Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Repeatability and Prediction

"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a wilful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses." - Richard K. Morgan

As simply as possible, science is about "experiments" that can be repeated and then used to predict. This is why there have been quite a few books trying to define science - no one, even today, is quite sure what it is.

It's really about knowledge. The more knowledge you have, the more accurate your predictions. If you had an enormous amount of knowledge you'd be able to predict the future in such detail you could amass great weath and power.

Of course, I predict things. I realized years ago I'd been interested in it since I was about 12, when I picked up a book by one Criswell (who was wrong 99.99% of the time) who wrote a book, Criswell Predicts (he later became a bit actor is some Ed Wood movies). Even then I thought the book was hysterical.

I've read many people who with their knowledge predict things in a general way. I'm one of them.

Because of what they know (and what I know) here are my predictions. In a general way.

Science (and its application, technology) is growing by leaps and bounds. Computers, software, nanotechnology, 3D printing, gene editing, designer drugs - leaps and bounds, nearly every day. God knows where this is going to lead us. All I can say is it will be for good and bad.

At the same time, because of imperfect human nature, all that technology will be used to oppress people by the "government" and the very wealthy.

Which is why I'm pointed out we're stomping on the brake and accelerator at the same time.

There really is an attempt by the "elites" to impose some sort of one-world government on people (Thomas Sowell mocked these people as "the Anointed" (self-anointed, really). They believe they are intellectually and morally superior to us benighted masses and so believe the can move people around like chess pieces to create Utopia - and better people. It ain't gonna happen.

I don't believe this is any kind of conspiracy, unless a few hundred small groups fighting with each other to gain wealth and power is a conspiracy.

Massive conspiracies going on for hundreds of years do not exist. There is no Illuminati, no Masons, no David Icke reptilians attempting to conquer the world.

I've dealt enough with conspironuts to know they believe Donald Trump a Clinton puppet, who will drop out so Hillary can become President. The idea he is really is a wild card and his own man - incomprehensible to them. It can't be! Because everything is a conspiracy!

At the same we people who love freedom will use their knowledge of computers and software to fight against governments becoming totalitarian. This is an eternal fight, liberty against tyranny.

Something else that has to be taken into consideration is the state of marriage. What I've heard called "Marriage 1.0" isn't dead, but it appears to be on life support. It's never going to totally die, but is is hurting.

This means less children and less stable families, so you have to take this into consideration when you predict where society is going. Since families are the foundation of any society, the fewer stable families and the fewer stable children, the worse it is for everyone.

There are interesting times coming. We are living in an age of great disruption.

Not that leftists and other Anointed care. The more extreme ones really do want to destroy families, deluding themselves the New Man and the New Society will be created. Again, that ain't gonna happen.

I wrote a blogpost recently about astrology. One of my posters mentioned I had stumbled onto what he called Astrotheology. So I investigated it.

I figured if there was something to it, astrologers would be able to predict the future, and the better ones with agree with what I and others had predicted.

Sure enough, some have.

First, I made a mistake by saying that Jesus was born at the end of age of Pisces. He was born at the beginning (each age last for about 2150 years). As I mentioned the symbol of Pisces is the fish (again, the original Christian symbol was a fish) and the Gospels are full of fish, fishermen, fishers of men, water, baptism, water that if you drink you will never thirst again. How this came about is beyond me.

Supposedly we're moving out of the Age of Pisces and have just entered the Age of Aquarius (like the '60s song by the Fifth Dimension). Of course, there will be great good and bad to it.

Many modern astrologers do make predictions concerning society. I ran across one, Robert Zoller, who learned Latin to translate Medieval texts.

This is from Wikipedia:

"Robert Zoller is a proponent of medieval astrology. Zoller’s predictions for the Age of Aquarius suggest that the Pisces world where religion is the opiate of the masses will be replaced in the Aquarian Age by a world ruled by secretive, power-hungry elites seeking absolute power over others. Families will dissolve completely, or family ties will be hidden. Zoller also believes that knowledge in the Aquarian Age will only be valued for its ability to win wars; scientists may even be able to precipitate earthquakes for military means, and the danger in the Aquarian Age is that knowledge and science will be abused, not industry and trade. Zoller sees the Aquarian Age as a Dark Age in which religion will be seen as offensive."

Well, damn. This is exactly what many people are predicting, just by thinking it through. It's how I did it.

Zoller also wrote this on his Facebook page:

"During the Piscean Age, the benefic Jupiter ruled the angles. Jupiter ruled both Pisces on the 1st and Sagittarius on the 10th, and thus, while there was confusion of hierarchical religious institutions and political institutions and while this inevitably led to hypocrisy, the Age was nevertheless one in which truth and philosophy mattered to men. The Piscean Age will, as this Aquarian Age unfolds, be seen as a halcyon period of semi-respite from the essentially malefic and spiritually destructive nature of life. In the Aquarian Age, the malefics once again rule the angles and with them returns the natural severity of worldly life. The Novus Ordo Saeculorum, the New Order of the Ages, will rule through the power of life and death (Scorpio, which is on the 10th), through behaviour modification, cloning, genetic engineering, mind control and the occult. Might makes right in this New Age. If the preceding Age produced metaphysical materialists, who duped the people through the opiate of religion, the New Age will produce materialist metaphysicians who will make the preceding political power elites look like inept apprentices. In the Age of Aquarius, religion will be humanistic love of fairness and justice. While feeding the people with Libran platitudes, the Scorpionic rulers will work tirelessly toward the realization of their goal – absolute power over others, as Leo is seen in position on the 7th house. The will of the people will be towards freedom of expression (Aquarius), and they will be encouraged to do their own thing so that they keep their minds off what their rulers do."

I consider this right on the money.

How did he do this? I don't know, but I do know there is a lot in this world we barely know, and, again, we are right at the beginning of understanding things. But in my case, I will use whatever works, even I don't understand. This is just fine with me.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Children Turning Against Mothers

"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death." - Matthew 10:21

Women have been turning against men for a long time, although many of them don't believe it and delude themselves it's "equality."

The next step is for children to turn against mothers (and fathers).

It's going to be women turning against men, men turning against women (which is why most of the Manosphere exists), fathers turning against children, children turning against both parents...

Leftists will cheer this, of course, since they want to destroy the family and have been open about this desire for a long time.

George Orwell predicted these things. But then, so did someone else, a few thousand years ago.

"They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." - Luke 12:53

"Women have destroyed men's ability to love them by turning it into a crime. And, they have further alienated the men who are even still willing to try by their arrogant and hate-filled demeanor and demands." - No'mam blog

Astrology and the Star of Bethlehem

When I was 19 years old one of my neighbors, who was about 35 and a self-taught astrologer, decided to do my horoscope. She told me I would die mysteriously and my body would never be found. I rolled my eyes and blew off her predictions as nonsense - because they were. How can anyone predict something and that and take herself seriously?

Years later, another self-taught female astrologer also did my horoscope. This time it was vaguely correct in a minor way, but not anywhere near enough to impress me. I promptly forgot it.

Then a third woman did mine. She was taught by an older woman who was a professional astrologer.

This time she was right on the money, scarily so. What she said had nothing in common with what the first two told me. And all I did was give her my birthdate, time, and location of birth.

Obviously, there is something to this stuff, when my horoscope can be so extraordinarily accurate that it very much surprised me.

Now as to why so many women are interested in astrology I have no explanation. I do know the whole thing can out get of hand (and has has in the past) with people running to astrologers (and other soothsayers) in an attempt to control their lives, avoid unpleasant things and predict the future. People are fools that way, always have been and probably always will be. There's a sucker born every minute.

Soon after the third woman did my horoscope I ran across an article about the Star of Bethlehem. The only thing I remembered about the Biblical account is that the magi (who years later I discovered were probably Babylonian astrologers), saw Jesus' "star" in the sky and so went to find him.

The article suggested his "star" was really the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, which at that time were less than a moon's width apart when viewed from the earth. The average person might think nothing of this or not even notice it (most of them probably being asleep) but the astrologers of that time knew it meant something.

Incidentally, I find it surpassingly interesting that such men probably lived at night to study the stars and slept during the day.

The only New Testament account of the Star of Bethlehem occurs in the Gospel of Matthew, where the magi arrive in Jerusalem during the reign of Herod the Great, asking about a newborn king of the Jews, having seen "the rising of his star."

During that time the conjunction happened on Aug. 12, 3 B.C. and Oct. 14, 2 B.C. And in September of 3 B.C., Jupiter came into conjunction with Regulus, the star of kingship, the brightest star in the Leo constellation. Leo was the constellation of kings (I am a Leo myself and far more sympathetic to monarchy than democracy)) and associated with the Lion of Judah. So the royal planet approached the royal star in the royal constellation representing Israel - the kind of astrological symbol that would arouse the interest of the magi.

Just the month before, Jupiter and Venus almost seemed to touch. The conjunction between Jupiter and Regulus repeated twice in February and May of 2 B.C. Then in June, Jupiter and Venus, the two brightest planets, appeared to touch; to the naked eye they became a single object above the setting sun.

Just as odd, Jesus was born at the end of the Age of Pisces, whose symbol is the fish (the fish was the original Christian symbol, not the cross). And what are the Gospels full of? Fishermen, fishers of men, water, baptism.

I have no idea how all this happened or even what it means. But it does appear to be more than a coincidence. But whatever the cause, it certainly is interesting to ponder these things.

Is this "science" or not? According to the current definition of it, no, but "current definitions" will change, as they always do.

For that matter, of what practical value is astrology? Babylon no longer exists and in fact was considered a degraded culture. Its astrologers apparently didn't see that coming and couldn't stop it. They predicted the birth of Jesus and went to give him gifts. Anything else?

The late James P. Hogan, who was a well-known science-fact and science-fiction writer, once told me that all true science automatically turns itself into technology.

If astrology is a "science," what useful, practical "techology" has it turned itself into?

"As above, so below"? That's a very old observation, and I don't even know exactly what it means. The macrocosm (the universe, whatever that is) influences the microcosm (us)? What's so strange about that? It just might be in ways we don't yet understand.

We're always trying to understand and influence the macrocosm. We understand a vanishingly small part of it so far.

The universe is vast, perhaps infinite, and time and space are beyond our comprehension except in tiny way. And just because we aren't able to understand something, and so dismiss it, is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

We're just at the beginning of understanding things, and humility and an open mind is is far more useful than hubris and a closed mind.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

A Tragic Yet Still Optimistic View of Life

I have what is called "the tragic view of life." Thomas Sowell wrote a book about it, called A Conflict of Visions. The "conflict" is with the liberal view of life (which he mocked as "the vision of the Anointed"), which considers people perfectible. If often means slaughtering them by the millions to get rid of the "imperfectables."

I don't consider the tragic view especially "tragic," just realistic (which is how Sowell and, for that matter, the ancient Greeks, saw it). It's the belief people are imperfect, flawed and limited and in many ways not too smart (especially in groups, when they're downright idiots). They're envious and ungrateful and blame their problems on other people. They're prone to theft and war and murder and disease - the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

More than anything else, it's the belief there are rarely solutions, but instead are trade-offs. Liberals want solutions and believe they exist, which is why they delude themselves with absurd nonsense such as "microaggressions."

Take vaccinations. There will always be a very small number of kids who have adverse reactions, including death. But you have to compare to the number of kids who'd otherwise die from tetanus or diphtheria.

A former girlfriend told me she never met her father's sister, since she died at age two from tetanus - running around barefoot, apparently. How many kids die from tetanus now? In the West, none.

I've mentioned the "Little House on the Prairie" books. Laura Ingalls Wilder had both diphtheria and malaria as a little girl. Her first child, Rose Wilder Lane, survived. All her other children died. The first boy, the one born after Rose, died in infancy from some sort of seizure. He probably wasn't even a month old.

Diphtheria? Malaria? Rabies? All gone, at least in the West.

When I was five years old the little boy upstairs died from leukemia. He, too, was five. Today, I've known kids who were cured of it.

I once took a girlfriend to a graveyard to find my grandparents' grave. One section of the graveyard was set aside for children. All of them died in the polio epidemic of the '50s. Some of the boys' markers (concrete) had marbles embedded in them, along with a picture of them. Polio? Not anymore.

I know an older woman who told me she had polio in the '50s and lay on her back "for seven years." She always had to use crutches to walk for the rest of her life, until she couldn't walk anymore and ended up in a wheelchair. That problem doesn't exist anymore.

Yet, I'm still optimistic. Not in the sense of people becoming more moral (everything we need to know about morality was written down thousands of years ago).

But materially, in terms of science and technology - then yes, I'm optimistic.

Materially, we are incredibly rich - and getting richer.

Science is advancing by leaps and bounds. "Peak oil?" I'm not worried. Sickness and disease? There's less and less every day. And gene editing is coming very soon. People will be smarter and "bad genes" will be culled.

I have a cousin who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Stage 3. One treatment of a new experimental drug wiped it out. Someday, cancer will gone, too.

Will all of this make us happier? No, it won't. But it'll mean a lot less pain and early death.

Being out of pain and not dying early is a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately no matter what material advances we make, for the mass or people it will never be enough. They'll want more and more. No matter what they get, they'll whine and whine and whine.

If one disease is cured, they'll want the cure for free (which means other people will have to pay for it, since There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch). That's the trade-off - the Law of Unintended Consequences. The problem is trying to figure what those trade-off are.

It'd be great if we could get rid of the Four Horsemen. That's going to be the really hard one, since it may not be possible

Personally I hope for the best and expect the worst. Optimistic and pessimistic at the same time, you could say.

Friday, October 2, 2015


I'm not bothered by the sex toys, which will only be used by the nuts anyway. I'm concerned about men checking out because women cannot take their place.

As Carl Jung noticed, women are biologically indispensable because they have the babies and men are culturally indispensable because they created everything.

This is from Breitbart and was written by Milo Yianopoulos.

Sex with robots will be ‘the norm’ in 50 years, say experts. Men are considering the prospect with curiosity and a sense of humour. But academics and feminists are terrified and calling for them to be banned. Let me tell you why.

Who, or what, men have sex with is the basis of our civilisation. It is the driving force behind our greatest accomplishments. Men don’t compete for abstract pleasure: they compete to bag the best mate. The internet, the pyramids and the moon landings would not exist were it not for man’s desire to have sex with woman.

That’s why Nature experiments more widely with men: the male IQ range is wider, and there is more variation in male behaviour and biology than in women. Men are where experimentation happens, because a wider variety of male aptitudes and preferences will keep women happier and result in a more well-rounded and healthy society.

But male sexual appetites are easily satisfied, despite what women will tell you. Blow jobs really aren’t that difficult, and in any case most blokes are fine with a pizza and a wank. For many men, sex is a nice bonus, but it’s not essential. When you introduce a low-cost alternative to women that comes without all the nagging, insecurity and expense, frankly men are going to leap in headfirst.

Another reason men might be enthusiastic about female-free sex is obvious: the sociopathic, man-hating feminism we see so much of on television and in our newspapers today is turning men off dealing with women altogether. Constant whinging about “toxic masculinity,” “manspreading,” “mansplaining,” the bogus gender pay gap and the absurd campus rape culture myth are pushing the sexes apart, fostering mistrust and fear.

The fact that wacky, misandrist intersectional feminists are an unpopular minority — as a result of their horrid influence, just 18 per cent of women now call themselves feminists — doesn’t matter because they hold court in the media and on campuses, and young women are starting to parrot discredited and absurd nonsense about the “oppressive patriarchy,” picking up on a victimhood script they believe they can leverage for social and professional advantage.

In response, men are simply checking out, giving up on women and retreating into porn and video games. I call it the “sexodus,” and its immediate victims aren’t men, but women, who are being consigned to singledom as men lose interest in them or are simply too exhausted or fearful of the social consequences of approaching girls romantically. The truth is, men get along okay without women, unlike women, who become shrieking, neurotic messes if they’re still single in their 30s.

Sorry, no offence, but it’s true: women have been getting steadily unhappier since the Second World War, when they first entered the workplace in large numbers. It sounds bizarre, but ever since the rise of feminism, every decade has seen another slump in female morale. Women now report themselves more generally depressed and more likely to think about suicide than at any time in history. (The vast majority of suicides are still men, by the way. Women talk about it endlessly, but rarely pull it off.)

The fight for women’s “equality” has always been absurd: why would a woman want to step down to the lower status of being equal with men? Why should women be badgered into choosing to work over having babies and being happy? Why are feminists lying to women that they can look however they want — fat, hairy armpits, piercings, blue hair — and still be content?

Women were told by feminists that they could “have it all” — the career, the husband, the kids and the book club. But it was a lie. What they’ve ended up with instead is a tiny apartment in an “up and coming” bit of town, friends they hate, a string of disastrous and emotionally unfulfilling past relationships and a cat.

Had the relations between the sexes been healthier today, there wouldn’t be much call for sexbots to get in the way. Women already had the upper hand, sexually. They had what men wanted. There’s a reason the Ashley Madison leak showed that the site was over 90 per cent male.

But gender relations in the West are at their worst for fifty years, possibly more, which is why popular men’s bloggers are now asking whether sexbots will replace women entirely. The consensus seems to be: for some men, yes, totally. For other men, they will become a masturbation tool. A few “alphas” and players at the top will be able to bang their way around the entire female population, which will be comprised of ever more neurotic, backstabbing and insane behaviour.

Feminists always hate when they accidentally get what they want. They’ve been waging a war on sex on campuses and elsewhere for decades. Now, suddenly, they will earn the fruits of their labour: the “whiny manbabies” they’ve been bullying for so many years are going to be ejaculating into silicon-ribbed pleasure-bots, instead of grovelling at their feet for a chance to smell their knickers.

“Ladies, if you think guys are selfish, egotistical pricks now, just wait until they start showing up to dates basked in the afterglow of sex with their Jessica Alba robots,” writes the widely-read blog Château Heartiste. “It is going to take a lot more to win over a guy who is that sexually satisfied.”

I think he’s right. What’s clear is that the purchase women have over men, sexually and emotionally, is fading fast. That’s perhaps one reason for the “spitting tacks” fury of modern feminism: the louder they yell, the more men simply tune out and disappear into porn, robots and video games. Technology didn’t disempower women sexually — they did that to themselves with feminism — but it is accelerating the process.

In the short term, sexbots will be good news for dudes. For one thing, with a robot, men know the orgasm will be fake, so it removes the performance anxiety of trying to make the grade. (Men know the robot orgasm doesn’t exist — unlike the female orgasm, whose existence is still insisted upon by some conspiracy theorists and biological extremists.) And Heartiste says that real women are going to get “looser and more willing to please” as men become “choosier and less willing to please.”

Dildos and vibrators have become a permanent part of feminist iconography. They are celebrated because their existence suggests that men are disposable. Macy Gray once wrote a tongue-in-cheek love song about her “Battery-Operated-Boyfriend,” and it has been common for columnists to go a step further and to casually and sometimes even triumphantly remark that dildos and other sex toys are going to make men obsolete. Well, sorry ladies, but the shoe is on the other foot now.

Although some women will respond rationally to the changing dynamics of the dating economy, one thing’s for sure: they’re going to start treating each other even more terribly than they do already. It’s a little-known secret that the worst trolls online are often women, and very often their targets are other girls.

Because they’re miserable, women are acting out. That’s what’s fuelling the angry feminist harpies of the third-wave movement, and it’s why women are so mean to each other. All that talk of the feminist sisterhood is a myth: ladies behave absolutely abominably to one another, socially and in the workplace. And remember, the number of men putting themselves on the market is going to go down, so competition between females will get utterly vicious.

I mean, look, I don’t mean to be rude, but most of the reason I went gay is so I didn’t have to deal with nutty broads. Imagine how much worse they’re going to get when the passive aggressive manipulation tactics stop working because the guy can get himself off with a thinner, hotter robot any time he wants to. They’re going to go mental.

All that said, my hunch is that marriage will benefit from a reduced focus on sex. With desire taken out of the marital equation, it’s conceivable that the number of “partnership marriages” between people who get on well and respect each other enough to share the load of raising children will grow. Without the power imbalance built in to traditional heterosexual marriage — i.e., women holding all the cards — marriage could become stronger than ever.

But — and this is a big but — this apparent shift in favour of men will come at the expense of society and the wider economy. We’ve already seen in Japan what happens when men and women lose interest in each other. Japan’s nationwide sexual dysfunction is at the root of its economy’s problems, and it’s the reason for the country’s cultural implosion, too.

We’ll have it even worse here in the West, because Japan is still patriarchal. As a result, society functions. In the West, women are surging ahead into positions of dominance in the media, the arts, academia, politics, you name it. Some people will find this offensive, but: matriarchy is a problem for the rest of us. As feminist critic Camilla Paglia so memorably put it, if civilisation had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.

When men start checking out en masse, as is already happening, you can say good-bye to all of society’s best astrophysicists, mathematicians, philosophers, composers and chess players. Scientific progress will effectively stall, because men are just as happy beating a video game as they are solving the riddles of the universe — and they’ll take the entertainment option if they have no interest in impressing women.

Women will not take men’s places in these disciplines, because there simply aren’t enough women with IQs over 120. Again, sorry if you find that offensive, but it’s just a fact. IQ isn’t a perfect measure, by any means, but it’s the best gauge we have of whether someone can perform the higher-level functions needed to be a game-changing scientist or transcendently brilliant artist.

Sex with a woman will always be the prestige form of intercourse, to put it in the language of marketers. But the sexual marketplace is changing terrifyingly fast. Sex won’t be truly commoditised until there is a mass-produced, victimless, cheap alternative to having sex that is good enough for most men.

It won’t be long before we arrive at that point. And the consequences are going to shake the foundations of our economy and irreparably change how our society is organised. It will also, I’m sorry to say, leave women even more horribly unhappy and lonely than they already are. If I were you, girls, I’d start being a bit nicer to your boyfriends…

Love and Death

I'm at the age where there are about one of me for every two women. As a result I get hit on about once a week, at work, in stores, in coffee shops, on the streets, in parks (one moaned she hadn't had a boyfriend "for seven years"). They tell me about their lives out of the blue. They even hit on me when I'm with another woman.

These women are always never-married, or divorced, or their husbands have died.

A lot of times they try to give me food, of all things.

On the other hand, some of these woman try to kill me. They're full of hate and bitterness (their friends and even families describe these women as "high maintenance," which means overdressed with clownface make-up and a bad attitude) and they're in a rage I don't meet their standards - standards from when they were 18. So they act like they want me to die.

I used to be half-owner of a floral shop. Our complaints (always from women) to compliments ran 10 to 1. Not good enough flowers - more, more, more! Gratitude and appreciation - they apparently never heard of it.

But now, when men aren't buying them any more flowers - or anything, for that matter, their attitude changes and all of a sudden they're desperate.

These days, they either want to love me or kill me.

Decades ago I told a friend of mine, "When we're younger women mostly have the power. But when we got older, we have it. So I wonder how they're act?" Now I know.

A noticeable number of young women are too busy abusing young men to realize what's going to happen when they hit the Wall. But they always find out.

I feel like I'm in a Woody Allen film - or an Alice Cooper song! Love and Death. Ah, well - c'est la vie!

Thursday, October 1, 2015

The Curve of Binding Energy

The Curve of Binding Energy is the name of a book by John McPhee, that was assigned to me in a college journalism class. It was the first time I had heard about Project Orion.

From Wikipedia:

"Project Orion was a study of a spacecraft intended to be directly propelled by a series of explosions of atomic bombs behind the craft (nuclear pulse propulsion). Early versions of this vehicle were proposed to take off from the ground with significant associated nuclear fallout; later versions were presented for use only in space.

"A 1955 Los Alamos Laboratory document states (without offering references) that general proposals were first made by Stanislaw Ulam in 1946, and that preliminary calculations were made by F. Reines and Ulam in a Los Alamos memorandum dated 1947. The actual project, initiated in 1958, was led by Ted Taylor at General Atomics and physicist Freeman Dyson, who at Taylor's request took a year away from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton to work on the project.

"The Orion concept offered high thrust and high specific impulse, or propellant efficiency, at the same time. The unprecedented extreme power requirements for doing so would be met by nuclear explosions, of such power relative to the vehicle's mass as to be survived only by using external detonations without attempting to contain them in internal structures. As a qualitative comparison, traditional chemical rockets—such as the Saturn V that took the Apollo program to the Moon—produce high thrust with low specific impulse, whereas electric ion engines produce a small amount of thrust very efficiently. Orion would have offered performance greater than the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines then under consideration. Supporters of Project Orion felt that it had potential for cheap interplanetary travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion.

"The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project. However, from Project Longshot to Project Daedalus, Mini-Mag Orion, and other proposals which reach engineering analysis at the level of considering thermal power dissipation, the principle of external nuclear pulse propulsion to maximize survivable power has remained common among serious concepts for interstellar flight without external power beaming and for very high-performance interplanetary flight. Such later proposals have tended to modify the basic principle by envisioning equipment driving detonation of much smaller fission or fusion pellets, although in contrast Project Orion's larger nuclear pulse units (nuclear bombs) were based on less speculative technology."


In other words, atomic bombs were dropped though a hole in the bottom of the craft, exploded, the explosion pressed against a pusher-plate, the craft went up, another was dropped, and so on (the Coke company was consulted on how to drop cans though a hole).

Weight was not a problem. Basically the material for entire cities could have been lofted into orbit.

Instead, we went the wrong way, putting tiny little payloads into orbit with wasteful, gigantic liquid-fueled rockets.

There are several fictional representations of Project Orion, but the first one I read was Jerry Pournelle's King David's Spaceship.

I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we are at least 1,000 years behind where we should be.