '...The head of the Defense Department’s RD-180 rocket study committee believes the United States could replicate the coding and metallurgy technology involved with the Russian-produced engine...'
     
    But others doubted this assessment [and rightly so...]

    '...Critics of the idea of replicating the RD-180 domestically have said the U.S. doesn’t have the expertise like Russia to reproduce its metallurgy...

    ...which is the study of physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements and their mixtures, known as alloys...'
     
    Now I will explain in technical terms why metallurgy is the key to the Russian high efficiency rocket engine technology...

    The key to the RD180...and in fact Russian engine technology going back to the 1960s...has been a more efficient engine cycle known as 'Staged Combustion Cycle'...

    '...its main advantage relative to other rocket engine power cycles is high fuel efficiency, measured through specific impulse, while its main disadvantage is engineering complexity...'
     
    '...Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949....

    The first generation of successful staged combustion cycle engines was perfected by the Russians by the 1960s...with the NK33 engine...

    '...The NK-33 series engines are high-pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle bipropellant rocket engines.

    They use oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps... These kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through failures.

    The United States had not investigated oxygen-rich combustion technologies until the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator project in the early 2000s....

    The Soviets, however, perfected the metallurgy behind this method...'
     
    Interesting story here...the US had heard about the advanced NK33 engine but was skeptical...

    '...In the 1990s, [US rocket engine company] Aerojet was contacted and eventually visited Kuznetsov's plant.

    Upon meeting initial skepticism about the high specific impulse and other specifications, Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing.

    Oxidizer-rich staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but deemed impossible.

    The Russian RD-180 engine, purchased by Lockheed Martin (subsequently by United Launch Alliance) for the Atlas III and V rockets, also employs this technique...'
     

    '...Word of the engines eventually spread to America. Nearly 30 years after they were built, disbelieving rocket engineers were led to the warehouse.

    One of the engines was later taken to America, and the precise specification of the engine was demonstrated on a test stand...'
     

    '...The NK-33 closed-cycle technology works by sending the auxiliary engines' exhaust into the main combustion chamber. This made the engine design unique.

    This technology was believed to be impossible by Western rocket engineers...'
     

    '...The fully heated liquid O2 flows through the pre-burner and into the main chamber in this design.

    The extremely hot oxygen-rich mixture made the engine dangerous: it was known to melt 3-inch (76 mm) thick castings "like candle wax"...'
     
    It is to be noted that the US has not to this day created a staged combustion cycle [aka closed cycle] engine of its own...

    This...despite the fact that Nasa scientists nearly 40 years ago called on the US to develop such engines...


    https://s20.postimg.org/al3a3zmf1/Nasa_Staged_Combustion_Cycle_Paper.jpg


    We note here also the specific technical details about chamber pressure of 4,000 psi...which is what the RD180 engine achieves...

    Chamber pressure 3,870 psi...
     
    We also note that the Rocketdyne F1 engine designed by Werner von Braun for the Apollo program achieved a chamber pressure 1/4 of that...1,015 psi...

    And also note that the SpaceX Merlin engine achieves barely 1/3'rd at 1,415 psi...

    As noted already...the US has yet to build a high-pressure rocket engine...[the newest Russian engines...which it is not selling...are well over 4,000 psi...]

    As noted in the introductory remarks of that Nasa paper of 1980...high chamber pressure is essential to rocket engine performance...

    Here is the explanation for that...in thermodynamics which is the study of energy and heat engines...we know that any type of heat engine...be it a rocket engine, a jet engine, a piston engine, or even an air conditioner [also a heat engine]...works with only two types of energy...heat and pressure...

    Only pressure energy can be converted directly to work energy...by means of expanding that pressure through a nozzle...which converts pressure into speed...ie kinetic energy...[it is the same principle as the nozzle on your garden hose...if you don't have water pressure there will be no water shooting out...]

    Heat energy by itself [ie without pressure] cannot be turned into work energy...[ie thrust]...heat energy only serves to make the pressure energy do more work...than it would on its own...

    The higher the pressure...the greater the speed of that fluid exiting the nozzle...whether in a garden hose or a rocket or jet engine nozzle...and the greater the thrust...

    The only way to achieve high pressure of the rocket fuel [kerosene] and oxydizer [liquid oxygen] is to pump those liquids up to a high pressure using a turbopump...

    ...which is the heart of a liquid fuel rocket engine...

    In a simple gas generator cycle as used on US engines...a small amount of fuel is burned to drive the turbopump...and the exhaust is simply dumped overboard...


    https://s20.postimg.org/yssgmfs31/gas_generator.jpg


    We see the orange arrow showing the gas leaving the turbine is dumped overboard...

    This means that the turbopump can be small but the pressure it can put out is likewise small...[incidentally...SpaceX does not make its own turbopumps...those are made by Barber Nichols...]

    The Russian high pressure engines use much more powerful turbopumps in order to get that high chamber pressure...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png


    Here we see that the exhaust gas exiting the pre-burner flows into the main combustion chamber where it adds to the thrust...instead of being dumped overboard...

    Making these very powerful turbopumps is a technology the US has never mastered...hence their reliance on outdated gas generator cycle rocket engines...

    This is a fundamental shortcoming of US space technology...

    Incidentally the most powerful turbopump is found on the world's most powerful rocket engine...the Russian RD170...

    The turbopump puts out 170 megawatts...which is ~230,000 HP...that's the kind of power it takes to achieve high pressure in the fuel and oxydizer of a very large engine...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/RD-170_rocket_engine.jpg


    and here is an interesting documentary about the previously mnentioned NK33 engine from the '60s...which wowed US rocket scientists in the '90s...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM

    I will address the issue of nuclear aircraft and cruise missile propulsion in my next technical comment...

    I loved the post.
    Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. FB says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    The debate over whether or not Russia really has these weapons is over now. Russia has just successfully tested the hypersonics.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-11/russia-successfully-test-fires-hypersonic-missile

    Did y0u read some of the comments there…?

    One guy posted this link…

    Turns out Russia got these technologies from the Clintons…

    ‘…Stunning. Hillary Clinton Gave Russia the US Technology for Hypersonic Intercontinental Nuke Missiles…’

    Wait…which one of the ‘five stages of grief’ does this fall into…?

    I didn’t know mushroom trip was among them…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. bjondo says:
    @FB
    Well...here we have a typical example of someone who clearly knows nothing about physics or engineering making some wild technical statements...such as...

    '...The US placed hypersonic development in abeyance because of materials problems.

    Russian metallurgy is behind that of the west and barring a very unlikely breakthrough, those weapons don’t exist either...'
     
    I had noted previously this phenomenon of an uninformed public's fascination with 'technology'...

    '...In a culture and at a historical time where ‘technology’ is fascinating to people…[despite the fact that they do not understand even the basic physical and technical side of it]… it is seen as a source of national power…'
     
    That from my comment #60 on the Martyanov article thread...

    The simple observation is that people who know absolutely nothing about things like metallurgy...should not make sweeping statements about technology superiority...which can be disproved quite effortlessly...

    A case in point...the US has been buying Russian RD180 rocket engines for more nearly two decades now...[since 2000]...

    These advanced engines power the US Atlas V rocket...which is used extensively to launch US military satellites and also the secret Boeing X37 'spaceplane'...

    Now let's explore how Russian metallurgy is a key factor in the RD180 engine's unmatched performance capability...and why the US has not been able to replicate that technology...

    I will get to the technical details in a moment...

    But first we note that during the Ukraine crisis of 2014 when Russia talked about possibly stopping the export of RD180 engines to the US [bye bye X37...]...the big question immediately asked was whether the US could replicate the RD180 metallurgy...which is the key to its capability...

    The DoD's RD180 study committee expressed confidence the US could in fact replicate this technology...

    '...U.S. Can Replicate RD-180 Metallurgy Technology, Engine Study Committee Chair Says...'

    '...The head of the Defense Department’s RD-180 rocket study committee believes the United States could replicate the coding and metallurgy technology involved with the Russian-produced engine...'
     
    But others doubted this assessment [and rightly so...]

    '...Critics of the idea of replicating the RD-180 domestically have said the U.S. doesn’t have the expertise like Russia to reproduce its metallurgy...

    ...which is the study of physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements and their mixtures, known as alloys...'
     
    Now I will explain in technical terms why metallurgy is the key to the Russian high efficiency rocket engine technology...

    The key to the RD180...and in fact Russian engine technology going back to the 1960s...has been a more efficient engine cycle known as 'Staged Combustion Cycle'...

    '...its main advantage relative to other rocket engine power cycles is high fuel efficiency, measured through specific impulse, while its main disadvantage is engineering complexity...'
     
    '...Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949....

    The first generation of successful staged combustion cycle engines was perfected by the Russians by the 1960s...with the NK33 engine...

    '...The NK-33 series engines are high-pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle bipropellant rocket engines.

    They use oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps... These kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through failures.

    The United States had not investigated oxygen-rich combustion technologies until the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator project in the early 2000s....

    The Soviets, however, perfected the metallurgy behind this method...'
     
    Interesting story here...the US had heard about the advanced NK33 engine but was skeptical...

    '...In the 1990s, [US rocket engine company] Aerojet was contacted and eventually visited Kuznetsov's plant.

    Upon meeting initial skepticism about the high specific impulse and other specifications, Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing.

    Oxidizer-rich staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but deemed impossible.

    The Russian RD-180 engine, purchased by Lockheed Martin (subsequently by United Launch Alliance) for the Atlas III and V rockets, also employs this technique...'
     

    '...Word of the engines eventually spread to America. Nearly 30 years after they were built, disbelieving rocket engineers were led to the warehouse.

    One of the engines was later taken to America, and the precise specification of the engine was demonstrated on a test stand...'
     

    '...The NK-33 closed-cycle technology works by sending the auxiliary engines' exhaust into the main combustion chamber. This made the engine design unique.

    This technology was believed to be impossible by Western rocket engineers...'
     

    '...The fully heated liquid O2 flows through the pre-burner and into the main chamber in this design.

    The extremely hot oxygen-rich mixture made the engine dangerous: it was known to melt 3-inch (76 mm) thick castings "like candle wax"...'
     
    It is to be noted that the US has not to this day created a staged combustion cycle [aka closed cycle] engine of its own...

    This...despite the fact that Nasa scientists nearly 40 years ago called on the US to develop such engines...


    https://s20.postimg.org/al3a3zmf1/Nasa_Staged_Combustion_Cycle_Paper.jpg


    We note here also the specific technical details about chamber pressure of 4,000 psi...which is what the RD180 engine achieves...

    Chamber pressure 3,870 psi...
     
    We also note that the Rocketdyne F1 engine designed by Werner von Braun for the Apollo program achieved a chamber pressure 1/4 of that...1,015 psi...

    And also note that the SpaceX Merlin engine achieves barely 1/3'rd at 1,415 psi...

    As noted already...the US has yet to build a high-pressure rocket engine...[the newest Russian engines...which it is not selling...are well over 4,000 psi...]

    As noted in the introductory remarks of that Nasa paper of 1980...high chamber pressure is essential to rocket engine performance...

    Here is the explanation for that...in thermodynamics which is the study of energy and heat engines...we know that any type of heat engine...be it a rocket engine, a jet engine, a piston engine, or even an air conditioner [also a heat engine]...works with only two types of energy...heat and pressure...

    Only pressure energy can be converted directly to work energy...by means of expanding that pressure through a nozzle...which converts pressure into speed...ie kinetic energy...[it is the same principle as the nozzle on your garden hose...if you don't have water pressure there will be no water shooting out...]

    Heat energy by itself [ie without pressure] cannot be turned into work energy...[ie thrust]...heat energy only serves to make the pressure energy do more work...than it would on its own...

    The higher the pressure...the greater the speed of that fluid exiting the nozzle...whether in a garden hose or a rocket or jet engine nozzle...and the greater the thrust...

    The only way to achieve high pressure of the rocket fuel [kerosene] and oxydizer [liquid oxygen] is to pump those liquids up to a high pressure using a turbopump...

    ...which is the heart of a liquid fuel rocket engine...

    In a simple gas generator cycle as used on US engines...a small amount of fuel is burned to drive the turbopump...and the exhaust is simply dumped overboard...


    https://s20.postimg.org/yssgmfs31/gas_generator.jpg


    We see the orange arrow showing the gas leaving the turbine is dumped overboard...

    This means that the turbopump can be small but the pressure it can put out is likewise small...[incidentally...SpaceX does not make its own turbopumps...those are made by Barber Nichols...]

    The Russian high pressure engines use much more powerful turbopumps in order to get that high chamber pressure...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png


    Here we see that the exhaust gas exiting the pre-burner flows into the main combustion chamber where it adds to the thrust...instead of being dumped overboard...

    Making these very powerful turbopumps is a technology the US has never mastered...hence their reliance on outdated gas generator cycle rocket engines...

    This is a fundamental shortcoming of US space technology...

    Incidentally the most powerful turbopump is found on the world's most powerful rocket engine...the Russian RD170...

    The turbopump puts out 170 megawatts...which is ~230,000 HP...that's the kind of power it takes to achieve high pressure in the fuel and oxydizer of a very large engine...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/RD-170_rocket_engine.jpg


    and here is an interesting documentary about the previously mnentioned NK33 engine from the '60s...which wowed US rocket scientists in the '90s...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM

    I will address the issue of nuclear aircraft and cruise missile propulsion in my next technical comment...

    So, you think reverse engineering of alien space craft, other alien tech items by US in mid 20th century baloney?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread