Author, focused on futurism, solutions and legacy.
Northern NSW Australia
Joined November 2017
- Tweets48.4K
- Following65
- Followers1.4K
- Likes1.5K
Pinned Tweet
What is time. Many astrophysicists believe that it is how we perceive the steady advancement throughout the universe towards increased entropy. When young, we all believe that our future will last forever. We do not even consider what it will be like in later years, in fact children look forward to when they will be adults. Life seems to go on forever. Yet once older the progression of time seems to speed up. People ask -what is the purpose of it all? If you are not religious (like myself) then you will believe that there was no purpose, we are just part of a purposeless evolutionary process. That does not mean that you do not leave a legacy behind. If a person leads a good life, we all add a brick into the fabric of a wall that never ceases to cease being constructed (human advancement or evolution). We do not even know what ripple effect we may have had, how we influenced others. So much history is lost, our existence will eventually be forgotten forever, in the ancient past. The lives of billions before us are not known to us. Perhaps modern technology will leave a more permanent record? It is the striving for relevance, purpose that leads to religion. At the end of life, I believe that there is nothing. I do not fear nothing, it is the process of getting there that I fear. This is why my belief in legacy is important to me. Even the entire wall of human progress is insignificant in the bigger scale, the evolution of life. Perhaps humanity will eventually be replaced by A.I., we are just an intermediate step. Then the entire wall of human existence will become just one brick in a much larger wall. The Universe will eventually reach maximum entropy. This will add to the meaningless, purposeless of everything. However, for our own wellbeing, we must believe in purpose and legacy. I believe in concepts like freedom, individual empowerment and basic humanity. We must all strive to make everyone’s short existence as comfortable as possible. Part of personal satisfaction is belief in contribution towards developing/advancing a better society, a society that benefits the individual. It appears that few people talk about the big picture, perhaps it is too scary, yet it is in the back of all our minds. We may be the first reasoning species that can even consider such things, can philosophise. It is consciousness of all around us that sets us apart, something never seen before over time. I believe that one of the building blocks enabling bricks to be added to this seemingly never completed wall is the concept of personal empowerment, giving the individual the power to attain their goals. Throughout history, there have always been evolutionary dead ends, pathways that end and crumble due to the passage of time. One such pathway will be the Russian world because it has rejected the concept of personal empowerment. By this I mean the current Russian world, not what will be rebuilt out of the ashes. The current side branch of central planning and control will end and eventually fall into decay (as the concept does not promote individual initiative and innovation). This does not mean individual Russian Scientists and entrepreneurs will not have their bricks incorporated into the main wall. For your legacy to mean anything you must avoid such a deviation.
I believe that every element previously believed to be absent on the moon and present on Mars is also trapped in permanently shaded craters on the moon where the solar wind cannot strip elements away. This means a base can utilise the resources of the moon. The issue is that these volatiles are limited to such a small area that there could be a situation where space faring nations come into conflict.
GROK -
Is there evidence of dry ice (CO2) in the permanently shaded lunar craters?
Thought for 38s
Yes. There is solid evidence for CO₂ cold traps (regions cold enough for solid carbon dioxide / dry ice to be thermally stable) in lunar permanently shadowed regions (PSRs), plus direct detection of CO₂ consistent with cold-trapped material.News.agu
Permanently shadowed polar craters stay extremely cold (often well below 110 K, and in the coldest pockets below ~60 K). At these temperatures, the sublimation rate of solid CO₂ into vacuum is negligible over geologic time, allowing it to accumulate if delivered (e.g., by comets or meteoroids).
Key evidence includes:
Diviner temperature mapping (LRO): Analysis of ~11 years of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Diviner data (Schorghofer et al., 2021, Geophysical Research Letters) identified small, spatially contiguous pockets of CO₂ ice stability. These total roughly 200 km² in the south polar region, concentrated in craters such as Amundsen (the largest single area), Haworth, de Gerlache, and others. In these areas, temperatures remain low enough year-round for solid CO₂ to persist.Agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley
LCROSS impact results: The 2009 LCROSS probe impacted a CO₂ cold-trap site in Cabeus crater. The resulting plume contained CO₂ in amounts exceeding the carbon content typical of Apollo samples, consistent with the presence of cold-trapped CO₂ (alongside water and other volatiles).Agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley
The existence of these cold traps makes solid CO₂ highly plausible (and models of delivery and trapping support efficient accumulation). Researchers have described it as highly likely that solid CO₂ is present, and it is of interest as a potential resource for future lunar missions. However, direct remote-sensing confirmation of extensive surface dry-ice deposits is more limited than the evidence for water ice (which has stronger multi-instrument support from neutron spectroscopy, infrared, and other data). Some of the coldest micro-traps and doubly shadowed areas are the best candidates.
In short, thermal stability of CO₂ ice in specific PSRs is well established, and LCROSS provided supporting detection evidence.
This is the naïve thinking we had even a decade ago but the reality is humanity will not be exploring the universe as A.I. will be in control.
teapaw.org/elonmusk/status/211582…
Ingore all the excuses being given, all the disinformation. The sole reason Russia has invaded Ukraine is because Putin concluded that Russia cannot be a significant world power without Ukraine. It is that simple, this is why he is currently destroying his own nation with a fruitless ongoing campaign against Ukraine. Ignore all the noise and focus on the facts.
Donald, stop feeding russia false hope.
teapaw.org/RealJakeBroe/status/21…
Watch the video from about 1-07-00 onwards. Anyone willing to do so should check the weather at the time of the full scale invasion. There had been no rain for two weeks in Northern Ukraine before the Russian invasion and the ground was hard, so what is Trump talking about.
youtu.be/5x9dkYIRb58
You absolutely must watch Zelensky’s interview with Stephen Bartlett. On camera, we see a man who is deeply weary—at times on the verge of collapse—someone who has spent nearly five years living under the constant, direct pressure of war. From the very first minutes, his exhaustion is palpable. When asked the standard question, "How are you?", he replies that he sleeps very little, spending his nights on the phone with military commanders, trying to shift the few remaining air-defense assets from one region to another.
He shares two particularly poignant stories. The first concerns a missile that struck a playground in a matter of seconds; parents watched, through their windows, as their own children were torn apart before their eyes.
The second involves presenting posthumous honors to the families of fallen soldiers: "You hand a medal to a father—you feel the strength in his hand—and he asks, in a hushed voice, 'May we have a hug?' In that moment, I simply cease to exist. Those people are gone, and the survivors will never be the same again."
When the host tries to take him back in time—showing him old photographs from Kryvyi Rih, images from his university years in the KVN comedy troupe, his voice work for *Paddington*, or scenes from the series *Servant of the People*—Zelensky looks on with indifference, as if these things belonged to someone else’s life.
He also recalls February 2022, devoid of any heroic rhetoric. He describes how, for the first twenty days, he was driven purely by adrenaline—rushing from office to office, making endless phone calls, and scrambling to organize supplies of food and water for Kyiv. The full weight of his fear, and the stark realization of what had truly transpired, only hit him three weeks later, when mass graves containing the bodies of hundreds of residents were discovered in Bucha. It is precisely through the example of Bucha that he explains why he is so deeply irritated by those who advise him to reach a quick agreement with everyone: "Imagine if a mass grave were discovered in the United States or Great Britain containing 500 people who had been tortured, their hands bound. How could one simply forgive all that?"
The rest of the conversation centers on the stalemate in which the Ukrainians—and everyone else—find themselves. Zelensky explains the reasons for the war in simple terms: Moscow is attempting to forcibly rebuild the Soviet empire, a project that would be definitively shattered by Ukraine’s move toward Europe. Yet, when he speaks about the present, his words reveal a profound sense of frustration.
Nearly a fifth of the territory is occupied, the east of the country is under heavy bombardment, cities are left without electricity, and people are dying every single day. Meanwhile, any discussion of a ceasefire would require Kyiv to withdraw from its fortified positions—with no guarantee that the offensive wouldn't simply resume within a year.
Finally, the conversation turns to the subject of Trump and the attacks on oil facilities. Trump has publicly criticized Zelensky for striking Russian refineries, fearing that such actions could lead to a sharp rise in diesel prices for American farmers ahead of the elections.
It is here that it becomes clear just how much this attitude hurts Zelensky: his country is in flames, Moscow has rejected his proposal for a mutual halt to attacks on energy infrastructure, and the Americans are sending Patriot missiles—paid for by Europe—to the Middle East—yet he is the one being blamed for fuel prices in the United States.
The entire conversation leaves a rather bleak impression. A man trapped between the daily deaths in his own country and the pragmatic negotiations of allies—who have their own elections and political calculations to consider—can no longer distance himself from it all.
Look at it.
Ayan Sharipbayev
How can Ukraine defend itself when Trump is using the worlds largest economy against them? He is just vile and should be in prison.
teapaw.org/JayinKyiv/status/21138…
US energy company execs have resigned in disgust as the Trump family is caught secretly expediting the funneling of $25 billion from a sanctioned Russian energy giant in exchange for allowing Russians to obtain a natural gas project in Alaska.
According to investigations by The New York Times and Financial Times, Russia's Novatek allegedly concealed its financial involvement in the American project through a UAE-linked intermediary.
Gentry Beach, a longtime Trump ally and close friend of Donald Trump Jr., signed an agreement with Novatek to pursue natural gas development in Alaska. Reuters documented the arrangement in February.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin discussed this cooperation on the Alaska energy project with Trump's representatives, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, during negotiations involving Russia and Ukraine.
The controversy deepened when Polar Train LNG's CEO, Joel Riddle, raised concerns about concealed Russian financing and possible sanctions violations. He departed in September, followed by other senior executives.
The Financial Times also described discussions about a potential arrangement under which Novatek would provide technology for the Alaska project in exchange for sanctions relief benefiting its Arctic LNG 2 development in Siberia.
According to The New York Times, Riddle and two other departing executives warned the Trump administration about the Russian financing and urged officials to investigate.
The White House maintains that the project was mentioned only briefly and that no detailed discussions took place. There is no established evidence that Kushner or Witkoff knew about the allegedly concealed financing. Polar Train LNG denies wrongdoing.
The central question is how a sanctioned Russian energy company became involved in a major American energy venture while Putin was discussing potential economic cooperation with Trump's representatives and a longtime Trump family associate was pursuing a separate agreement with the same Russian company.
Selling Alaska to the Russians or selling Ukraine to the Russians - to the Trump family it's all the same.
ft.com/content/e9cfbfbb-e65a…
Elon Musk has stated that even he is shocked by the growth of spacex earnings due to A.I. and the latest quarter earnings are almost double the previousquarter (1.6 times). Elon estimates that SpaceX yearly revenue could running as high as between $500 billion and $ one trillion by the end of 2027. That is nuts if true.
This is crazy. the SLS core stage is higher than a 20 story building yet looks tiny inside the Vechile Assembly Building.
Whoever was responsible has the blood of innocent Ukrainian civilians on their hands.
GROK
Is it possible that Musk ordered the speed that Starlink terminals could travel at be limited over Ukraine without trumps knowledge?
Thought for 21s
These contradictions (Musk ordered it unilaterally vs. he proposed it and Trump approved vs. White House directed it vs. both deny) mean the precise chain of decision-making is not fully established in public reporting.Why it is possible Musk acted without Trump’s knowledgeStarshield is operated by SpaceX even under U.S. government contracts/ownership arrangements. Musk has previously made unilateral or near-unilateral decisions on Starlink/Starshield use in Ukraine (e.g., restrictions on offensive use, geofencing, and blocking Russian access). Implementing a speed threshold is a technical change SpaceX can apply. Some officials cited in the WSJ explicitly described him acting without White House consultation. That does not prove it happened that way—other sources claim prior discussions—but it shows the scenario is consistent with how the system works and with at least some insider accounts.Context includes strained U.S.-Ukraine relations at the time (Trump criticism of Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure amid fuel-price concerns, and broader pressure for de-escalation). Musk has historically voiced concerns about escalation risks involving Starlink.In short: Yes, it is possible based on SpaceX’s operational control and some reported accounts of him ordering it independently. Competing anonymous reports (that he consulted Trump beforehand, or that the White House directed it) and the public denials from both men leave the full picture unresolved.Yes, it is possible. SpaceX (under Musk) controls the technical implementation of Starshield (the military-grade Starlink service used by Ukraine), and there are reports from U.S. officials that he ordered the ~100 mph / ~160 km/h speed cap without prior consultation with the White House or Trump. Other accounts conflict with that.What happenedAround the night of October 13–14, 2026, Starshield terminals in Ukraine began losing connectivity when moving above roughly 160 km/h (100 mph). This disrupted Ukrainian drone operations (especially interceptors chasing faster Russian jet-powered drones, and some strike/logistics platforms). Ukrainian officials said there was no advance warning. Connectivity partially stabilized by the evening of the 14th up to the ~160 km/h threshold, but the hard cap remained in place. Zelensky later stated the limit applied only in Ukraine (not in EU tests of similar terminals) and called it a “planned operation.”Musk publicly responded that Starshield systems “are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He distinguished this from commercial Starlink (controlled by SpaceX and limited to civilian/defensive use). Trump denied ordering any restriction and said he did not think it was Musk either (“it wasn’t me, and I don’t think it was Elon”).Conflicting accounts of who ordered itReporting relies heavily on anonymous sources and is inconsistent:A Wall Street Journal report (cited by Reuters, NY Post, Bloomberg, and others around October 20) stated that Musk ordered the slowdown. Some U.S. officials told the Journal he did so without consulting the White House and that Trump never specifically ordered retribution or the cap. However, a person familiar with the situation said Musk had spoken with multiple senior administration officials (including Trump) before imposing it. Musk and Trump also discussed it afterward by phone.
Earlier Reuters reporting (mid-October) said the order to the Pentagon to slow Starshield came from inside the White House (sources did not identify who; a senior U.S. official said the president never made such a request).
The Telegraph reported that Musk proposed speed limits to Trump, who “agreed,” enabling the Pentagon to implement them.
Administration figures (including Marco Rubio) have denied White House direction and suggested technical issues in some cases. Zelensky has pointed to a message from the U.S. government that SpaceX then executed.
NASA's next "moon rocket" is nearing completion however will only launch to earth orbit next year (June) as a test docking with each of the two lunar landers takes place.
teapaw.org/NASA_Marshall/status/2…
#ICYMI: The booster's for NASA's Artemis III mission are officially stacked!
Next up, the SLS core stage will be integrated with the boosters, completing the rocket’s “short stack” configuration that will be used during a future tanking test.
Learn more: go.nasa.gov/4BcsSLa
ALT Engineers with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems complete integration of the aerodynamic nose cones onto the left and right forward segments on the twin SLS (Space Launch System) solid rocket boosters, finishing their stacking operations for Artemis III inside the Vehicle Assembly Building’s High Bay 3 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2026. Each forward assembly contains an aerodynamic top, a forward skirt housing avionics, and frustum housing motors that allow the boosters to separate from the SLS core stage after launch. The twin solid boosters will help support the remaining rocket components and the Orion spacecraft during final assembly of the Artemis III rocket and provide more than 75 percent of the total SLS thrust during liftoff from NASA Kennedy’s Launch Pad 39B. Photographer:NASA/Cory S Huston
It is supporting an autocratic regime ahead of a democratic one that was invaded. It is ignoring a committment to defend and recognise Ukraines borders when the U.S. asked them to give up their nukes. It places European allies at risk of further Russian expansion. And it is the absolutely unethical policy of to hell with everyone else, how can I profit from this. Finally I believe it is treason to support a regime that has publicly stated that it will commit genocide inside Ukraine if they are victorious. Yes, this is the part being ignored by everyone, however Putin has stated that he intends to Russify Ukraine, This is code for genocide.
📷
Richard Branson
• 3rd+
Founder at Virgin Group
Oct 15
Follow
I thought I’d never have to say this in my lifetime, but this is 2026, and sadly nothing is what it used to be.
The Trump administration has become an appeaser to autocrats and dictators, putting their personal whims before the best interests of the American people and those of the free world. What is it about Putin that President Trump fawns over?
How will America’s allies ever be able to trust this administration again when they are now turning against them at a time of war and suffering?
The slowdown of Starlink/Starshield and the inexplicable lack of advance warning of Russian missile launches have already caused Ukrainian civilians to die unnecessarily. How much worse can it get?
If one thing is clear it’s that European leaders must overcome the initial shock about Trump’s recent actions and step up to the plate. It’s as much about Europe’s freedom as it is about Ukraine’s sovereignty. Both are worth fighting for. All options should be on the table now, from the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine to the delivery of advanced weapons systems such as Germany’s Taurus.
Why oh why is this happening? We cannot let the free world be dismantled before our very eyes.
Can a combined successful vote in both the Senate and Congress change the U.S. constitution and what percentage of the vote is needed?
Thought for 7s
In short, the two-thirds congressional vote is necessary for the usual path but is only the first step. The Constitution deliberately makes amendments difficult by requiring broad agreement across both Congress and the states.No—not by itself. A successful vote by both chambers of Congress can only propose an amendment; it does not change the Constitution until the states ratify it.law.cornell.eduCongress consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under Article V of the Constitution, the standard process (the only one used so far) works like this:
Proposal by Congress: Both the House and the Senate must pass a joint resolution proposing the amendment by a two-thirds vote (of the members present and voting, assuming a quorum). The President has no role and does not sign or veto it.legalclarity.org
Ratification by the states: The proposed amendment then goes to the states. It becomes part of the Constitution only when ratified by three-fourths of the states (currently 38 out of 50). Congress chooses whether this happens through the state legislatures or through special ratifying conventions in the states. Nearly all amendments have used the state-legislature route; the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) used conventions.legalclarity.orgThere is also an alternative proposal method in which two-thirds of the state legislatures (currently 34) can force Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments, but that has never been used. Ratification still requires three-fourths of the states either way.law.cornell.edu
The old addage, he's driving over a cliff now has a new meaning.
interestingengineering.com/t…
