You are not logged in.
It's quite interesting how a historical analysis of the post-Napoleonic European treaties restricting France did not punish France for its enormously aggressive wars, even allowing it to be involved in the treaty negotiations.
However, Germany, after World War I, and far less aggressive warfare, was not allowed to participate in the Treaty of Versaille negotiations, and was greatly punished.
Historians have attributed these differences to the relative successes of each treaty, which is apparent in European history.
"Radiation
The magnetic field of the MagSail may generate local Van Allen-type radiation belts. These belts may pose a significant radiation hazard for payload or crew in the vicinity of the MagSail, though not at the geometric center of the MagSail hoop. The background solar wind and cosmic-ray radiation may also induce long-term cumulative radiation damage in the superconducting hoop, degrading the superconducting properties of the material."
I already substantiated each of my points, with valid sources. Since you have yet to post one, I will regard your posts as anti-Bush speculation and postulation, based solely on your fantasies of a European upheaval of American power.
That's all you've posted, and that's most likely what you will continue to post.
When confronted with real sources, you back further into your shell of denial. And you say we are incapable of rational discourse? The facts don't lie.
Preston, you could have a Tokamak design, where there are no bombs. I know what you're talking about, but it doesn't necessarily have to be done that way. Just as we have NTRs and Orion, we can have a magnetic confinement or plasma focus based fusion drive.
A danger with plasma sails is that the magnetic field itself could pose a radiation danger to the crew and cargo, and background radiation would make the structure less efficient.
Your post is a waste of good text.
You bullshit that France is inherently anti-American, while neglecting to even realize yourself that France's position is quite in line with the US, with the exception of one very small detail; Bush wants to go to war now, whereas France wants to enforce inspections. How is this ?block[ing] us and blast[ing] us at every step??
Nice use of language to convey your point! No, France wouldn't support a war if Saddam had a planet busting nuke. If the U.S. turned around and said "more inspections," France would say, Saddam needs to be dealt with using force.
If Iraq doesn't destory the weapons which are in violation, as per UNMOVIC instruction, obviously France will say ?lets go to war.? Of course, our wonderful American media will make it seem that France is ?changing their position? when in reality they have stressed the need for inspections, and a peaceful resolution to a trivial issue.
He has said he won't destroy the Al-Samoud missiles. Our wonderful, liberal bent media? The one that reports every day on the casualties of war? Please.
Indeed, Jacqueline Grapin points out that if France talked about the US the way the US is treating France, Americans would be outraged, ?I think there is a campaign going on in the US that is worse than I have ever seen in France. I think if in France we had such an anti-American campaign, Americans would be outraged, and rightly so.?
Now that's a fallacy. France is going around trying to rally support against America, while the American government has gone, privately, requesting support, not publicly bullying countries. This is just the French trying to justify a campaign in France. I actually had a friend go to France, and many stores wouldn't let him purchase their goods, because they hate Americans, as they said explicitly. If that happened here, there would be a $100 million lawsuit.
The reason I say that the UN is becoming more powerful is because now the US doesn't simply do what it wants. This is the first time in quite awhile the US hasn't been able to go to war on her whim! You damn right the EU is going to blast the US!
Ah, so that's why we got a resolution for Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Bosnia....this just doesn't hold water, Josh. We've always gotten resolutions. Even after 9/11, when we didn't need one.
If Europe wants to garnish anger at American policies, I see absolutely no problem with it. Having problem with this sort of progress is quite the conservative position. Being stuck up, biggoted, and thinking that you're the only one who's right, is not.
Ah, I'm biggoted because Europeans are garnishing anti-Americanism, and I'm pointing it out? You call anti-Americanism progress? Our government hasn't spewed out the anti-Europeanism on a reciprocal scale, the American people have judged the twisted politics of European nations itself.
Remember, I'm 75% German through my grandparents-how can I be biggoted against my own heritage?
France has always always been for peace, therefore, it only makes sense for France to step up and lay down some very rational guidelines to her allies. If this offends the US, so be it, but this hardly means that France wouldn't go to war if they felt it was necessary. But again, of course, you don't think France, Beligum, or anyone for that matter are relevant. Instead of embracing democratic principles, you think that the only relevant voice in this situation is the US. Well, you're wrong, and you're silly for trying to come up with some weak argument as to how you're right.
And leave a dictator in power that murders hundreds of thousands?
Does Napoleon ring a bell?
You spew a bunch of fallacies, and call my argument weak? Look in the mirror.
You're kidding, right?
Jon Stewarts comment is a joke, and it's not grounded in any real reality. Those Europeans who are inherently anti-Bush aren't too stupid to still be against him if he had a peaceful position.
Oh, no? I wouldn't be so sure of that.
And Jon Stewart's point was exactly what my point is, they care more about railing against Bush than the war.
I didn't say anti-Bush is anti-American. Being anti-American means hating everything America does, which France fits into quite nicely.
Should we call countries who try to block us and blast us at every step allies? I think not. You may call it bias or whatever you want, allies are made through politics, and through their actions, these nations have demonstrated that they do not wish to be our allies.
So be it. Petty politics are turning the EU and UN into an avenue to blast the US. It's a joke. The fact that you can say the UN is becoming more powerful is laugable- it is becoming an avenue for Europe to try to blast America.
It's not about "wanting another superpower." No, I have no problem with China rising to our level. It's about Europe trying to garnish anger at America-for European leaders to try to become some heroes over something they care nothing about.
You've been reading too much of the Guardian, Josh.
all this shows how many people only seem to apply parsimony selectively, when it suits their (usually) pessimistic views
or maybe i'm just cynical
Oh, I completely agree. I don't know how many times people at space.com have told me, "but we can't do that," or "that's a fantasy" when i have suggested something that scares them.
People are afraid of learning something new, that would change the world. They've fallen into a certain world view, and they have certain wants and needs, and they don't move beyond those wants and needs.
I don't even know what the point is here, except that you think that this isn't significant for some ridiculous reason.
Among Europeans, it has become fashionable to become anti-American. Jon Stewart put it best, when he said the Europeans would protest if Bush told us to go in and hug the Iraqis.
If you had a fusion drive, water would be worthwhile-because that would be your propellant, and you would need only 1%-10% propellant, depending on your mass.
If you were on an interplanetary mission-water is the way to go, crack for fuel, use for radiation protection, and crack for oxygen. Especially on an interplanetary mission. However, for a fission-based launch vehicle or SSTO, water isnt the way to go.
How about this? We swap out only 4 crew members at a time (not 2 OSP launches, just one swapping 4), and leave the other 3, so we basically do 1 1/2 x shifts.
Every launch swaps 4 people, and since its less than 1/5 the cost, we can keep the crews running normal schedules of today by keeping staggered crew schedules.
Agreed-keep cargo and crew separate, there's no need to send cargo on our crew vehicle. I would make the vehicle hold 7 people, however.
A capsule design might be the best for a supplemental cargo vehicle. It could even be reusable, let it splash down into water to be used again in another launch.
It means that there sure as hell weren't more than 5 million scattered protestors.
Your question is quite irrelevant (especially since commentary suggests that the protestors weren't your usual flock of teenagers and hippies, but rather the average person!).
From what I've read, quite the contrary. They were a mishmash of people who used the occasion to flaunt any anti-US cause that was convenient. For many, it was a mass avenue to proselytize their message of anti-Americanism.
It's a valid question, and you've yet to answer it.
I repeat my post:
how many of them care more about the war than protesting against bush?
They were gathering for the Pope.
I would guess Vietnam got similar protests.
And the protests were not concentrated, MLK's marches were larger than any single protest staged agains "the war."
And how many of the protestors were actually protesting against the war, as opposed to globalization, Bush, oil, and so on? I would say 1/5 of them at least were protesting things other than the war.
oh, and right, a vehicle can get up to 2x its exhaust velocity (3x if it spends a lot of fuel). This means our fusion ship can go over 18,000 km/s, quite a bit faster than a plasma sail.
edit: in Entering Space, Zubrin doubles the exhaust velocity numbers, meaning a possible speed of 40,000 km/s, or about 13% light speed.
Estimates say as much as 10 million. But so? Has there been any ammount of protesting at this level in the history of humanity? No. Then it's clearly significant.
Where is that estimate from? No impartial source, that's for sure.
And yes, this level has been seen before. More people gathered in Latin America to see the Pope when he came, among other events.
Upon doing some research, a fusion thruster could have an isp of 1,000,000 seconds. While this isn't the 30+ million of plasma sails, this means that it has an exhaust velocity of nearly 10,000,000 m/s. This means that less than 1% of your mass is fuel.
So, I think that fusion can compete with plasma sails. For a few reasons-as a launch vehicle, plasma sails aren't viable (surface to air), and we will always need launch vehicles. Secondly, spaceplanes can work on fusion as well.
Thirdly, fusion can provide a power source for the ship (yes, i know plasma sails can, but not nearly as much as fusion). You have more energy to send back more data (more power=more and faster data transferred).
Here is a site that describes all of the propulsion systems we are talking about, the benefits and disadvantages of each!
Millions upon millions? You mean 4? Wow.
Yes, thats a good .001% of the world's population!
We're trying to get another resolution to "shut up" france and germany, to use language of their level.
2) You really must be trying to convince yourself here. That's funny, when I posted the articles, you said they were interesting. Are you lying now, or were you lying then? Do people have to say, "we hate chirac and france sucks!" for you to be convinced?
Tell the New York Times that their articles are crud!
3) Show me where it doesn't.
1)...
2) Read those articles again, he is certainly dividing the UN and the world by trying to bully the entering EU nations.
3) 1441
You can't expect it to change overnight!