New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#376 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-27 17:01:46
And soph, no, the UN doesn't make people resolutions, it makes nation resolutions. If Iraq could show that they were complying, there would be now way we could legitimately go to war, under Geneva conventions and so on.
Josh, Saddam is the leader of Iraq. He's the dictator, you know, the totalitarian ruler? Whatever he says, goes. Passing resolutions on dictatorial countries is the same as passing a resolution to that leader, because he is the only one with tht authority to comply.
That was really silly, josh.
#377 Re: Human missions » Do you support a Nuclear Space Initiative? - Poll Results. » 2003-02-27 16:57:22
TJohn:
I don't think NEP should ever be our primary propulsion method. Fusion will be ready by the time we get any significant thrust out of NEP, so I think the best use for an NEP would be as a hybrid NTP/NEP, to maximize thrust and fuel efficiency.
However, NEP might be a good option for probes, where speed is not as much of an issue.
#378 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-27 16:42:42
I'd like to reply again to the "it's about Saddam" quote.
Who is violating the UN resolutions? Yes, it is Saddam. So the two are one and the same.
#379 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 21:56:11
I meant if he destroyed his weapons, 6 weeks of inspection, a very, very high estimate, that came up dry would lead to reconsidering war.
And he's not going to destroy his munitions. It's obvious by now.
#380 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 21:39:49
The one man who has violated not only the UN regulations and human rights laws, but good job of trying to twist what I say!
Cover up your own arguments holes by trying to twist mine.
Why, a few days ago, we found drone planes and a GPS system of major US cities. No, no, he has nothing else. Of course, Josh.
He's just a poor, misunderstood dictator. Much like Richard Dreyfuss in Moon Over Parador. Ah yes, he was portraying Saddam! The loving dictator, unloved and innocent.
#381 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 21:22:34
If he destroyed what we can find, and our inspections couldn't turn up anything else in the next 6 weeks, yes.
Could use to defend himself? Now that's a circular argument. If he destroys them, he won't have to, unless he has something more sinister.
And the diplomatic alternatives, barring the above scenario, are gone. He isn't leaving, isn't being deposed without military intervention, and isn't about to allow truly democratic elections.
#382 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 21:08:46
Weren't you the one who said the means dont justify the ends?
And if peace means allowing a brutal dictator to continue brutalizing his people?
#383 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 20:39:24
Obviously one could argue that France gaining more power in EU for taking their position is ?dishonest? (which is what soph is saying here), but that's silly. That'd be like saying heros who run into burning buildings and get medals afterwards are dishonest because they got a reward for doing so,as if the medal was their motivation. I doubt very seriously becoming a world power is France's primary motivation; their history ,withvery few exceptions, shows a desire for peace. And look at the facts here, France's line is not very far from the USs! France is sincere.
Better go look up Napoleon, and the Habsburg-Valois Wars, and the French Revolution, and the 100 years War, and the French-England War, and Vietnam, and World War I&II...
No, France is not doing a hero's duty. As I have said, France is just doing whatever it can to stand up the US.
#384 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 19:01:49
Wait, the US does something that they stand to gain from, and we're wrong.
Yet, France does something, or chooses not to, for their own gain, and yet they are honest?
Josh-I wouldn't call your position "neutral" and I don't see France allowing any deployment of troops, it would be too much of a moral victory for the US.
But I would say that your position isn't the most anti-war I've seen either.
#385 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 17:47:09
How do you convince a people who know nothing but Saddam and his propoganda that they are being oppressed?
#386 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-26 15:29:39
I have a proposition: why not to ask Saddam to set up a democratic election, with the Iraki's opposants as candidates, in exchange of a redrawal of the US military forces ?
Dickbill, the last election was between Saddam and himself, and apparently, he got 99.9% of the vote. So he'll claim he did hold a democratic election :angry:
Shaun: if we don't go to war now, we aren't going to war in December. To do so would truly destroy our economy. It does not make sense to deploy, withdraw, and then redeploy our troops.
It's easy for France, Germany, and Belgium to say "no war," they were never the primary terrorist target, and haven't experienced a 9/11 level attack for decades.
#387 Re: Not So Free Chat » The War with Irag - How do  feel about it. » 2003-02-25 22:09:39
it goes against thousdand of years of tradition. Why it was them that tore down the greast empire ever to exist the roman empire.
Er. no. It goes against a single war in history. A blip. Germany was weak before the 1850s, and weak after WW2.
Tribes that conquered the Romans were not Germans, they were Germanic, huge difference.
#388 Re: Life support systems » Mars regolith analog » 2003-02-25 19:18:05
Sounds like enzyme denaturing to me ???
#389 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel » 2003-02-25 17:54:00
For the relatively short Mars-Earth, distances, you could probably use a pulse based ship only. However, for longer voyages, you would probably want a pulse/magnetic hybrid, for better isp. Besides, we may be able to eek a good deal of power from the reactor in the future.
But you do agree with my figures, based on a pulse fusion system (i.e. half a day<transit<7 days to Mars)?
#390 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel » 2003-02-25 17:36:07
in addition, Mars is 48 million miles at its closest, so it could be 6 days maximum at peak season.
#391 Re: Terraformation » What if there's life? - Should we terraform? » 2003-02-25 14:23:03
If there is life on Mars, we really cannot terraform the place, that's my opinion. No, I'm not a believer in rights for Martian microbes, only that we need to maintain the Martian ecosystem in order to understand more about life in the Universe.
In the final analysis we don't need Mars as a stepping stone to the stars either. We could use the Moon and asteroids instead and go for the "high frontier" solution of totally artificial interplanetary habitats, as originally propagated for by Gerard K. O'Neill... I hope... and think...http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm
Damn, I almost wish we don't find any life on Mars!
O'Neill colonies are a waste of resources. The chances are that Martian life would survive, and possibly flourish after terraformation, not vice versa. Understanding life has no value if we stay on Earth.
We shouldn't destroy life, but we shouldn't have the timidity to leave any rock alone that has a bacterial cell on it.
We shouldn't go helter-skelter and destroy the life, but I see no reason why terraformation would destroy the Martian life. We don't need Mars as a stepping stone to the stars?
Sure, and we don't need America as a stepping stone to space. Numbers aren't everything. When humans are established on Mars, we will have a whole new economic and technological driver, with more favorable launch conditions to the asteroid belt and planets beyond. Mars is the ultimate stepping stone to the stars, artificial habitats are the ultimate cop-out.
#392 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-24 21:15:03
They found an Iraqi GPS system of major US cities, as well as unmanned planes to disperse chemicals.
What a shock. Just a few 20 mile over the limit weapons? Nope.
#393 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-24 20:09:21
[color=#000000:post_uid0]
1) the war will be quick and not too bloody for the Iraki's civilians
Gulf War I
2) the post war administration won't be too expensive and not too long and not to bloody for the american administration. [/quote:post_uid0]
Afghanistan
3) The war won't degenerate into a widespread military conflict, even not a second COLD WAR with Russia + China[/quote:post_uid0]
Gulf War I, Bosnia, Afghanistan.....
4) the islamic terrorism will stop, or will be reduced, after that war.[/quote:post_uid0]
that's anybody's guess. This is the only one I have questions on.
However, a single democratic government in the region may have a destabilizing effect on the region, which might negate the need for further action.I'm not saying this is a certainty, but it may happen.
Josh->the "ends" is the war.[/color:post_uid0]
#394 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-24 19:05:50
dickbill-I don't like Bush-I have said that many times before.
But do I think the war in Iraq is justified?
Absolutely!
Do I think Bush's motives are the right motives?
No.
Do I think the means justify the end?
Yes!
#395 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel » 2003-02-24 17:59:55
That's why I had a "fast route" and a "slow route"
Acceleration is a matter of minutes, so let's even divide our numbers all by 10.
Even by our most conservative estimate, you get there in 8 days.
#396 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel » 2003-02-24 17:42:28
Zubrin said an exhaust velocity of 20,000 km/s is possible, I cited that already (_Entering Space_). This means you can get a speed of at least 40,000 km/s.
Mars is 1.52 AU from the Sun, 67.6 million milles from Earth. Here's my math:
40,000x60 (seconds)= 2.4 km/minute
2.4 million x 60 Hrm, my math is flawed. You can get to Mars in under a minute, just about 30 seconds in fact (this speed is 13% of the speed of light-take it to Zubrin if you don't like my numbers)!
This would require a great deal of acceleration.
So, let's assume it gets it's orbital velocity. 20,000 km/s, this is just over 1 minute.
Now let's take my original estimation of exhaust velocity-10,000 km/s. You still get there in just over 2 minutes.
Now, let's say you get Preston's estimate, 10^5, or an isp of 100,000 seconds. Your exhaust velocity is now 980 km/s.
The fast way (2x exhaust):
1960X60= 117,600 km/minute
ansX60 minutes=7 million km/h
67.6 million/ans= 9 hours, 30 minutes to Mars.The slow way:
58,800 km/minute
3,528,000 km/h
19.1 hours->MarsYour propellant mass depends on the thrust you are trying to achieve. But the initial launch mass (to orbit) is 1% with 10^6 isp, 9% with 10^5 isp.
Your propellant mass would be fairly small, because you are getting so much efficiency out of your propellant.
#397 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel » 2003-02-24 17:00:57
Preston:
If we use orbital launch, which will probably feasible at the time of fusion, thrust doesn't matter much. Alternatively, we could use a large vehicle like the Saturn V, this shouldn't be an issue, either!
#398 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel » 2003-02-24 16:59:35
Your site estimates using magnetic sails, you can get to Mars in just over a month. Using Zubrin's figures, you could get to Mars in just over a day. Using my figures, just over 2.
Not a downside for plasma sails, just an upside for fusion
#399 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel » 2003-02-24 16:44:08
But a weaker magnetic field also means more exposure to background radiiation.
It would make sense to surround your ship with a substance like water, which serves as an effective radiation shield.
#400 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-02-24 16:35:09
Heh, sources from the most respected newspaper in the world are unsubstantiated garbage, while you are the expert in the field?
Josh, you are in denial about everything from Saddam's ego to France's anti-Americanism, as my impartial sources (the New York Times, for God's sake!) have shown quite well. Ignoring them only proves your oblivion to the truth.
You have proven nothing with your unbased postulations. I will not accept invalid speculation that is predicated on "I say so, so you are wrong." I have provided nearly 10 perfectly valid sources, to your 0. You can focus on my friend if you want, the other sources won't vanish.
I'm pretty much going to ignore whatever else you post, it's not worth my time to discuss something with someone who is blind to the outside world.
