Are You Not Tired of Criminals In Office?

No political party should ever run convicted (or even un-convicted) criminals as candidates for public office!  We do need laws or a Constitutional amendment to make that a binding requirement on all political parties and independents. 

Here in Texas is our latest choice for a Senator:

Talarico is the Democrat,  considered the “wrong party” by 60+% of the Texas voters.  Paxton is the Republican.  So,  whom do you prefer,  the “wrong party” or the so-evident but still-un-convicted criminal?   

And why is the “wrong party” wrong,  anyway?  Only because the party that runs criminals for office tells you so!  Think about that!  That thought process might make your brain hurt,  because you’ll realize you’ve been lied to and believed the lies,  but think about it anyway!

This criminality-in-office problem is no different for some other national offices.  Look at what that same party offered for president,  for a second time,  in 2024!   And a majority of the electorate was stupid enough to fall for the lies and vote the criminal back into office! 

I worked with classified information decades ago.  Had I done back then,  what Trump did with classified information upon leaving office in 2021,  I would still be in jail today! 

You must ask yourself how did he escape justice?  Because a loyalist he appointed to a federal judgeship during his first term,  ended up as the judge overseeing his classified documents case while Biden was president.  She delayed doing anything about that case,  to repay him,  until after the 2024 election!  Simple as that!  And just as nauseatingly ugly!

That Trump was not already behind bars for this crime,  well before the November 2024 election,  is itself an ongoing crime against America!   In which that loyalist judge is complicit!

And that was not his only crime!  So was inciting this infamous insurrection,  for which the rally on the ellipse was only the “go code”,  for something months in the build-up:

And so also a crime against America is Trump and his enablers trying to change history about that insurrection,  and Trump’s pardoning of those who committed it:

Also a crime is the ongoing killing of drug-smuggling criminals on sight,  instead of bringing them to trial.  Simply calling them “terrorists” does not make criminals into enemy combatants!  Under our laws,  and international law,  the commander-in-chief may only order lethal strikes upon actual enemy combatants!  

How about the 34-count criminal conviction in New York state for mishandling campaign money,  specifically to illegally influence an election?  That last is what raised it to a felony.

Or the civil sexual abuse case decided against him,  for which he has so far avoided paying the victim,  and is now having his weaponized DOJ “investigate” her in revenge?

Or the 13 year old girl he and Jeffrey Epstein raped several years ago?  Trump avoided justice for that crime by settling-out-of-court with her family for $13 million.  Instead,  he should have gone to jail,  forced to register for the rest of his life as a sex offender!  But no!

Or the 6 bankruptcies of record which allowed him to completely stiff all his creditors,  without having to tighten his own belt?  Ordinary folks cannot do that,  but the rich can!

And yet another crime is treason.  Weakening our alliances when our enemies could not do that for themselves,  is nothing short of treason!   “Aid and comfort” type.  Period! 

He did it by angering and alienating our allies,  even threatening war upon two of them over Greenland.  Our allies no longer believe that America would come to their aid if an enemy attacked them,  because of what Trump has said and done.   Every alienated ally is another count of that treason.  Including our non-NATO ally Ukraine,  which he starved of aid while he removed sanctions on Putin’s Russia that attacked and invaded them.  Treason!

So I have to ask,  why should you believe that any of our allies would come to our aid at all,  when they no longer believe we would help them?  That’s what the destruction of our alliances looks like!  Trump himself did that,  no one else did.  Treason!

Trump promised you prosperity,  better health care,  and no more foreign wars.  So,  what did he actually bring you?  Inflation due to tariffs and interruptions of oil shipping.  Inflation of grocery prices due to tariffs and interruptions of shipping.  Higher gasoline,  diesel,  and jet fuel prices due to interruptions of global oil shipments.  Drying-up of health care options.  The Iran war,  after doing a raid on Venezuela,  and now threatening Cuba.  All lies,  as it turned out!  Lies that cost all of you dearly,  right in your pocketbooks!

Do not listen to the lies politicians chronically tell,  especially Trump!   Look only at what they actually do or did!   And what Trump did to you is part of a long pattern:

Now,  you who supported Trump tell me again why the Democrats or third parties are the “wrong party” to vote for!  If you can. 

And you Trump supporters tell me why I am wrong in thinking there is no real Republican party left in America,  only the cult of personality that is the party-of-Trump!  If you can. 

I don’t really think you can!

So,  I think you might ought to consider believing me,  when I tell you that America is rapidly sliding into a fascist dictatorship under Trump,  as the cult figure around which his party-of-Trump is built.  For only one infamous example,  the Nazi party became a cult of personality around Adolf Hitler,  if you’ll recall!  And there have been many,  many others.  

We already have a secret police force mistreating some people (unfairly and incorrectly demonized immigrants,  usually of brown or black skin) and intimidating the rest of us (up to and including killing some US citizens who protest).  You have all seen it on live TV! 

We already have concentration camps in which those abused by that secret police force await their “disappearing”.   With inmates dying of neglect there!  You’ve seen the reports!

Censorship of all information media is largely in place,  or Colbert’s Late Show would still be on CBS,  as only one example,  of several,  that all of us have seen!  Now Scott Pelley!

The government has already been mostly weaponized into tools of persecution for all Trump opponents.  And their persecution has already begun!  As all of us have seen!

The Trump dictatorship in America is almost fully in place!  Compare:  

Your very last chance is to vote out all of Trump’s enablers and followers this November!  You will have to turn out en masse to do that,  in order to overcome the off-year gerrymandering meant to steal that election from you!  Think about THAT! 

And those of you who voted for him before,  are going to have to see through all the lies,  and recognize that he has actually done things which hurt you!  And then vote for somebody else!  Think about THAT!

Fail to turn out the Trump enablers in November 2026,  and there will be no future elections in America that are not rigged shams!  You will no longer be allowed to oppose or protest anything that he does!  Just like the way it is,  in Russia,  North Korea,  China,  Iran,  and many other dictatorships!

If the completion of the imposition of that dictatorship happens,  your only other recourse is armed revolution in the streets!  That would be a total bloodbath,  because he has already cashiered many of the high-ranking military officers who might oppose him.  Those military opponents who are retired,  are being persecuted by his weaponized DOJ or DOD,  as was retired Navy captain Senator Mark Kelly,  for but one example!

And don’t think Trump would not use the military on you in any such revolution!  He has already sent the National Guard to opposition-led cities,  and threatened sending the Marines,  whether requested or not (it was not),  and whether there was a valid reason or not (there was not)!  We all saw it live on TV!  It is but a small step from there,  to lethal military strikes on opposition-led cities!

Don’t ever say that I did not warn you,  either!  Because I just did,  yet again!  Several times now already!  Right here on this site! 

-----  

Search code DDMMYYYY format:     06062026

Search keywords:  bad government,  idiocy in politics,  treason

-----   

Here is a list of related articles on this site.  It is a long list!  I have been trying to warn you all,  for some years now,  all the way back to 2015!   The list has titles and posting dates,  which dates and titles are all that you need to use the archive tool on the left side of this page.  Jot down the info for the ones you want to go look at.  Then click on the year.  Then click on the month.  Then click on the title,  if it is not top-of-list that month. 

6-3-2026          This Is What Control of the Media Looks Like!

5-16-2026        Trump China Trip Has Pitfall!

5-12-2026        Plenty of Iran War Failures to Go Around

4-24-2026       Trump the Incompetent Liar

3-26-2026       Do Something About Trump and His Iran War

3-21-2026        Just So You Know …

3-16-2026        Messages to Federal Representation

2-25-2026       Fact Checking

2-15-2026        The El Paso Airport Shutdown Fiasco

2-13-2026        More About Trump Treasons

2-13-2026        Incompetents End the Fight Against Climate Change

2-3-2026          The Trump Dictatorship Is Here

1-19-2026        An Australian’s View of Our Situation

1-18-2026        Assessment of Completeness:  Imposition of Trump Dictatorship

1-13-2026        Recent Letters to Federal Reps

1-8-2026          About Venezuela

12-24-2025     On Recent Activities At Sea

12-9-2025       Evaluating Trump’s Ukraine Actions

12-7-2025        About the Boat Strikes

10-23-2025     Sad to Say …

10-7-2025        Trump Dictatorship Is Already Here!

9-23-2025       Open Your Eyes and See!

8-24-2025       Tariff Smarts?

8-16-2025        History Rhymes Pretty Close,  Does It Not?

8-13-2025        Dictatorship Is Upon You!

8-10-2025        Rear of a Whale?

7-28-2025       Education Department to be Shuttered by Trump?

7-18-2025        Why Trump Did Not Want To Release The Epstein Files

6-29-2025       Where You Get Your “Facts” Matters!

6-25-2025       On the new Iran war

6-16-2025        History Does Not Repeat, But It Does Rhyme (The Turd Reich)

6-13-2026        Trump Cognition?

6-11-2025        Hegseth the Incompetent

6-9-2025          Getting Rid of the Opposition

6-7-2025          Trump Parade?

6-5-2025          History May Not Repeat,  But …

6-3-2025          Only One Felon Here!

5-31-2025        Bravery Is Taking a Stand

5-30-2025       Learn to Count?

5-28-2025       Trump vs Hitler

5-26-2025       Trump and Putin

5-23-2025       Comey Seashell 86 47 Photo

5-16-2025        What to Do To Oppose a Trump Dictatorship

4-24-2025       How Tariffs Really Work?

4-21-2025        Bad Data Leads to Bad Decisions

4-6-2025          What Trump Has Brought

3-25-2025       Trump Denial Syndrome

3-3-2025          Dictatorship and Treason!

2-20-2025       Gallows Humor

2-13-2025        Open Letters Regarding Ongoing Evils

1-30-2025        You Think This Chaos Is Bad?

11-11-2024      Trump Again?

10-19-2024     Why Vote For He Who Will Hurt You?

8-18-2024        Elections

7-23-2024       Project 2025 is a Blueprint for a Dictatorship

7-21-2024        Biden Withdraws!

7-6-2024          Obsessive Coverage Obscures the Risks to Weigh

6-28-2024       Thoughts on the Presidential Debate

4-16-2024        Thoughts on Multiple Bad Things

1-23-2024        Trump Cult Warning

1-8-2024          Immigration Crisis?

12-29-2023     Israel vs Hamas: It Is Worse Than You Think

12-10-2023     Conspiracies Have Short Lifetimes

10-22-2023     On the Israel-Hamas War

10-18-2023     Jim Jordan: Speaker of the House? NO!!!

8-31-2023        Famous Quote Is Still True

7-19-2023        Trump as Target of DOJ Jan 6 Investigation

7-11-2023        Public Figures Not Doing Their Jobs

5-19-2023        Debt Ceiling Negotiations?  BS For Sure!

4-11-2023        Classified Intelligence Leak

3-31-2023        A Crack In the Dam?

1-8-2023          Border Emergency

12-7-2022        Invasion at the Border? No, I Don’t Think So!

11-16-2022     You Are What You Spout

11-1-2022        Voters Beware!

9-1-2022           Mishandling Classified Materials is a Very Serious Crime

8-9-2022          FBI Raids Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Estate

5-22-2022       THIS is what has gone wrong!

1-27-2022        The Vaccinations Really Do Work!

9-16-2021        Cassandra Speaks (Yet Again!)

2-2-2021          Time For Change

1-17-2021        Sometimes You Simply Must Do What Is Right

1-10-2021        It Ain’t Over Yet!

1-1-2021           Observations About the Mainstream Media,  And Much More

12-18-2020     Q As A Threat to the US

10-30-2020     Yet Another Funny Related to Elections

10-13-2020     Voting Safely

8-25-2020       Voting Safely

8-23-2020        Protests vs Riots

7-27-2020       Thoughts on the Pandemic from an Engineer and Teacher

7-16-2020        The White House vs Fauci

6-4-2020          Thoughts on the Protests

6-2-2020          On The Pandemic

4-24-2020       Revised Hat

4-4-2020          On the Covid-19 Pandemic

3-19-2020        Whoa! Calm Down!  (on Covid-19)

2-13-2020        Beware of Leader Cults

10-1-2019        On Climate Change and Solutions

8-1-2019           Trump 2020? Nope!!!

7-1-2019           Chief Prevaricator for the Prevaricator-In-Chief

5-23-2019       Mueller Report

1-17-2019        Border “Crisis”? Nope

12-17-2018     The “Train Wreck” Nears in DC

10-30-2018     Recommendations for Election 2018

10-18-2018     Taking a Knee is Way Over-Politicized

10-3-2018       On the Senate Kavanaugh Accuser Hearings

7-7-2018          Immigration Politics and the Nazification of America

6-19-2018        History Begins to Repeat Itself!

3-4-2018          Forget the Stupid Wall!

12-13-2017     Alabama Special Senate Election Outcome 2017

9-23-2017       Why So Many Illegal Immigrants?

8-13-2017        North Korea Has Come to a Head

5-11-2017        President Trump Is Not Whom You Should Fear the Most (bad title)

4-15-2017        Do We Fight Global Warming Or Not?

4-8-2017          The Time Has Come to Deal with Iran and North Korea

2-1-2017           Muzzling and Dismantling the EPA Will Kill Americans

1-26-2017        “Alternative Facts”?  Really?

8-12-2016        Election 2016 As A Turning Point

8-4-2016          Evaluation of Choices for 2016

7-29-2016       Stuff You Normally Do Not Think About

6-5-2016          Trump?  NO!!

4-24-2016       Better Choices in November

12-21-2015     Facts Must Trump Politics

9-12-2015        Go Look It Up for Yourself

9-12-2015        Religious Freedom vs. Sworn Duty?

9-12-2015        Iran Nuclear Deal Nonsense

This is What Control of the Media Looks Like!

This needs no comment from me.  Just read it for yourself.  Know also that this travesty is not unique,  it is happening at every broadcaster.  Then decide what you will do.

JUST IN: Scott Pelley BREAKS SILENCE after firing from 60 Minutes. Here is his statement in full:

“There has never been anything in America like 60 Minutes.

The Sunday tradition is the most successful program of any kind in history. For more than a decade, its innovative growth on every major online platform has extended its reach to countless millions around the world. This spring, at the end of our 58^th season, 60 Minutes grew rapidly with an unheard-of 9% jump in viewers on CBS.

“60” has been the number-one program in America for decades because our beloved audience finds integrity, quality, and humanity in our stories. When stewardship of the program passed to my colleagues and me, our responsibility was to expand energetically into a new age of media technology while preserving the values our audience expects. Now, the new owner of our network is casting this legend aside, apparently to curry a moment of favor with the Trump administration.

The waste is heartbreaking.

Last month, 60 Minutes lost its DNA when our entire senior leadership and two of our best on-air correspondents were cruelly fired without cause. Good people were silenced because they stood up for our audience. They stood for fairness against the forces of political bias; they stood for professionalism against chaos.

For my part, new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all.

At 60 Minutes, we have fought harder than anyone knows to save the program that became an American icon. We owed that to our millions of viewers. I am deeply moved by the thousands of wishes we have received to “keep up the good fight.” Most of the men and women of CBS News are still in that fight. But now the collapse of values at the top has become untenable. The leadership of 60 Minutes is no longer recognizable. The principles I hold dear are gone, and so I must leave as well.

I depart after 37 years at CBS with one emotion—a heart brimming with gratitude for the men and women of CBS News who encouraged and enriched my work, very often at the risk of their own lives. I pray for a day when those people and their ideals are honored again—a day when sanity, competence, and courage return.

Scott Pelley”

-----  

Search code DDMMYYYY format:  03062026

Search keywords:  bad government,  idiocy in politics

-----  

Update 6-4-2026:  Here I add my observations of exactly how control of the media is being imposed.  Look at who owns the big networks who run evening news programs on broadcast television.  ABC is owned by Disney.  CBS is owned by Paramount.  NBC is owned by Comcast which also owns Universal.    

Trump threatens expensive-to-defend lawsuits from himself or his weaponized DOJ,  or threatens their broadcast licenses with his weaponized FCC.  And he threatens approval of their planned mergers and acquisitions with his weaponized SEC.  These is all big money-losing threats.  So,  to avoid losing lots of money,  these corporate masters exert intense pressure upon the news organizations they own to self-censor,  meaning only say things that Trump will like.  That is the antithesis of journalism!  They only care about the money!

CBS is currently in turmoil over Colbert and now Pelley.  ABC went through this over Kimmel,  but the threat of boycotts at Disney theme parks apparently outweighed Trump’s threats,  at least so far.  NBC has not yet had its turn in the hot seat.  PBS did,  and lost its federal funding,  which hurt them badly,  but did not close them down (which is what Trump really wanted).

That’s exactly how it is done to control all public information in most dictatorships!

Fox News gets no such threats,  because it has favored right-wing propaganda since its founding by Rupert Murdoch.  Who said in public that Fox News was not about news,  but about entertainment for the political right and far-right! 

Trump pretty much watches only Fox News in the evenings,  then stays up all night tweeting rabid nonsense inspired by them.  Why is anyone surprised that he falls asleep on the job,  at his age?  Which is only 3 years younger than Biden!

-----   

Entry Study: Earth vs Mars (They Really Are Different)

I used Apollo data located from various on-line sources to determine an effective density ρ,  a “nose radius” value Rn ,  and a ballistic coefficient β for the Apollo capsule at its entry to Earth’s atmosphere.  This involved using data from Hoerner (ref. 1) and Miele (ref. 2) for the hypersonic drag coefficient C_D of the capsule,  based on blockage area A at zero angle of attack.  My result was very close indeed to the ballistic coefficient reported from other on-line sources,  as indicated in Figure 1 below (all figures are at the end of this document).  

I chose a diameter of 1 m and a higher density (no human occupation spaces needed) to estimate a mass,  blockage area A,  and ballistic coefficient for a probe design similar to the earlier smaller landers sent to Mars since Viking.  I used a CD value found on-line for that “typical” Mars heat shield shape,  that being a cone 20 degrees off flat,   with a small nose radius to blunt the otherwise sharp conical shape.  This is also shown in Figure 1 below,  and results in a ballistic coefficient very similar indeed to those reported on-line for those smaller landers.

For this study,  I used the same mass and afterbody aeroshell shape,  but substituted an Earth-type blunt heat shield for the Mars-type slightly-blunted conical shape.  That gave me two different ballistic coefficients and Rn values to use for such a probe-like entry vehicle,  at otherwise the very same size.  One is a slightly-blunted conical “Mars type” heat shield,  the other a very-blunt-indeed “Earth type” heat shield.  All of this is summarized in Figure 1 below. 

What I did with these two slightly-different designs is run both of them for entries at both Mars and Earth,  using a spreadsheet based on references 3,  4,  and 5. 

For Mars,  I presumed direct entry and landing,  typical of many landers sent there,  but off a faster transfer than min-energy Hohmann transfer.  About the fastest might be something similar to a 2-year period abort orbit at average planetary distances from the sun,  resulting in a speed at entry interface near 7.4 km/s.  I simply assumed a nominal entry interface angle below local horizontal of 2 degrees. 

For Earth,  I presumed entry from low circular Earth orbit (LEO),  which would result in a sped at entry interface pretty near 7.9 km/s.  Again,  I simply presumed a nominal entry interface angle below local horizontal of 2 degrees.  This entry speed and the Mars entry speed are not the same,  but they are fairly comparable,  in the sense that heat shields which work for entry from LEO should also work for direct entry at Mars.

I re-ran only the Earth heat shield model at Earth for a higher entry speed of 11 km/s,  to model the effects of coming back from the moon (or something comparable),  instead of just from circular LEO.  There was no point to running the Mars heat shield model that fast,  as it already had higher convective heating.  This could extend to entries off of extended elliptical orbits about the Earth. 

Figures 3 and 4 below show the spreadsheet and plotted results for the probe with a Mars-type heat shield,  entering direct at Mars.  Figures 5 and 6 below show the spreadsheet and plotted results for a probe with an Earth-type heat shield,  entering direct at Mars.  Figures 7 and 8 below show the spreadsheet and plotted results for the probe with a Mars-type heat shield,  entering from LEO at Earth.  Figures 9 and 10 below show the spreadsheet and plotted results for a probe with an Earth-type heat shield,  entering from LEO at Earth.  Figures 11 and 12 below show the spreadsheet and plotted results for a probe with an Earth-type heat shield,  entering from near escape at Earth. 

I already had data for Apollo returning from LEO and from the moon,  showing essentially the effect of ballistic coefficient β upon what is otherwise the same proportion of nose radius Rn to heat shield diameter D,  and speed at interface.  That compares with the probe data with an Earth-type heat shield entering near escape.  The Apollo data from the moon are given as Figures 13 and 14 below,  and the Apollo data from LEO are Figures 15 and 16 below.   

I did accumulate and cross plot some results,  given in Figure 17 below.  Top left is end-of-hypersonics altitude plotted versus speed at entry interface.  This is annotated to indicate which vehicle,  its ballistic coefficient,  and which mission (Earth or Mars).  Top right is peak total stagnation heating rate versus the speed at the peak heating point.  This is annotated to show which vehicle,  which mission,  and the percentage split in peak heating rate convective – radiative.  Lower left is estimated peak stagnation pressure on the heat shield versus speed at the peak deceleration gees point.  It is annotated to indicate vehicle and mission.

Only two of these show clear differences between entries at Mars versus entries at Earth.  The altitude at end-of-hypersonics is distinctly lower at Mars,  traceable directly to the thin atmosphere.  So is the estimated stagnation pressure on the heat shield,  same cause.  Atmospheric densities on Mars are comparable to those on Earth at altitudes very much lower than at Earth.

There is a ballistic coefficient effect:  higher ballistic coefficient penetrates further along the slant path before slowing down,  which results on a lower altitude at end of hypersonics.  This effect is actually larger at Earth than at Mars,  surprisingly enough.

Bear in mind that this stuff is somewhere around 5% accurate,  maybe a little worse here because the entry speeds are slightly different for the probes of this study and Apollo.  Do not read very precise trend evaluations from it!  But the sense of these trends is quite real!

Figure 1 – Where the Data Came From,  and How They Were Used

Figure 2 – Nominal Entry Conditions,  As Used In This Study

Figure 3 – Spreadsheet Data for a Probe with a Mars Heat Shield,  at Mars

Figure 4 – Plotted Results for a Probe with a Mars Heat Shield,  at Mars

Figure 5 -- Spreadsheet Data for a Probe with an Earth Heat Shield,  at Mars

Figure 6 -- Plotted Results for a Probe with an Earth Heat Shield,  at Mars

Figure 7 -- Spreadsheet Data for a Probe with a Mars Heat Shield,  at Earth

Figure 8 -- Plotted Results for a Probe with a Mars Heat Shield,  at Earth

Figure 9 -- Spreadsheet Data for a Probe with an Earth Heat Shield,  at Earth

Figure 10 -- Plotted Results for a Probe with an Earth Heat Shield,  at Earth

Figure 11 – Probe with Earth-type Heat Shield,  Near Escape Speed at Earth, Spreadsheet

Figure 12 – Probe with Earth-Type Heat Shield, Near Escape Speed at Earth, Plots

Figure 13 – Apollo Lunar Return Spreadsheet (compare to probe/Earth type/near escape)

Figure 14 – Apollo Lunar Return Plotted Results (compare to probe/Earth type/near escape)

Figure 15 – Apollo LEO Return Spreadsheet (compare to probe/blunt/LEO)

Figure 16 – Apollo LEO Return Plotted Results (compare to probe/blunt/LEO)

Figure 17 – Results Compared

References

#1. Angelo Miele,  “Flight Mechanics Vol. 1 Theory of Flight Paths”,  Addison-Wesley,  1962.

#2. Sighard Hoerner,  “Fluid Dynamic Drag”,  self-published,  1965.

#3.  H. J. Allen and A. J. Eggers,  “A Study of the Motion and Aerodynamic Heating of Ballistic Missiles Entering the Earth’s Atmosphere at High Supersonic Speeds”,  NACA Technical Report 1381,  44^th Annual Report of the NACA 1958,  Washington D.C. 1959. (unclassified)

#4.  C. G. Justus and R. D. Braun,  “Atmospheric Environments for Entry,  Descent,  and Landing”,  MSFC-198,  June,  2007. 

#5.  SAE “Aerospace Applied Thermodynamics Manual”,  1969. 

Note that this study used the methods of references 3, 4, and 5 in a spreadsheet described in detail in another posting on this site:  “Entry By Hand”,  1 May 2026.  

-----  

Search code DDMMYYYY format      01062026

Search keywords             aerothermo, space program

-----   

Kudos to SpaceX for Flight 12

Update 5-28-2026:  I corrected an error in Figure 1.  "Belly" should have been "dorsal".

------   

I have watched the SpaceX website video a couple of times now,  and seen some other things from other sources.  This test flight was mostly successful,  especially the performance of the heat shield.  I saw nothing to indicate any hinge line burn-throughs at the aft flaps,  seen in some of the earlier test flights.  And the heat shield looked to be in still-usable condition at the time of the test flight splashdown. 

This flight achieved most,  but not all,  of the intended objectives.  The two main shortfalls were the Superheavy booster boost-back,  and the engine relight test aboard Starship in space.  Plus,  Starship flew its mission with one engine out.  The Superheavy was prevented from doing its boost-back by the loss of almost all its engines.  There was only one still working at its downrange splashdown,  which appeared to hit at about the speed of sound.

The proximity in time of that engine-out on the second stage Starship and all the lost engines on the Superheavy first stage booster,  to the hot staging event itself,  raises the possibility these problems are related somehow to that hot stage event.  This author is not an insider to SpaceX,  so he does not know that to be true,  but the close timing is very suspicious.  It is a good place to start looking. 

Previous flights of the Version 2 configurations that included hot staging,  did exhibit some degree of upper stage rocket blast damage to the grid fins on the lower stage.  Those boosters had 4 grid fins,  equally-spaced around the circumference.  The chance was pretty high that one grid fin might see some rocket blast during the hot stage event.  Unlike the propellant tank walls,  these grid fins were not cooled by contact with cold propellant vapors.  Rocket blast damage happens very rapidly to uncooled structures.

For version 3,  there were changes to both stages.  Both were fitted with the new,  higher-pressure Raptor-3 engines,  including 3 vacuum Raptors in the second stage Starship.  The first stage Superheavy had 3 grid fins 90 degrees apart,  each about 50% larger than before,  but not equally spaced!  The “missing fin” spot on the Superheavy booster lined up with the mid-line of the belly heat shield on the upper stage Starship,  in pre-launch images. 

Hot staging involves starting the upper stage engines while still in contact with the lower booster stage,  which in turn is still slightly-thrusted to keep the propellants down in the aftermost ends of the tanks where the pump suctions are located.  The upper stage has to accelerate away from the lower stage at a higher acceleration than the lower stage can achieve,  even without the heavy upper stage still attached.  If not achieved this way,  they will collide catastrophically. 

The lower stage acceleration still has to be enough to keep the propellants settled in the tanks,  so that the lower stage engine pumps can maintain a suction on only liquids.  Drawing vapor into the pumps of an operating rocket engine is also very catastrophic.  

That complicated thrust balance is why something like only 3 to 5 engines,  out of 33 on the booster,  are all that are used during hot staging.  These are also strongly thrust-vectored to help produce the flipping action that points the stage back toward the launch site for the boost-back event.

The rocket blast from the upper stage hits a piece of armor atop the forward tank of the lower stage,  otherwise that rocket blast would likely burn holes into that propellant tank,  another quite likely-catastrophic event. 

The pushback from that upper stage rocket blast cannot exceed the thrust of the few lower stage engines used during the staging event,  or the lower stage gets accelerated net rearward,  with the propellants moving to the forward ends of the tanks!  That sends vapors instead of liquids to the lower stage engines,  which is likely catastrophic,  in that their turbopumps likely will explode,  the same way an aircraft jet engine comes apart if it swallows too big a bird,  or swallows something truly hard of any significant size at all.

This pushback can even be directed more to one side than the other,  by varying the open areas of the interstage,  circumferentially.  That way the upper stage rocket blast pushback force also helps the vectored booster thrust to flip the booster around toward the launch site faster.  But not too fast! 

If the flip-around spin rate is too high,  the propellant in the booster forwardmost tank (in this case liquid methane),  gets flung forward,  letting the booster engine turbopumps suck vapor methane instead of liquid.  Leading again to turbopump explosions.  Catastrophic!

In other words,  if you do not do hot staging “right”,  within some rather narrow limits,  then truly bad things will almost inevitably happen!

Based on previous grid fin rocket blast damage,  and the “missing fin” location in the version 3 Starship/Superheavy,  I expected to see the stage do its flip in the plane of the missing grid fin,  so that the other grid fins are farther from the upper stage rocket blast during the flip,  and thus avoid damage to them.  This is depicted as the “EXPECTED” geometry shown in Figure 1.  

What I saw in the video was the “OBSERVED” pattern in the figure:  a flip just about 90 degrees away from the direction I expected to see!  I have to conclude that the hot staging event did not happen according to plan! 

And so I must also wonder if that deviation had anything to do with the lost engine on the upper stage Starship,  and with the multiple engine failures seen on the Superheavy booster as the flip proceeded!  Not keeping the propellants properly settled in the after ends of the tanks would very probably cause engine failures on the Superheavy,  which is exactly what we all saw in the video.  I am less sure about the engine-out in the Starship.

Figure 1 – Author’s Observations About Hot Staging on Flight 12

Now the Raptor-3 version of these engines,  whether sea level or vacuum,  operates at a higher chamber pressure,  and a significantly-increased thrust level,  than the previous version 2 Raptors used in earlier test flights.  The earlier flights used 3 engines on the booster during the flip,  Flight 12 used 5.  And the Starship second stage thrust at full throttle is also significantly higher.  So,  the hot staging event forces are all higher. 

That means the materials are most likely being pushed “right to the limits”,  in order to stay as lightweight as possible.  And these new Raptor-3 engines reportedly use more 3-D-printed metal parts than even the previous Version-2 Raptors used. 

This author is an old retired engineer (and teacher).  His knowledge may be obsolete,  but he does remember that very early on,  3-D-printed metal parts were weaker than their forged counterparts.  Later on,  printed-part strengths improved to equal forged values,  although ductile plastic elongation capability still fell short of that of forged parts.  This is depicted in Figure 2.  Whether that is still true is not known to this author. 

It is the plastic elongation capability that confers toughness against shock load forces and impact forces!  The part survives,  although it distorts,  if the elongation at failure is large.  If elongation is insufficient,  the part still fails suddenly,  in a sort-of brittle fashion.  

Figure 2 – Typical Metal Alloy Stress-Strain Behaviors

This author has to wonder if the shock loads from the violent hot staging process,  especially one not proceeding to plan,  might not have cracked something on the one vacuum Raptor that failed on the upper stage Starship. 

Telemetry said it lit and immediately shut back down.  There was some sort of “smoke” seen persisting about the chamber end of the engine,  plus a reddish glow at one point near its exit,  plus another reddish glow across the way on the engine bay skirt.  That “smoke” was most probably leaking propellant vapors.

Were those red glows the result of a fire in the engine bay,  from propellants leaking from the feed piping or turbopump shells near the head end of that engine?  It would have to be both fuel (liquid methane) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen) leaking,  for there to be an engine bay fire at all,  because staging takes place where the atmosphere is so thin,  that it is first cousin to vacuum!  No one has said so,  but it sure looked like a fire to this old engineer.

If there were leaking propellants,  that might also explain why SpaceX cancelled the in-space engine re-light test.  With leaks happening at the shut-down engine,  there might not have been enough propellants left aboard,  after engine cutoff,  to do both that test and make a landing burn at splashdown!

The task facing SpaceX is to look at all these results,  and figure out what actually happened,  because there were definitely things about this flight test that did not go according to plan!  Then they have to fix whatever went wrong.  Finding and fixing troubles is what testing is all about,  as this old retired engineer knows all too well! 

I wish SpaceX well doing these things.  And I heartily congratulate them yet again,  for the bulk of the test flight,  which went right!

-----  

Search code DDMMYYYY format:   xx052026

Search keywords:  launch,  space program

-----   

Update 6-3-2026:  I was saddened by the explosion of Blue Origin's "New Glenn" heavy lift rocket recently,  especially with all the damage that it did.  I am glad no one was hurt or killed by it.  They are months away from trying again,  having to completely rebuild that launch pad,  in addition to finding out and correcting what went wrong  with the rocket.  Such is part of experimental flight test,  though!

SpaceX and Blue Origin are the only two NASA contractors trying to create a lunar lander vehicle.   Both are grounded for failure investigations,  SpaceX for its Superheavy booster failure to recover,  and Blue Origin for the static fire explosion.  This delays NASA's plans for moon landings by at least those same several months.  

Sure would be nice if there were more than just two lunar lander contractors to choose from,  wouldn't it?  

As for heavy-lift satellite launch services,  there's SpaceX with its Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy,  there was soon going to be Blue Origin with its "New Glenn",  and there is ULA with its new Vulcan that replaced its Atlas-5.  Except that ULA's Vulcan is grounded pending investigation and correction of 2 serious solid booster problems,  out of 4 flight test attempts.  

It sure would be nice if there were more than 3 heavy-lift launch suppliers,  wouldn't it?  Especially with 2 of them currently grounded.

In 2020 hindsight,  the mania for corporate growth by acquisitions and mergers,  unfettered by any monopoly busting,  was a massive governmental policy failure,  dating back to during World War 2.  

You do notice,  do you not,  that nobody in the congress or the administration is talking about that?  

You can correct that,  by voting for someone else.  Anybody else would be better than what you have.  

But you'd better do it soon!  If the current crowd stays in power after the November mid-terms,  there will be no more honest elections in America,  only rigged shams!  

Dictatorship looms over you!

-----   

Launch to Low Orbit Study

This study explores launch to low circular Earth orbit at low inclination.  It encompasses two different propellant combinations,  and 1-shot throwaway designs versus recoverable and reusable designs.  It considers both single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) and two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) configurations.  It includes a mixed-propellant TSTO as 1-shot and reusable.  This study used the new worksheet “both” added to the “stage studies.xlsx” spreadsheet.  See “Launch Vehicle Rough-Out”,  5-18-2026 on this site, for spreadsheet descriptions.

The two propellant combinations are oxygen-hydrogen (LOX-LH2) and oxygen-methane (LOX-LCH4).  These bound the performance problem,  be it SSTO or TSTO,  and regardless of whether 1-shot or reusable.  The mixed-propellant option looks at a LOX-LCH4 first stage,  and a LOX-LH2 second stage,  in the TSTO,  for both 1-shot and reusable designs.

This study is based on the performance levels of modest-technology engine designs,  be they sea level/ascent-capable,  or vacuum-capable.  They have lower max chamber pressures Pc,  lower pressure turndown ratios P-TDR,  and a cycle resulting in some turbo-pump bleed drive gas dumped overboard.  One can always do a little better with higher-technology versions of these same engines,  especially with full-flow cycles. 

The difference between 1-shot and reusable designs is two-fold:  (1) slightly-different design delta-vee (dV) requirements for reusable versus 1-shot,  and (2) significantly different stage inert fractions for reusable versus 1-shot. 

See Figure 1 for the basic mission concepts,  and Figure 2 for the orbital mechanics data.  All figures are at the end of this article. 

The engine performance analysis results for the four baseline engine types are included as Appendix A below.  These are easily re-scaleable to other sizes and thrust levels.  The thrust level used was 220,500 lb = 100 metric ton-force.  Areas and flow rates are proportional to thrust.  Dimensions are proportional to the square root of thrust.

The numbers used are summarized in Figure 3 below.  It covers both the SSTO and TSTO configurations.  The specific impulse (Isp) values came from the engine sizing analyses in the appendix.  They were reported to the nearest-second of Isp,  but without any rounding-up.  The inert fractions were simply presumed,  with modern 1-shot stages typically near 0.05 (5%).  The reusable stages must have higher inert fractions,  reflecting the inert additions for entry and descent aerodynamic control,  minimal landing legs or fittings,  and in the case of SSTO or TSTO 2^nd stages,  heat shielding to survive full-speed entries.  These were simply presumed as educated guesses for this study.

There is one fundamental governing equation here,  regarding mass numbers:  the sum of the payload fraction,  inert fraction,  and propellant fraction,  must be 1.000!   The dV values for the reusables are larger by the presumed landing budgets.  All the other components of dV are shared by both 1-shot and reusable designs.  For this study,  all the gravity and drag losses are borne by the SSTO,  and by the TSTO 1^st stage.  These were each presumed as 5% of perigee speed for the transfer ellipse as a measure of the orbital mechanical energy.

The basic bounding study results are given in Figure 4 below.  They comprise a data table for the SSTO configurations,  and plots for the TSTO configurations.  The SSTO table includes both 1-shot and reusable configurations,  and LOX-LH2 and LOX-LCH4 propellant combinations.  Mass ratio MR = exp(dV/Vex),  where Vex = 9.80667*Isp/1000.

The SSTO using LH2 as a 1-shot,  looks rather competitive in terms of payload fraction.  The SSTO using LCH4 as a 1-shot is technically feasible,  but has a very unattractive,  tiny payload fraction.  Neither of the SSTO reusables is technically feasible at all,  whether H2 or CH4,  with their negative payload fractions.

The all-H2 TSTO looks very attractive in terms of payload fraction as a 1-shot,  and is still quite competitive as a reusable.  The all-CH4 TSTO as a 1-shot,  is also feasible,  and more-or-less comparable in terms of payload fraction with the all-H2 reusable.  The all-CH4 reusable TSTO is mostly technically feasible except at the lowest staging velocities,   but it is not very competitive in terms of payload fraction.

Those TSTO results as bounds bring up the question of using H2 in one stage and CH4 in the other.  Only H2 in the 2^nd stage and CH4 in the 1st stage makes any sense,  since the 1^st stage Isp is lower,  but that 1^st stage also shoulders a lower dV requirement.  That combination was run as both a 1-shot and a reusable,  with results given in Figure 5 below. 

6% mixed vs 8% all-H2 payload fraction is pretty comparable for the 1-shot TSTO,  and 3.5% mixed vs 5% all-H2 is pretty comparable for the reusable TSTO.  The mixed results are closer to the upper-bound all-H2 results than the lower-bound all-CH4 results,  whether you look at 1-shot or reusable.  What you “buy” with that slight drop with mixed,  is a smaller 1^st stage-as-LCH4 volume,  sitting on the launch pad.  The 2^nd stage is the same H2 configuration,  either way.  The mixed-propellant reusable TSTO payload fraction is not as sensitive to staging V,  compared to all the other configurations here.  2 km/s is “typical”.

Conclusions and Caveats 

The highest payload fractions are 1-shot (not surprisingly).  The “best” TSTO 1-shot payload fractions are all-H2 at 8+%,  with mixed 1-shot not very far behind at ~6.5%.  The all-CH4 TSTO 1-shot falls significantly short of these at about 4%.  The 1-shot H2 SSTO is also comparable at ~5.7%,  but the reusable H2 SSTO has essentially zero payload fraction.  Neither of the CH4 SSTO’s was even technically feasible at all.

The mixed reusable TSTO is almost as good in terms of payload fraction at ~3.5% as the reusable all-H2 TSTO at ~5%,  with reusables having much lower operating costs! 

The mixed reusable TSTO is less sensitive to staging V than the rest,  and it would have the lowest stage 1 volume sitting on the launch pad. 

Caveat:  inert fractions were presumed as educated-guess values,  and no inert buildup analyses were done to verify those numbers!

Caveat:  no thrust requirements were determined for any of these stages,  no numbers of engines and their thrust levels were determined,  so there was no determination of dimensions,  and no determination of whether the engines would fit behind the stages! 

Additional Related Information

The author cross-plotted his results for the TSTO,  separated into two plots,  one for 1-shot designs and the other for all-reusable designs.  This was to determine the sensitivities to propellant selection,  but bear in mind that we are examining effects that are “down in the weeds” compared to engine Isp and stage inert fraction effects. 

The author ran one more design that was mixed-propellant with a methane stage 1 and a hydrogen stage 2.  The 1^st stage was calculated as reusable,  with those dV,  Isp,  and inert fraction values,  while the 2^nd stage was calculated as 1-shot,  with those dV,  Isp,  and inert fraction values. 

Like the both-stages-reusable case with mixed propellants,  overall payload fraction is well below the both-stages-1-shot values,  and very near the both-stages-reusable values.  However,  it exceeds the both-reusable only at rather high staging speeds,  and in any event would be more expensive to operate,  with its 1-shot 2^nd stage.  Again,  this is “down in the weeds” compared to engine Isp and inert fraction effects.  See Appendix B below.

About the Author

The author had two 20-year careers,  the first in aerospace/defense new product development work,  and the second in mostly teaching,  with some civil engineering and aviation work thrown in.  The change was necessitated by the huge aerospace/defense workforce drawdown that took place shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union.  For most of these careers,  he had BS and MS degrees in aerospace engineering.  He obtained a PhD in general engineering late in life.  He is now long-retired,  only doing some consulting now and then.  Contact him by email at gwj5886@gmail.com. 

Figure 1 – Basic Mission Concepts

Figure 2 – Orbital Mechanics Defines Most of the dV Requirements

Figure 3 --  The Numbers As-Used In This Study

Figure 4 – The Bounding Results for Both SSTO and TSTO/Both Stages Same Propellants

Figure 5 – Results for TSTO with LOX-H2 Stage 2,  and LOX-LCH4 Stage 1

-----   

search code DDMMYYYY format:   19052026

search keywords:  launch,  space program

-----   

Appendix A --  Rough-Sized Baseline Engines

These were two LOX-LH2 engines sized for ascent and for vacuum,  and two LOX-LCH4 engines sized for ascent and for vacuum.  These were sized from propellant combination c*,  using a specific heat ratio of 1.20,  and the appropriate nozzle throat to deliver a required thrust.  We are only interested in the specific impulse (Isp),  for this study.  Figures A-1 through A-4 below are the reported results for these sizing calculations. 

The ascent nozzles were sized to be on the verge of flow separation in the exit bell,  when operating at 80% of max Pc,  while testing at sea level.  That corresponds to an exit area ratio of 35.88:1,  when max Pc is the rather modest 2000 psia.

The vacuum nozzles were sized to an arbitrary exit area ratio of 150:1.

An 18-8-degree curved bell was presumed,  with throat discharge coefficient of 0.995. 

The engine cycle need not figure into any of this,  except as its dumped bleed fraction.  5% (0.05) was presumed for that.  The value of “Pc” here is that taken just before the contraction from chamber to throat.

Nozzle separation:  Psep/Pc = (1.5 * Pe/Pc)^0.8333,  where Pa > Psep is separated.

Figure A-1 – Hydrogen Ascent Engine

Figure A-2 – Hydrogen Vacuum Engine

Figure A-3 – Methane Ascent Engine

Figure A-4 – Methane Vacuum Engine

-----   

Appendix B – Related Information

Figure B-1 – Sensitivities to Propellants Selected in Stages,  For 1-Shot and For Reusable

Figure B-2 – Effects of 1-Shot Stage 2 with Reusable Stage 1 with Mixed Propellants

-----