New Mars Forums

I hate to ask this question, but how much do you think it would cost for NASA to develop and build a scramjet spaceplane such as the one you outline?

I am glad that someone is finally working on a scramjet, but it bugs me that it's the military. If NASA wanted to do this, people would say it was too expensive or otherwise not worth it. But when the airforce says they need it to keep us safe (a claim that is usually successful without even basic justification), noone complains. The actual military use of this thing seems doubtful, as others have already said. Sure it could be useful, but it has limited applications, most of which can be achieved with other things, and is only necessary against an adversary at a tech level similar to our own. The benefits of civilian use, on the other hand, could be much greater. Easier access to space is the most obvios and most important. Even if this vehicle couldn't put a payload into orbit, it's certainly on the right track to do so. Furthermore, it might be useful for more traditional aviation uses, such as passenger or cargo delivery, if really fast delivery was necessary or was desired by someone who could pay for it.

If the army does build this thing, I certainly hope they don't cover it up. To me it seems inexcusable that the military will spend taxpayer money to build something, and then not let us know it exists, even when it could have civilian uses. Sure the military needs to keep some secrets, but it keeps a lot more than it needs to I think. It would be horrible if the air-force was flying these things around, without even being in a war where they would be needed, and NASA was still flying on disposable rockets. Any technology developed and any knowledge gained should be shared in full with NASA, and vehicles using the tech should be built for space use. We need a scramjet to get to space a heck of a lot more than we need it for "defense." Yet  it's always the military who get to spend ridiculous sums on things that might potentially be useful to someone, somewhere, sometime in the hypothetical future.

Ahmedinejad talks about "wiping Israel off the map," but I do not expect him to actually attack them. Presumably he understands that to do so would be essentially suicidal. America and other nations would come to the defense of Israel if it were attacked, and against them Iran would have no chance. Given that Iran struck first and that defeat was assured, the other Arab nations would be reluctant to join it. Thus Iran is more likely to talk big than actually start anything.

The other war scenario is that Israel attacks Iran first. Fearing for its safety, it might attempt such preempive action. It would, however, only do so if it was confident that it would have American support in the ensuing war, and it might even ask for explicit American approval before acting. If Israel did strike first, America would certainly not be obligated to come to its defense and would not even be necessarily justified. In such a scenario the Arab nations would come to Iran's defense. Other nations would probably not help Iran, but they would be reluctant to help Israel either.

In a war America has the power to decide which side wins. In order to come to a peaceful resolution, we must make it clear that we will not condone or tolerate military action by any nation, admittedly not a position we have much moral authority to take, but still one we have the military power to take if our leaders will once again remember the responsibility that comes with power. To Iran we must make it clear that an attack on Israel will lead to their own destruction. To Israel we must emphasize that our support for their sovereignty does not give them carte blanche by virtue of our power, and we do not guarantee any assistance in a mess of their own making.[/tex]

Commodore, you seem to think that a war with Iran is likely, even inevitable. While it is possible, I do not think that it is very likely, and I do not think that we should be resigned to it, since that makes it more likely. Even the hawks currently in power in our (American) government are playing down the possibility or war. As much as American, Europe, Russia, China, and Iran disagree, none of them, I think, wants a war over this. Iran wants to thumb its nose at the West, but it does so in the realization that we will not attack in response to insults and snubs only. Ahmedinejad is trying to see how much he can get away with, but if he sees that he has gone too far, I think that he will back off quickly.

Suspected development of nuclear weapons is not reason enough for war. In all circumstances, and especially when we are already in a war, we do not want to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary. It would only be necessary and, in my opinion, justified if Iran actually attacked someone, most likely Israel, but I do not think that it is likely that it will do this given that it knows that that would result in its own ultimate destruction.

There is a strong suppressed movement for reform, even democracy, in Iran. But the Iranians are united in their opposition to American interference in their affairs. Thus they would be united against an American invasion. There are some interesting similarities between America and Iran really. Both are led by a conservative president who doesn't get along well with other countries; both have significant opposition to the policies of this leader; but the populations of both will unite in the face of a threat to their nation and their sovereignty. If American troops march into Terahn, they will not be greeted as liberators. Likely the situation would prove much like the quagmire in Iraq, only worse.

An invasion of Iran would not be taken well by the American people unless Iran had struck first. It would almost certainly necessitate a draft, something which worries me and which would lead to Vietnam-like protests and divisions in the nation. It would also be opposed abroad, hardening the hatred of our enemies and alienating our friends. If Iran does have nuclear weapons, the results could be disastrous.

We may have to accept Iran as a nuclear nation, and potentially a cold war type standoff could develop, although more likely it would be a grudging acceptance as with China or Pakistan. Still, no first strike is the best policy in a nuclear confrontation, and making a few concessions is better than fighting Vietnam II or even WWIII.

Sorry for the long post.

A president who did that would probably need to go to Mars afterwards to escape with his life. The American people would remove him, by impeachment if possible and revolution if necessary, and if America actually invaded Mexico, the world would come  to their defense and America, mighty as it is, would fail.

Sounds awfully cliche to me. Frauds need to get more creative if they're going to continue to be entertaining.

Invading Mexico, besides being wrong by almost any halfway decent moral code, would not get us farther towards space. It would put us back. Mexico certainly has a lot of problems, but I doubt we could solve them, at least not overnight. It would take decades during which our money would all be going south not up. It would create a culturally and economically divided nation. We would no longer have a common national language, and I doubt old Americans and newly annexed Mexicans would feel like members of the same country. There is no money saved in this scheme, and no Mars colony built.

Not that it's of much importance, but when I earlier refrenced Zeno's paradox I was actually thinking of another very similar one involving a soldier running incrementally from an arrow, and my only point was that infinite division isn't really infinite.

Very true. And we should also ask if the end result will be what they say it will be. For example, Lenin sold the Russian people a vision of a classless society in which they all work for the common good and are equal. But instead they got a brutal dictatorship. Many people have grandiose visions, but I will be very careful in choosing to follow any of them.

It has to be a good balance of rights and duties. In terms of government, the people have a right to establish the government that they want and to be a part of that government (as by voting). The government has the responsibility of protecting people's rights, and people have the duty to protect their and each other's rights. They have a duty to work for the good of the colony (not meant in a communist sense). They have rights to speech, religion, etc. but not to, say, turn off the oxygen supply. Basically, gov't should protect everybody's rights and manage communal resources (such as keeping dome pressurized with a supply of O2), and people have a duty their colony. When everyone does their duty, everyone has their rights. In practice, of course, you have problems, so you need law enforcement and such to protect rights and enforce duties as much as is possible in an imperfect world.

The problem may be lack of an agreed upon vision rather than lack of any vision. Many people have visions for the future, but they concentrate on different things. When I dream of what I think the future should be like, I tend to think of a high-tech, space traveling civilization. But other people concentrate on other important issues, such as eliminating poverty, protecting the environment, protecting human rights, etc. People disagree about what's the right future, even among the space advocacy community.

It is important to think "big," and I agree there are too many people who aren't doing that. But there are also plenty who are. They just aren't united in one singular purpose, so they aren't going to make one spectacular accomplishment immediately. And if they did, a lot of other essential things would be neglected.

Why would being part of a larger asteroid make it less likely form a crater? It would still hit with a lot of force.

With all the evidence of change, especially in the arctic, it's crazy that we still have people denying global warming.