October 2006 Archives

Amanda Gefter does a good job explaining black holes, evaporation, and the conservation of information, and her illustration of an elephant caught in a black hole is through-provoking.

Let's say Alice is watching a black hole from a safe distance, and she sees an elephant foolishly headed straight into gravity's grip. As she continues to watch, she will see it get closer and closer to the event horizon, slowing down because of the time-stretching effects of gravity in general relativity. However, she will never see it cross the horizon. Instead she sees it stop just short, where sadly Dumbo is thermalised by Hawking radiation and reduced to a pile of ashes streaming back out. From Alice's point of view, the elephant's information is contained in those ashes. Inside or out?

There is a twist to the story. Little did Alice realise that her friend Bob was riding on the elephant's back as it plunged toward the black hole. When Bob crosses the event horizon, though, he doesn't even notice, thanks to relativity. The horizon is not a brick wall in space. It is simply the point beyond which an observer outside the black hole can't see light escaping. To Bob, who is in free fall, it looks like any other place in the universe; even the pull of gravity won't be noticeable for perhaps millions of years. Eventually as he nears the singularity, where the curvature of space-time runs amok, gravity will overpower Bob, and he and his elephant will be torn apart. Until then, he too sees information conserved.

From the perspective of an elephant, spaceship, planet, or solar system falling into a black hole, it will theoretically appear to take millions of years to actually reach the singularity at the center. During this time, could a falling civilization continue, and perhaps discover a way to escape if one exists? If faster-than-light travel is possible, one might expect that a civilization trapped in a black hole for millions of years would be highly motivated to discover it and use it to escape. We know our universe is full of black holes, and if it is also full of other intelligent lifeforms then some of them have probably fallen into a black hole and potentially discovered how to travel faster than light. If not, then either there aren't any other lifeforms, or FTL travel is impossible.

(HT: GeekPress.)

Bravo to Angelina Jolie for standing up to the corruption that runs rampant through third-world non-governmental aid organizations. As I've written in my many posts about foolish foreign aid, the vast majority of money that's given to help poor and oppressed people tends to go straight into the pockets of the tyrants oppressing them.

An associate of Angelina Jolie has said a lawsuit may be filed on behalf of the Hollywood actress against the head of a Cambodian aid group she alleges misappropriated her donations.

"We are considering filing a lawsuit to recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars that is missing and which he was responsible for," Trevor Neilson, who is the philanthropic and political advisor for Jolie and partner Brad Pitt, told The Associated Press in New York Monday.

Neilson was referring to Mounh Sarath, director of Cambodian Vision in Development, to whom Jolie once gave funds for conservation and community development work in Cambodia.

"We have specific evidence (of) him having taken the money, and we are considering whether to file a lawsuit or press charges against him in Cambodia," he said.

Too bad the American government and the rest of the world's big givers aren't as diligent in administering our gifts as Jolie seems to be protecting hers.

This story about growing a liver in a lab highlights the fact that although stem cell research is incredibly useful, embryonic stem cell research specifically has never led to any significant results.

British scientists have grown the world's first artificial liver from stem cells in a breakthrough that will one day provide entire organs for transplant.

The technique that created the 'mini-liver', currently the size of a one pence piece, will be developed to create a full-size functioning liver.

Described as a 'Eureka moment' by the Newcastle University researchers, the tissue was created from blood taken from babies' umbilical cords just a few minutes after birth.

Umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells are leading to all sorts of fruitful treatments that do not require the creation and destruction of human beings as does embryonic stem cell research.

The Times from the United Kingdom has an article about the upcoming American election and labels our Senate as "more powerful" than our House.

The Democrats need 15 net gains to regain control of the 435-member House for the first time since 1994. They can count on perhaps a dozen, but others are too close to call and the residual power of incumbency may be critical. ...

Regaining control of the more powerful Senate is an even harder task for the Democrats, who must make six net gains from 33 seats being contested. Of these, only 15 are held by the Republicans, while at least one seat that the Democrats are defending — New Jersey — could yet be lost.

I think it's a mistake to characterize the Senate as being "more powerful" than the House of Representatives, although each individual Senator has more power than each individual Representative due to the greater membership of the House, if nothing else.

The United States Constitution does give different powers to each house of Congress though, so let's review them. (Please let me know if I miss anything.)

The House:

- "sole Power of Impeachment"

- "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"

The Senate:

- "sole Power to try all Impeachments"

- Advise and concede or object to treaties and Presidential nominees for federal offices

It's not clear to me that the Senate's portfolio is really more powerful than the House's, considering that they can't propose raising money to fund anything. However, I don't know the practical effect of the House's power to raise revenue.

The video below of Lynn Cheney completely decimating Wolf Blitzer is a joy to behold.

Why can't the Republicans field people like her as candidates? Well, her husband is one, that's for sure.

I think it's pretty significant that American wants less government and yet Republicans are struggling as we approach the 2006 election. Hmmm... maybe Republicans shouldn't have forgotten the principles of Reagan and Gingrich that put them into power?

A quarter century after the Reagan revolution and a dozen years after Republicans vaulted into control of Congress, a new CNN poll finds most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."

The poll released Friday also showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans perceive, correctly, that the size and cost of government have gone up in the past four years, when Republicans have had a grip on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.

Discretionary spending grew from $649 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $968 billion in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $319 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Some of that increase is due to the War on Terror -- and Republicans should be saluted for ending the Clinton era of ineffectual diplomacy and cowardly appeasement -- but much of the added discretionary spending has been for big government projects like adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare... essentially attempts to buy votes from one group with money taken from another. That sort of behavior is disgraceful, and the American people know it when they see it.

Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country's problems. ...

"I believe that as a movement, we have veered off course into the dangerous and uncharted waters of big government Republicanism," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, a 110-member caucus that supports limited government and lower taxes.

"Conservatives came to office to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona. "But lately, we have increased government in order to stay in office."

I'm not a huge fan of John McCain, but he's right on the money here. It's easy to talk about small government when you're out of power, but once you're the government it takes a lot more moral character to restrain yourself.

There wasn't any posting over the weekend because I was too busy enjoying the gorgeous weather and relaxing! After a stormy Friday it was in the mid-seventies all weekend, with more of the same today, and perfect weather for just about anything other than blogging.

Although it's sad, it shouldn't be a surprise that St. Louis city has been ranked as America's most dangerous city. For whatever reason, islands of leftists surrounded by conservatives always seem to have problems with violence. As the article points out, St. Louis city itself is only a small part of the greater St. Louiss metro area where I live and work, and I can assure you that nowhere else in the region is anywhere near as bad as the city itself.

This Midwestern city has long been in the upper tiers of the annual ranking of the nation's safest and most dangerous cities, compiled by Morgan Quitno Press. Violent crime surged nearly 20 percent there from 2004 to last year, when the rate of such crimes rose much faster in the Midwest than in the rest of nation, according to FBI figures released in June. ...

Morgan said the study looks at crime only within St. Louis city limits, with a population of about 330,000. It doesn't take into account the suburbs in St. Louis County, which has roughly 980,000 residents.

The metro area really includes a lot more than just St. Louis city and county; there are suburbs in other nearby counties, and in Illinois. Wikipedia's list of American metro areas gives the St. Louis metro area a population of almost 2.8 million, so the city itself holds only about 12% of the population. Not to be overly cynical, but I suppose it's good that the criminals keep mostly to themselves.

I'm not very familiar with every city in America's safest and most dangerous cities, but of the ones I know I don't think it's a coincidence that the safest cities in California are also the most conservative.

A guest post by Bernardo Malfitano.

Michael recently sent me two recent articles featured on the Drudge Report which talk about comparing the emissions and environmental impact from different modes of transportation. I sent him an email explaining how tricky it is to make such comparisons, and apparently he would like me to contribute this analysis directly to his blog. I'm really honored. So, um, hi everyone!

First of all, so that we're clear, let me say I am probably much more of an environmentalist than most of Michael's readers. I think recycling is important (even if it is more expensive than just dumping old stuff and making new materials from scratch), and I think we're responsible for putting way too much CO2 into the atmosphere, which is probably causing climate change. That having been said, this post is about misleading use of numbers in the media, and about misguided environmental policy, not about anthropogenic climate change, so I'm sure we can all agree.

The most obviously ridiculous article is about how some politicians in the UK want to tax airlines (and thus effectively tax travelers) for the CO2 their flights generate. These politicians hope that this will motivate airlines to get more efficient jets, by making it more expensive to fly less-efficient jets:

Mrs Beckett urged Brussels to speed up plans to enforce the levy on airlines to encourage them to fly more fuel-effecient planes and deter people from travelling by air.

I am astounded that these politicians fail to realize that flying less-efficient jets is ALREADY more expensive for airlines: More fuel per mile per passanger means higher ticket costs and fewer passengers. When has Boeing or Airbus ever released an airliner that needs MORE fuel than its predecessors? No airline wants airplanes that make their tickets more expensive. Better fuel economy = more passengers. You don't need a law to make it so.

The average jet pumps close to a tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for each passenger it carries from London to New York.

This number is also either misguided or misleading, probably both. Of course you burn a lot of fuel, and generate a lot of CO2, when crossing the Atlantic. It's thousands of miles! If somehow you could drive that route, you'd be generating similar amounts of CO2. Jets only sound like they burn too much fuel and generate too much CO2 when we forget that they fly for thousands of miles, and that any car (over the period of a few months that it takes us to drive that far) would generate similar amounts. So you might as well say that traveling is bad for the environment. No point in taxing jet flight any more than travel via train or highway.

(And sure, buses use less fuel per passenger than planes or cars, but their hydrocarbon emissions tend to be pretty horrendous - they're the kinds of emissions that cause LA to look like this).

The best way to compare the environmental impact of different modes of transportation is the way airlines compare the efficiency of commercial jets: Gallons of fuel per passenger per mile. How much fuel is needed for each passenger in the vehicle, for each mile of the trip? Since most fuels are pretty similar, and since most engines these days do a very good job of converting almost all of it into CO2 ans H2O, this gallons-per-seat-mile metric allows you to compare the relative efficiencies of transport by any car, any airplane, etc.

A 767 can use less than 0.01 gallons of fuel per seat mile, while a large business jet like a Gulfstream V needs 0.04 gallons. Both these numbers assume the jets are full (375 people in the 767, eighteen in the G5). A fairly efficient thirty-MPG sedan with one person in it will use 0.0333 gallons per mile per person, not much less than a full Gulfstream. (And most cars do NOT get 30mpg driving around town. If you get 25mpg, you just match the Gulfstream). Even a twenty-MPG SUV with five people in it will use 0.01 gallons, about the same as an efficient airliner, and much better than a Prius or Insight with a single occupant.

The bottom line is, when you travel by airliner, you're burning as much fuel as you would be if you took a group road trip and drove that distance. And if you fly in business jets, you're using 3 or 4 times as much fuel, about the same as when driving alone. A bunch of people generate less CO2 and use less fuel by riding in a Suburban than they would if they each drove a Honda Insight. And whether you drive or fly a distance, the impact of your trip is about the same - it would just take you a heck of a lot longer to drive that far.

This very important number - how many passengers are travelling in the vehicle - is often forgotten when the environmental impact of cars is discussed. The fact that the fuel consumption in a (full but still roomy) business jet is comparable to the fuel consumption of a normal car (with one person in it) is completely ignored by this article about celebrities who drive hybrids but fly bizjets:

Julia Roberts: ...Chicago to LA, 1,749 miles in a private jet.

Gas guzzled: 2,100 gallons of jet fuel.

Julia would have to drive 30,000 miles, or roughly once around the earth and then some to even out her consumption in the air.

Yes, the airplane needs twenty times more fuel to fly a mile than the Prius does to drive a mile. Big deal. But how many people can fly in the airplane? And how many people usually ride with Julia in her Prius?

Of course, riding a bizjet by yourself is ridiculously wasteful. But don't those people usually have entourages anyways?

Just about everyone can agree that Australia's top Muslim imam is wrong in comparing women to meat who deserve to be raped for their immodesty, but the right answer is not always so clear-cut.

A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats. ...

In a Ramadam sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame.

There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.

Blaming rape victims who don't wear burkhas is clearly ludicrous and evil, but are all those who cry "rape" completely innocent? (The age of consent in Ohio is 16 years old.)

The week before the show, Mango's entertainment director Holly Everson began to lay the groundwork, recruiting local girls to kick-start the action. In an e-mail to the 17-year-old Falls girl, Everson wrote, ``call me if you want to be part of Girls Gone Wild on Weds. @ Mangos... Ill hook you up, all you gotta do is be there at 9 and dance on the bar all night and have fun.'' ...

The recipient of Everson's invitation doesn't talk like a typical teen. She is direct and well-spoken, and clearly intelligent.

Hard to square that kind of acumen with the girl who at 9:15 p.m. on Sept. 13 rolled into Mango's with a female friend to make $50 to dance on top of the bar and ``get things going,'' as she was instructed. They were among four young girls recruited to liven things up.

The Falls girl says it was made clear to her that she and her fellow insiders would be treated to an open bar.

And what did she drink that night? ``I think a better question would be, `What did I not drink?' '' she replies.

The drunker she got, the more she took off. By roughly 11 p.m., she was gyrating on the bar, exposing everything at one time or another, as perhaps 350 customers hooted their approval and three GGW photographers documented the action, two with video cameras and one with still. ...

As closing time neared, she says, she and several other girls were invited out to the bus. She was the first in line and, after she climbed aboard, she says, the others were barred. While she was partially passed out, the cameraman who had been watching her came up from behind and forced himself on her, she says.

There may have been a rape, but could it possibly be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Is the 17-year-old here completely blameless? In my experience, the commenters who will be hardest on this girl will be other women.

I'm not a big believer in education as America's panacea, but who can argue with Sheriff Joe Arpaio's mandate that his prisoners must learn English?

Non-English-speaking inmates in Maricopa County jails began mandatory English classes on Monday.

At the end of their two-week course, inmates must take a test to see how well they learned about American government, the words to God

"These inmates happen to be incarcerated in the United States of America and in Maricopa County where I run the jails," Sheriff Joe Arpaio said in a statement. "And we speak English here, not foreign languages."

Classes will last two hours a day. The curriculum comprises the three branches of government, how a bill becomes law, state government, law enforcement and court services, and jailhouse "situational" terminology.

Sounds like a great idea. If the plan is successful maybe the Sheriff can be hired to run the Los Angeles Unified School District!

My wife tells me that convicted border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean won't get a new trial despite juror coercion.

A dozen members of the House of Representatives have written to President Bush demanding an investigation of the case against two Border Patrol agents sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison for the pursuit and shooting of a drug smuggler and calling for a presidential pardon of the pair.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case.

Unfortunately, either Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow isn't familiar with the case, or President Bush is a complete disgrace.

Yesterday Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked Bush spokesman Tony Snow whether Bush would use his power of pardon to free the agents.

"That's an unanswerable question, Les. The president is the person who is responsible for pardons. You can tell the network, which made you ask that question, that it is nonsensical," Snow said.

I personally doubt that this will be the last word on the matter... I still have some faith in America.

(HT: The Daily Spork.)

From what I hear, scalpers outside the new Busch Stadium are setting World Series tickets for far less than they can be found online, and often at less than twice face value. If you want to see the Cards beat the Tigers, just showing up with a little cash is probably your best option.

Brendan Miniter argues that "Voters Still Want Tax Cuts" and I think he's right, but his article listing examples of how states are scrambling to cut taxes every which way really highlights to me that if voters really want to get what they want they need to divest political power from the federal government and get more local.

In Arkansas, home to the megaretailer, one of the hottest issues in the governor's race this year is repeal of the state's hated 6% tax on groceries. Getting rid of the food tax has been on the conservative agenda for years, and four years ago repealing it even made it onto the ballot, but lost by a wide margin. Now with the state enjoying a large surplus and Gov. Mike Huckabee retiring, the stars are aligning to abolish the tax that brings in a mere $200 million a year. And it's Democrat Mike Beebe who is leading in the polls with his promise to phase it out. ...

In Colorado, the Republican foundation has crumbled in the past few years. It shouldn't be lost on anyone on the right that two years ago GOP Gov. Bill Owens led the effort to suspend the state's Taxpayers' Bill of Rights to allow for sharp increases in spending and a five-year suspension of rebates the state would otherwise have been forced to mail to taxpayers. Gov. Owens is on his way out now, and it should come as no surprise that Republicans will almost certainly see Democrats capture the governor's mansion next month. Rocky Mountain Republicans are divided and disillusioned. Democrats are not.

The unreported story this election cycle is that while scandals and the war have dominated congressional races, on the state level conservative economic ideas are still winning elections. Voters continue to support promoting economic growth by cutting taxes.

But even states who want higher taxes (*cough* California *cough*) should be able to get what they want, and they'd be better able to if the distant feds didn't have their hands in so many pies. Want public health care? Take it up with your state. Want to follow Kyoto? Do it at a state level, like California. Let's see what happens, and maybe you'll win other states to your cause. Part of the idea behind the federal system is that states should experiment and compete to create the best legislation, but when the federal government is so all-encompassing there isn't much competition to be had... with predictable results.

My brother and I I used to love The Simpsons back when it was funny, and we always told each other that despite all the merchandizing surrounding the franchise the one thing that should be avoided at all costs was turning the series into a movie. But of course, now that the show is terribly bland, they've decided to squeeze one last nickel out of it... and so, The Simpsons Movie. I will never see it. I will pretend it doesn't exist.

Here's a neat little piece that reveals some of the insanity behind pro-abortionists: people complain when aborted babies are thrown in the furnace.

One of the country's leading hospitals is throwing aborted babies into the same incinerator used for rubbish to save only £18.50 each time, it has emerged.

Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies.

Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital's main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste.

Pro-life groups are objecting rather tepidly, asking that murdered children be treated with more dignity.

Dr Anthony Russell, Bishop of Ely, said: "I am sorry to know this is the practice currently being adopted by the hospital. I recognise there is a wide range of responses to this issue, but believe the disposal of foetuses should be undertaken reverently and with dignity."

The Royal College of Nursing apparently doesn't even know that being a "parent" requires having a child, not merely a fetus!

The RCN's guide, Sensitive Disposal of all Foetal Remains, says disposal alongside clinical waste is 'completely unacceptable'.

It adds: 'It is acknowledged that sometimes parents don't recognise their loss at the time, but may return months or even years later to enquire about the disposal arrangements.

'Therefore, it is important to respect the wishes of parents who may not want to be involved, but to ensure also that sensitive and dignified disposal is carried out.'

But the Irony Award goes to this unnamed woman who murdered her unborn baby but then summons up the lunacy to complain about how the corpse of her victim is treated:

One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby.

She said: "I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish."

As James Taranto asks, "Huh? What Baby?".

Contrary to popular opinion, belief does not determine reality.

Men who live as women can now legally use women's rest rooms in New York's transit system under an unprecedented deal revealed yesterday.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to allow riders to use MTA rest rooms "consistent with their gender expression," the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund announced yesterday. ...

One rider feared predators might dress as women and lurk in the women's room.

But Rena Gantz, 23, a college student, shrugged off the settlement.

"It doesn't bother me because it is a reality," she said. "If they believe they are women, they should be treated as one."

I believe I'm emperor of the world... treat me like it.

Rush Limbaugh illustrates once again why, love him or hate him, he is the nation's premier political commentator. Here he breaks down the controversy over Missouri's proposed Amendment 2 and Michael J. Fox's recent ads promoting it.

Michael J. Fox is participating in this disinformation campaign. Folks, I don't care what anybody says, it is unseemly, it is exploitative, and it is downright mean to mislead people who suffer from incurable diseases at the moment or horrible diseases, that there is a cure around the corner if only, if only Republicans could be defeated. There has been a tradition in this country of bipartisan efforts to cure all of these diseases or to come up with vaccinations for them, but never mind that, we're in the process here now of damaging what has traditionally been this bipartisan effort in addressing and curing illnesses by politicizing them. We're now politicizing diseases and illnesses.

The Democrats politicized spinal paralysis and spinal injuries in the 2004 campaign, and now they are politicizing Parkinson's disease, and they've done that, and it's all about stem cell research, and of course embryonic stem cell research. Any bit of information or research that shows progress in either of these areas that does not involve stem cell, embryonic stem cell research, is rejected by the left. Now, why is this? What is so damned important about embryonic stem cell research? Why not adult stem cells? Why not research on umbilical cord blood cells that can be extracted from the blood in the umbilical cord? Because you can't take abortion out of this mix.

Just because it's not being talked about in this campaign, do not be lulled and fooled into thinking that abortion does not remain the sacrament of the Democratic Party and its religion. It is the thing that they will never once compromise on, and they think that anything that stands in the way of embryonic stem cell research is going to be an obstacle to having abortions, and the converse is true. If you can open up the field of embryonic stem cell research and just go out and get an embryo, what do you have to do to get an embryo? I've heard some Democrats say, "Well, an embryo is not fertilized, is it?" How little they know. Of course it's fertilized, and you have to kill it, and of course that advances the notion I told you long ago, folks.

Read the whole thing to be totally informed.

I hate automated phone systems. I loathe them. I never find them useful and always go straight to a real human as fast as possible, and then I tell that human how much I hate their phone system. The only thing worse than pushing the stupid buttons to navigate through an unhelpful menu is when the system requires you to speak to it.

Words cannot describe the burning hatred in my heart for systems that won't let me push buttons and instead make me speak nonsense loudly and clearly for everyone around me to hear. Is it really beyond comprehension that I don't want to yell out my personal information while I'm in public? Even aside from that, anyone talking to those stupid voice recognition systems sounds like an idiot.

After using these systems I'm always super pissed off and unreasonable when I finally do reach a human being.

My brother pointed me to this article reporting that the Navy's railgun test facility has conducted a successful initial firing.

A significant milestone in the advancement of naval gun technology happened with the successful test and standup of an electromagnetic (EM) railgun facility at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren Division Laboratory, Oct 2.

Working for the Office of Naval Research (ONR), engineers at the laboratory fired a low energy shot, the first in a series of tests required to bring the facility online. Using a 90 mm bore launcher with a copper rail and a power plant capable of delivering 8 mega joules (MJ) of muzzle energy, a 2.4 kg projectile was fired at 830 meters per second, yielding an energy of 0.8 MJ.

“We are one step closer to the future of naval weaponry with the standup of this, the largest operational EM [Electro-Magnetic] facility in the Navy,” said Elizabeth D’Andrea, Ph.D., program manager for the Electromagnetic Railgun at ONR. “The recent advances in science and technology are what has made this technology feasible, as well as collaboration of scientists and engineers across government agencies, industry and the branches of service.”

“With the potential to deliver lethal, hypersonic projectiles at ranges in excess of 200 nautical miles within six minutes, a naval railgun offers a transformational solution for volume fires and time-critical strike,” said NSWC Dahlgren Commander, Capt. Joseph McGettigan.

A railgun with a lateral range of 200 nautical miles might possibly be able to hit a target in low earth orbit (124 miles altitude and up).

Don't miss the latest from David Zucker: The Taxman Ad.