New Mars Forums

What about for asteroid belt->Mars/Earth ships?  Would cargo points make sense?  Refuel in orbit, and go back out to the belt?

Well, Tokamak is another concept for a magnetic confinement drive.  But the huge Tokamak's are also designed for electricity production, which would be great for a spaceship, but not a requirement. 

A spacedrive would simply need heat to propel the propellant out of the ship-the hotter, the better.  It's not really all that hypothetical, the concept has been applied, it just hasn't been sustained.  It works on the same basic concept as a power reactor, only we are generating thrust instead of electricity.  It's similar to an NTR in method.  The difference is that fusion is being used, and the magnets are used to confine the reaction. 

For fusion, I can't really say what a vaccuum would do.  I know isp would be higher, but that only accentuates fusion's strength compared to today's systems.  It's real potential is for an interplanetary, high speed, high payload freighter, with the drive also powering the ship.  They have been called the interplanetary freighters of the 21st century. 

They could cycle back and forth between planets without landing, bring huge payloads at high speed, and refuel at stops.

A fusion drive would be relatively simple in theory.  You have a fusion chamber, superheated, with plasma "mirrors" bordering the chamber.  Fusion takes place in the chamber, and the plasma is magnetically confined, releasing huge amounts of heating, propelling hydrogen out of the back.

In addition, at the nozzle end, the "mirror" is weakened, to allow some of the plasma out as propellant.  The hydrogen is pumped through tubes bordering the chamber (there are basically three layers-chamber, hydrogen or water pipes, and magnets), where it is superheated and ejected, producing lots of isp and possibly even thrust.

Yes, and you had no real argument that in any way proved them to be off the mark, except to yourself.  You can try to pass yourself off as some genius diplomat, it ain't working.

So, I've got it.  You're willing to support a dictator as long as the United States doesn't support them.  I see. 

And you can't drag up Gulf War I if you aren't willing to address that any past action of the U.S. is viewed in the most critical light possible, even Kosovo.  It's rather funny.

The "Gulf War Syndrome" was caused by Iraqi biological weapons, not uranium weapons, as some would try to proselytize.  Saddam has used biological weapons against us in the past, too.

The war lasted a few weeks.  I never said it didn't hurt anyone, don't put words in my mouth.  It was a light war, and the U.S. steamrolled Iraq.

I guess you are under the impressions that "insults are a genuine contribution to a conversation."

Obviosly you hadn't seen the NYT articles I had sourced, but we don't want to actually call you on what you say.

No, France has only tried harder to divide the EU against the pro-war countries, harder than Bush has tried to promote the war.  This was clearly shown in the articles I sourced, whether or not you want to continue to deny it.

The US is always deemed insincere when there's a profit to be made, so why is this any different?  Europe is always held to a different standard.  The North Korean conflict should bring this to a head-the treaty they claim we violated was in fact fulfilled by America.  We built our reactor, Europe never built its reactor.  Who gets blamed?  I'll give you three guesses.

It's not?  America goes into Bosnia, they're demonized for their actions.  They don't go into Sierra-Lione, and theyre demonized for that.  They go into Somalia, to help distribute food for God's sake, and we can see what that led to. 

If we go to war, we're wrong, but we'll be wrong if we don't go in either.  Everybody wants us to be the world's cop, but they love to slam us when we don't meet their desires.  We are a sovereign country, too.  I don't see UN support for Chechnya.

Saddam's toying around with the UN have shown exactly that any diplomatic route is gone.  With war on the doorstep, Saddam continues to poke at the UN whenever he gets the chance.  He hasn't complied with UN resolutions for the past 12 years, why should he step down as leader?

There were 100 variables that could go wrong in Gulf War I, but did they?  No.  The only variable that we failed to address was putting an end to Saddam.

On the news, forget which station.  I'll try and dig it up online.

Kind of like you.  But I disagree, as I have said and shown, the UN is just a parade ground for European power-mongers.  Sure the US is "Big Brother," but the world expects us to be, and when we don't go in to countries to help, we're portrayed as "evil."  So its a lose-lose for America anyway.

How about those who want war because, to a certain extent, Saddam is a dictator who oppresses his people while giving his friends and family palatial homes and palaces?

You chastise everyone for seeing it as black and white, but that's what you're reducing it to, and your claims are completely off the mark.

It was the club's fault.  The club knew that they were going to use pyrotechnics, said "ok" (on tape, no less), and then when the fire ignited, they fled, while Great White members bravely went back to help those trapped in the blaze.

Besides that, the club was over its legal occupation limit. 

All liability here, in my view, rests on the club.  A week before, a KISS cover band had used pyrotechnics, and Great White had obliged other clubs who had told them not to use pyrotechnics.

Yeah, now I know what's been missing, irrational anti-everything America does.

Our left-wing fanatic is back.  Joy.

Josh, it's plain English, I don't think I'm the one who's trying to twist a source here.

Yes, I saw an article to that effect.  You seemed to leave out that they won't be meeting the deadline.

It's just more toying with the UN and the US..."I won't, I won't, I won't....oh dear, it's a day before a deadline I can't make, I think I should!" 

Deadlines are meaningless to Saddam.  If he doesn't meet the deadline, too bad, that's his own fault.

And if he doesn't know how to destroy them, how did he destroy the rest of his weapons arsenal?

America would crush China in a war...it is simply not a contest.  China simply doesn't have the air or naval capabilities to stand a war with America.

2 billion people are meaningless if they can't get over the ocean.