New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#526 Re: Terraformation » Venus » 2016-11-29 15:58:41
Another idea would be to use the EmDrive to speed up the rotation of Venus.
http://www.space.com/34797-impossible-s … ished.html
Just think about it, Venus has a thick atmosphere, it would not be practical to mount rocket engines on its surface and fire them tangentially to the planet' surface and fire them to spin up the planet, the atmosphere would get in the way, it would however not get in the way of an EmDrive, since it does not use action reaction, it has no reaction mass, it can push on the planet's crust without having to expel a reactant past Venus' thick atmosphere. If one can do thi long enough and with enough force to overcome the Sun's tidal forces, then you can increase the spin of the planet, and when you d this, you create a magnetic field provide a shorter day, and then all you would have to do is shade the planet somewhat and you can fully terraform Venus!
#527 Life support systems » Organic Life Support Systems: Biosphere 3 » 2016-11-29 15:40:53
- Tom Kalbfus
- Replies: 9
Suppose you wanted to use plants to oxygenate the atmosphere and provide food for astronauts, how big an enclosure would that take? Obviously Biosphere 2 failed in that regard, they used too much rotting organic matter in the top soil which supported bacteria which used up the oxygen supply. Suppose they tried to repeat that experiment with the things they learned from the last one? Problem is, they only tried once, they made some mistakes and didn't learn from those mistakes to apply those lessons to the next experiment. Usually you learn as much from failure as you do from success, you learn what doesn't work and what not to try again, which if followed up upon brings you closer to a successful outcome. How hard would it be to establish a self-sustaining enclosed biosphere on Mars that included 6 humans? How big would that have to be, would you say?
#528 Re: Terraformation » Mesozoic Venus » 2016-11-29 13:18:58
You could dim it more by thickening the cloud layer. Right now the system is in equilibrium, the amount of light absorbed by the ground and reradiated as heat and trapped by the atmosphere equals the amount of heat that escapes into space. If we reduce the amount of light absorbed by the ground, the amount of heat escaping into space will remain the same until the atmosphere cools to a new equilibrium point. If we make the surface pitch dark so almost no light gets absorbed by the ground and reradiated as heat, heat will continue to escaped into space and the atmosphere will continue to cool until the surface reaches the desired temperature. Past a certain point we'll get an ocean of liquid carbon-dioxide on the surface, and at that point the carbon-dioxide will rain out of the atmosphere, it will do this until the atmospheric pressure lowers to the point where the carbon-dioxide ocean boils. as the atmosphere cools, the ocean will stop boiling, the carbon-dioxide will continue to rain out of the atmosphere further dropping the atmospheric pressure. By cooling the atmosphere, we can separate out the carbon dioxide and reduce the percentage of that to that which we desire. The next part is tricky, we need plant life above the water clouds, we need photo synthesis above the cloud layers to convert carbon-dioxide into oxygen and hydrocarbons, we then separate out the carbon from the hydrocarbons and burn the hydrogen left over to make more water, and drop the carbon down to settle on the surface. We keep on making water out of the excess oxygen by importing hydrogen. The water clouds thicken the carbon-dioxide ocean thins and a layer of carbon deposits on the ground thickens. Probably a layer of water forms under the carbon-dioxide ocean as the later thins, Carbon will sink to the bottom of the water ocean.
#529 Re: Not So Free Chat » Election Meddling » 2016-11-28 23:18:45
On another note the dominoes are starting to fall as Republican elector chooses to resign rather than vote for Trump
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … -1.2890153
“If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I can not and will not vote for Donald Trump for President,” the Texas Republican said in a blog post.
"I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God.”
Wisconsin Officials Pledge Quick Recount; Lawsuit Filed in Pennsylvania
More racial Trump caused voter actions... Supporters Rally Around Michaels Employee After Customer's Tirade Goes Viral
David Petraeus shared classified info. Now can he be secretary of state? Serious issue indeed...
It's a record that raises questions about his ability to get a security clearance and to be confirmed -- particularly as the GOP painted Hillary Clinton as unfit for the presidency for her own handling of classified material.
Then why did he choose to be a Republican Elector for Trump? Did he plan on doing this all along in case Trump got elected? Doesn't sound honest to represent yourself as a Trump elector and then don't vote for Trump if he is elected. I mean what did Trump do anyway? He didn't do anything, he hasn't been President yet. The elector flipping is dishonest stuff, and it is by the way an undemocratic thing to do. Winning an election by hook or by crook is not worth it, it destabilizes our country and is not in our interests! The worst that will happen is then Congress gets to decide, the elector would have taken this election away from the people, and for no good reason! the reason we have electors is in case of such events as the candidate dying for instance after the election but before the electors cast their votes, those electors are then free to choose their own candidate, it isn't the purpose of electors to give the losing party targets to threaten or bribe in order to flip their votes! And its not worth it to elect a criminal undemocratically in place of Trump, at this point the Military might as well step in with a coup and rule the country themselves at this point. I'd rather not have these shenanigans. Hillary lost, she is not charismatic, she is not well liked or trusted by the people.
#530 Re: Terraformation » Mesozoic Venus » 2016-11-28 23:08:12
We go back to those 20 kilometer towers.
Remember the Thoth tower? Suppose we built a "Forest" of these towers, but this time I'm not going to propose a solid roof over Venus, instead we use these towers to inject humidity into the upper atmosphere, to form a perpetual continuous cloud layer, that reflects Sunlight back into space, much as the current cloud layer does now, but this at a lower equilibrium temperature on the surface. The towers are spaced at equal intervals across the surface.
You create an overcast sky with these towers, and by adjusting the amount of moisture you pump into the sky you can either have thin clouds or thick clouds. Sometimes the clouds will be thin enough to provide as much diffuse sunlight as the Earth receives in direct sunlight on a clear day. The cloud towers are there to ensure that there are no gaps in the clouds, at night, the towers can take a break and allow the stars to make an appearance.
As for dinosaurs, we start with robots, we build the robots to look like dinosaur, and we program them to behave the way we think dinosaurs behaved, we build an artificial digestive system and a reactor that breaths air. You know the story of the Bicentenial Man perhaps? it is a book that was written by Isaac Asimov about a robot that wanted to be human, and over time he kept on replacing his mechanical parts with biological parts until he was. We could perhaps do the same with these robot dinosaurs, we don't need to get any Dinosaur DNA from amber as in Jurassic Park, we simply need to figure out how to build cells that divide and grow into the organs we need to make a living organism, and build their DNA accordingly to accomplish reproduction of said organism, they need not be based on any terrestrial dinosaurs that ever existed, we don't even need to obtain ancient DNA, all it requires is an understanding of cellular biology of a sufficient degree so we can engineer our own organisms. We could by this means create the mythical planet Venus. Water clouds are a cood way to block sunlight, while letting enough through to supply plant's photosynthesis needs, and of course with all these clouds, there would be plenty of water, and no deserts, we would just have to take care to ensure that it does not always rain everywhere all the time.
#531 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-27 22:13:22
Whether Arrow was, or was not, a superior airplane, is no longer germane. It is 6 decades obsolete, no matter what.
I DO NOT agree with the conventional wisdom that only a modern, oversized, two-engine, software-controlled aircraft is the only way to build an effective combat fighter. The F-16 has long disproved that lie.
Now all we need is Mutley!
The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is a single-engine supersonic multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) for the United States Air Force (USAF). Designed as an air superiority day fighter, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,500 aircraft have been built since production was approved in 1976.[3] Although no longer being purchased by the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers.[4] In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation,[5] which in turn became part of Lockheed Martin after a 1995 merger with Martin Marietta.[6]
In point of fact, I think a 15+ year experienced reserve/national guard pilot could take on anything the west or the east has to offer with their 2-3 year experienced line pilots, and win the engagement, in a Korean-war-vintage F-86 retrofitted to carry underwing Sidewinder and Sparrow-or-AMRAAM missiles, plus a radar detector modified from something civilians can get from Radio Shack. Do NOT delete from that F-86 its guns!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_D … ing_Falcon
The F16 was first produced in 1976 in time for our Nation's bicentennial! You know how old I was a that time? I was 9 years old, now I am 49! In 1976, if I went to an airshow to look at some historical aircraft that were 40 years old, what would I be seeing?
This fighter plane is actually younger than 40 years as of 1976, if I were to go before Congress in 1976 and argue that we should be spending money on P-40 Warhawks instead of F16 Falcons, I'd be laughed off the stage! P40 Warhawks are after all quite a bit cheaper than F16s, we could have put a lot more of those in the sky, and if we made enough of them, we might just overwhelm a handful of 1976 era Soviet Migs while taking tremendous casualties in mass suicide attacks against them, now would you seriously have argued we should have done that?
I have decades of observations to support that contention.
Stealth is way over-rated. Stealth is more about corporate welfare state than it is about air combat. Stealth is frequency-dependent. That which is stealthy and looks like an insect at 100 MHz battlefield frequencies looks like an ocean liner at KHz search-track frequencies. The only real question is pixel resolution: a few miles at KHz frequencies, many meters at 100-MHz frequencies. When visual range is around 10 miles, who cares?
That kind of depends on how much you value the lives of those pilots flying those airplanes, if you think they are expendable and easily replaced, you give them cheap airplanes to save money!
You do not need F-35 to defeat Su-35 or Mig-31. You need experienced pilots who know what the f**k they are doing, with the minimal airplane credible in the field. We have known that since WW1, from the Red Baron, who said it's not the machine, it's the man.
And you know what happened to the Red Baron during World War I?
He was shot down by British ground fire while flying one of these! Now how easy was the Red Baron to replace?
All you need from the machine today is Mach near 1, missiles plus guns, maneuverability to ~ 6 gee, durability, and a radar warning receiver.
Sorry if I popped some cherished bubbles, but what I say is quite demonstrably true.
GW
#532 Terraformation » Mesozoic Venus » 2016-11-27 21:47:47
- Tom Kalbfus
- Replies: 4
This is a thought experiment. Venus was at one time thought to have surface conditions similar to the Mesozoic era on Earth, this Venus along with many other Venuses were later proven to be untrue, but what if we tried to terraform Venus in such a way that it resembles Earth in the Mesozoic Era. The time scale to fully terraform Venus is thought to be in the thousands of years. Humans might very well evolve into something else or more likely engineer themselves into something else by the time Venus is fully terraformed, so therefore Terraforming Venus will be something that is done for fun rather than out of some need for living space. So if we are to terraform Venus, why not terraform it into the place we thought it was back when we were speculating what was under those clouds in the 19th century? Would that be fun? Now who would we do this for? How about people who volunteer for cryonics preservation when they die? We can sell them on that fantasy that they will be recreated on a terraformed Venus that is inhabited by dinosaurs and there left to fend for themselves against those beasts with limited technology at hand. After all this may just be a fantasy anyway, so lets have fun with it!
Does this seem like a viable plan to you?
#533 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-27 08:20:23
RobertDyck wrote:Listen to what Tom is saying here. He's trying to tell Canada how to spend our money, how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to send out troops. If the US wants to be "leader of the free world" then expect the rest of that "free world" will have strong opinions about what that leader is demanding. If you don't want the rest of us to tell the US what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do. If you don't want us to have an opinion, then stop trying to be leader.
Defense agreements are supposed to benefit all parties involved. If you feel that the NATO defense spending agreements are not in Canada's best interests, then Canada can leave NATO and there is nothing the US can do to stop that. If you wish to remain a NATO member, then fund your military to the agreement set forth in the documentation your country signed as a member of NATO. I don't care which course of action Canada takes.
RobertDyck wrote:Tom has repeated the same crap that a lot of Republicans have stated. Some Democrats as well, but not so many. He claimed the rest of NATO hasn't spent enough on military. The rest of us have stated the US spends far too much on military. Our economies are deeply intertwined. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, period. Has since World War 2; possibly before that. Canada has a smaller population, and correspondingly smaller economy. We do as much trade with the US as the US does with Canada, so Canada is even more dependent on the US than the US is on Canada. But we both depend on each other. If the US economy goes into full depression, it will pull the rest of the world with it. So yes, we demand the US doesn't do something stupid that will destroy our economy. Overspending on military to drive the US into full bank collapse? The US did that in 2008; politicians talk about "recovery" but they keep repeating the same mistakes.
The US government is in financial trouble because it spends way too much money on entitlements.
Indeed, for the amount of money we spend on entitlements, we could have established bases on the Moon and Mars, and have been operating them for several decades now since Apollo! JFK got us going with the Apollo Project, and LBJ continued this, but then he started his War on Poverty, and that just took the wind out of the sail of NASA's space program! We could have built upon the Apollo Program if not for Johnson's "War on Poverty" and probably there would be less poor today had we not spend the money on LBJ's "War on Poverty!"
Presidents like Bush and Obama have done nothing but make the situation worse. President Bush gave us TSA, DHS, and the Iraq War.
To be fair, I can't imagine a President doing nothing but shrugging his shoulders in the wake of the 9/11 attack, perhaps Obama might, but he is the only one.
President Obama gave us the (Un)Affordable Health Care Act and stimulus spending. Entitlements (individual and corporate welfare) are a far greater threat to our national security than our military spending.
The US has spent more on defense lately because our NATO allies have not spent what was agreed to in their own defense. We're picking up the slack and taking lots of heat for it. The US military spending is to ensure that from wherever an attack may come from, it will be swiftly and decisively stopped. Could the money spent provide more "bang for the buck"? Sure. I've outlined several proposals to do that.
RobertDyck wrote:No, Canada isn't going to spend as much on military as Republicans in the US demand. People like Tom keep demanding that Canada and other NATO countries spend more on military. Those in Canada and NATO countries keep demanding that the US spend less! The US must stop wasting money on useless military spending, and focus on its own economy. Don't like us telling the US what to do? Then stop telling us what to do.
NATO is NOT a Republican organization, Rob. Stop trying to shift blame. Canada signed documents and then reneged on its agreements.
RobertDyck wrote:kbd512: I just blamed it on Tom, but in your post, you did the same thing. Since World War 2, the US has tried to tell the rest of NATO how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to deploy our forces. If you don't like us telling you what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do.
Nice try. You blamed Republicans. In their speeches as Presidential candidates, Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, and Mr. Trump all stated that NATO members needed to start paying what they were obligated to pay. Do you think they were just trying to win votes or do you think they were pointing out the staggering level of hypocrisy inherent to the excuses our allies have given for reneging on defense agreements? The US is picking up the slack and it's costing us a lot of money.
RobertDyck wrote:As for fancy military technology, Russia and China are not threatening Canada or western Europe. Their air defence systems defend themselves from attack, they don't threaten us. The US developed F-15 fighters a number of years ago, so Russia developed "Flanker" fighters to counter them. They aren't a threat to Canada. They could be considered a threat to Europe, but UK/Germany/Spain developed the Eurofighter Typhoon, France developed the Dassault Rafale, and Sweden developed the JAS-39 Gripen. So Europe hasn't sat still.
The most powerful military on Earth is located just to the south of Canada's southern border and is Canada's ally, so no other country is threatening Canada. If Canada becomes involved in a shooting war with China or Russia, what plans have been made to ensure Canada's air defenses are not wiped out on the first day of the war, apart from relying on the US to come to Canada's aid? You're complaining about how much the US spends on defense whilst refusing to pay what Canada agreed to pay for its own defense as a NATO member and simultaneously provide no plans for defending your own country apart from relying on the US, which only deters military threats from China and Russia by having the most powerful military in the world.
The Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon have all had difficulties in engagements against Indian Su-35's flown by experienced pilots. The only engagements that any of those fighters, to include the Su-35's, ever won against F-22's were engagements that started with the adversary on the tail of the F-22, within visual range, against F-22 pilots with fewer than 500 total hours of flight experience. In all other engagements where the F-22's weren't simply acting like target drones, irrespective of the experience level of individual pilots, no engagements were ever lost by the F-22's because their adversaries could never find the F-22's, let alone acquire radar or IR locks to launch weapons against the F-22's. No F-35's have been successfully engaged by their adversaries in any combat exercises flown to date.
RobertDyck wrote:Besides, Canada developed the Avro Arrow. When Russia demonstrated the Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian air force developed requirements for a new all weather interceptor in 1953. This new fighter was intended to shoot down the Bear bomber. Canada paid for development of this new fighter, and intended to pay for it by selling the fighter to our NATO allies. A Canadian company called Avro developed the Arrow, 5 prototype aircraft with the a pair of J75 engines were test flown in 1958. However, production aircraft were intended to have a new engine, the mark 2 had a pair of Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. One prototype mark 2 aircraft was complete in 1959. The aircraft didn't have engines inserted, but a pair of engines were on a stand immediately behind it. All they had to do was push the engines inside, bolt in place, connect fuel lines, connect electrical control cables. It would have taken technicians 8 more hours to do that, and that work was going to be done first thing the following morning. That's when the order came to scrap it.
The Arrow was about as useful as the F-106. The Arrow may very well have been the fastest interceptor in the skies, but it could never outrun a missile and the Arrow, like the F-106, was an anachronism when pitted against aircraft that were developed just ten years later.
RobertDyck wrote:The Arrow as designed to supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. Canadian air force requirements said it had to be able to fly mach 2.0 in flat level flight using after burner at 50,000 feet, but the Arrow as able to fly mach 2.5. The fastest US fighter jets at the time had a top speed of mach 1.6. Canadian air force requirements said it had to endure 3G turns, but the Arrow as designed for 9G positive or 3G negative acceleration. Fighter jets today are designed for 9G positive or 3G negative. US fighter jets in the 1950s would radio radar data to an air base, where a computer would process it and radio back results to be displayed to the pilot. The Arrow had everything onboard. This meant US fighters had no radar once they flew out of radio range of an air base, but the Arrow was designed to fly in Canada's northern territories where there are very few bases, almost none. The Arrow as the first fighter to use fly-by-wire. The first US fighter to use that was the F-16 which first flew in 1974. Air interceptor missiles in the 1950s required fighter pilots to use radio to "fly" the missile into enemy aircraft. There were proposals for a "fire and forget" targeting system, but it was never completed. Canada's fighter program included developing "fire and forget" targeting for AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. The Avro Arrow was the best fighter jet for it's day. In fact the only US fighter jet capable of matching the Arrow in every way is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21st century aircraft.
Is it even possible for Canadians to separate science reality from science fiction when it comes to the Arrow?
The Arrow was not a "fly-by-wire" fighter. It had an electro-mechanical control input system which was very different from the digital computer that controlled the otherwise uncontrollable F-16. If any pilot ever attempted a 9G turn in a supersonic Arrow, it would've become the world's most expensive lawn dart. The Astra fire control system and fire-and-forget missiles were proposals, as you put it. In other words, ideas about things that never existed. Astra was actually cancelled before the Arrow was cancelled and no fire-and-forget air intercept missile existed in 1959.
RobertDyck wrote:Bottom line: Canada developed the best fighter jet in the world at the time. The US panicked, demanded Canada scrap it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO allies to not buy any from Canada if we did finish it. France placed an order for Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines to be installed in their Mirage fighters, but they wouldn't buy any Arrow fighters. So we went through this before, why would we do it again?
The bottom line is that Canada developed a twin-engined F-106 capable of carrying twice the F-106's weapons load out and nothing more. The Arrow was cancelled because it provided so little in the way of air intercept capability over the F-106 without the Astra fire control system and fire-and-forget missiles. The Arrow's combat mission radius was just 660km, compared to the F-106's 926km combat mission radius. Arrow was at least a year away from serial production whereas the F-106 was in serial production a few months after the Arrow's cancellation.
#534 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-26 16:06:58
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
You complain that the US dominates NATO too muhm then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Russia is a piker, its economy in only the size of Germany...so why does Western Europe allow that little puke of a country under Putin push it around?
You won't make friends with talk like that. Russia produces some really impressive stuff. Of course a lot of the impressive military stuff came from Ukraine, which is one reason Putin doesn't want to lose Ukraine. To answer your question, Canada doesn't want to intimidate anyone. We don't want to threaten. And most importantly, we don't want to overspend on the military like the US. Take Canada's lead, reduce reduce reduce. Be friends with everyone, so you don't need to spend copious gobs of cash for weapons to threaten everyone.
Russia already lost Ukraine. Ukraine is a part of Europe with a population that is greater than Canada's, Poland is also a country that is bigger than Canada, these aren't small countries, they may look small to you on a map of Europe, but most of Canada is tundra, most of its land is empty frozen real estate. I see you take care of your cousins in Holland, that are in "Western Europe", but not my cousins that live in Poland in a country more populous than yours!
#535 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-26 13:43:25
kbd512 wrote:Rob,
There never seems to be a shortage of people willing to tell us how we should conduct our affairs, although strikingly few people here in the US are so vocal in their advice about how foreigners should conduct their affairs. I think I can voice the sentiment of many, if not most, ordinary Americans when I say that we'd much rather have our military focus on protecting our own nation instead of everyone else's.
I don't tell people from other countries how to vote, how they should spend their defense budget, or where their military forces should be located. We'd really appreciate it if everyone else extended that same courtesy to us. We cherish our relationships with our allies and we will do everything we believe is required to defend them, even when we believe they can't or won't adequately defend themselves. Opinion on exactly what should be done to defend our allies clearly varies, but somehow we end up footing the bill more often than not.
The US spends more on defense than our allies because more often than not our allies spend substantially less than they were mandated to spend as part of their defense agreements with NATO. This is generally true, not universally true. Many thanks to our NATO allies who have steadfastly abided by their defense agreements to achieve deterrence to aggression through military strength.
No Canadian, EU member, Japanese, or Korean defense programs were initiated to counter the threat posed by the latest Chinese and Russian air defense systems or tactical fighters, so the US assumed a leadership position through development and deployment of B-2's, F-22's, and F-35's. The correct moment in time to determine that you need better military aviation technology to protect your soldiers is not the moment after your soldiers' air cover is turned into twisted, burning heaps of metal falling from the skies.
Listen to what Tom is saying here.
The only problem is I'm not saying it here, the person quoted is kbd512.
He's trying to tell Canada how to spend our money, how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to send out troops. If the US wants to be "leader of the free world" then expect the rest of that "free world" will have strong opinions about what that leader is demanding. If you don't want the rest of us to tell the US what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do. If you don't want us to have an opinion, then stop trying to be leader.
You ever hear the expression "Divide and Conquer?" Do you want to be divided and Conquered, I don't think Putin would be as tolerant of your opinions as we are, where he to conquer you! Canada stands between the United States and Russia, which is why we want to make sure that Canada is contributing to the Continental Defense. If you want to go your own way and be conquered by Russia, then that is a problem for us. An Army has a unified command for a reason. You don't believe in a Unified command?
Tom has repeated the same crap that a lot of Republicans have stated. Some Democrats as well, but not so many. He claimed the rest of NATO hasn't spent enough on military.
Out of one side of your mouth, you are saying that the United States has bases everywhere and is occupying those countries where it has bases, out of the other side of your mouth, you complain about the United States insisting that Canada and our allies spend more on defense, are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? You see our defenss require that our allies spend enough on defense so they can defend themselves from our enemies, if they do not, then we at least ask them toallow us to have bases on their territories, if they won't do that, then they become vulnerable to being conquered by our enemies, and then they become military targets and subject to bombing by our forces, just as Occupied France was during World War II. Do you want to be an easy conquest for Russia, so American troops can go into your country and kick the Russians out again, liberating your cities at tremendous cost to us and to your cities?
The rest of us have stated the US spends far too much on military.
How do you know, the only person who knows for sure is our enemies, Al Qaeda for instance believes we have not spend enough on our military, otherwise they would not have attacked the World Trade Center and he Pentagon on 9/11! The Japanese thought the Roosevelt Administration wasn't spending enough on the Military, otherwise they would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. Whenever an enemy attacks, he is saying we are not spending enough on our defenses, otherwise thy would not attack!
Our economies are deeply intertwined. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, period. Has since World War 2; possibly before that. Canada has a smaller population, and correspondingly smaller economy. We do as much trade with the US as the US does with Canada, so Canada is even more dependent on the US than the US is on Canada. But we both depend on each other. If the US economy goes into full depression, it will pull the rest of the world with it. So yes, we demand the US doesn't do something stupid that will destroy our economy. Overspending on military to drive the US into full bank collapse? The US did that in 2008; politicians talk about "recovery" but they keep repeating the same mistakes.
If a New Cold War is breaking out, then we are not overspending on the Military. We need to spend enough on the military to establish peace, if there is not peace, then we are not spending enough!
No, Canada isn't going to spend as much on military as Republicans in the US demand. People like Tom keep demanding that Canada and other NATO countries spend more on military.
You complain that the US dominates NATO too muhm then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Russia is a piker, its economy in only the size of Germany, and it has a larger population and doesn't export cars and chemicals like Germany does, so why does Western Europe allow that little puke of a country under Putin push it around?
Those in Canada and NATO countries keep demanding that the US spend less!
At the Start of a New Cold War? You should have talkedto us about that ten years ago when there war peace! The problem with liberals is that its always a time to spend less on the Military, when peace breaks out, when a new Cold War Starts, when terrorists attack, for them it is always time to slash spending on the Military!
The US must stop wasting money on useless military spending, and focus on its own economy. Don't like us telling the US what to do? Then stop telling us what to do.
We would like a stronger NATO, what we suggest is for NATO's own good! Canada's main strategy is to call on the US for help if it ever is attacked by Russia, and that is after you suggest that we cut our military spending!
kbd512: I just blamed it on Tom, but in your post, you did the same thing. Since World War 2, the US has tried to tell the rest of NATO how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to deploy our forces. If you don't like us telling you what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do.
Europe has a combined GDP that is greater than the United States, all we're asking is that it spend on its militaries in proportion to their economy, the same as we are. What good is NATO if its main strategy is to call on the US for help when it gets in trouble. If you want an independent Europe, then the logical thing to do would be for those members of NATO to increase their defense budgets! Lets not look so vulnerable to the Russians, so they don't attack!
As for fancy military technology, Russia and China are not threatening Canada or western Europe.
That's pretty selfish of you! Why do you wish to regionalize Europe by using the term "Western" Are you offering Russia a bite of Eastern Europe as a peace offering? Do you want Russia to build Death Camps in Poland? The charter of NATO states that an attack on one is an attack on all! And Poland is a larger country than Canada you know that? Poland has more people, and so you are willing to sacrifice those people's freedoms to protect Canada, how "Noble" of you!
Their air defence systems defend themselves from attack, they don't threaten us. The US developed F-15 fighters a number of years ago, so Russia developed "Flanker" fighters to counter them. They aren't a threat to Canada. They could be considered a threat to Europe, but UK/Germany/Spain developed the Eurofighter Typhoon, France developed the Dassault Rafale, and Sweden developed the JAS-39 Gripen. So Europe hasn't sat still.
Besides, Canada developed the Avro Arrow. When Russia demonstrated the Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian air force developed requirements for a new all weather interceptor in 1953. This new fighter was intended to shoot down the Bear bomber. Canada paid for development of this new fighter, and intended to pay for it by selling the fighter to our NATO allies. A Canadian company called Avro developed the Arrow, 5 prototype aircraft with the a pair of J75 engines were test flown in 1958. However, production aircraft were intended to have a new engine, the mark 2 had a pair of Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. One prototype mark 2 aircraft was complete in 1959. The aircraft didn't have engines inserted, but a pair of engines were on a stand immediately behind it. All they had to do was push the engines inside, bolt in place, connect fuel lines, connect electrical control cables. It would have taken technicians 8 more hours to do that, and that work was going to be done first thing the following morning. That's when the order came to scrap it.
The Arrow as designed to supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. Canadian air force requirements said it had to be able to fly mach 2.0 in flat level flight using after burner at 50,000 feet, but the Arrow as able to fly mach 2.5. The fastest US fighter jets at the time had a top speed of mach 1.6. Canadian air force requirements said it had to endure 3G turns, but the Arrow as designed for 9G positive or 3G negative acceleration. Fighter jets today are designed for 9G positive or 3G negative. US fighter jets in the 1950s would radio radar data to an air base, where a computer would process it and radio back results to be displayed to the pilot. The Arrow had everything onboard. This meant US fighters had no radar once they flew out of radio range of an air base, but the Arrow was designed to fly in Canada's northern territories where there are very few bases, almost none. The Arrow as the first fighter to use fly-by-wire. The first US fighter to use that was the F-16 which first flew in 1974. Air interceptor missiles in the 1950s required fighter pilots to use radio to "fly" the missile into enemy aircraft. There were proposals for a "fire and forget" targeting system, but it was never completed. Canada's fighter program included developing "fire and forget" targeting for AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. The Avro Arrow was the best fighter jet for it's day. In fact the only US fighter jet capable of matching the Arrow in every way is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21st century aircraft.
Bottom line: Canada developed the best fighter jet in the world at the time. The US panicked, demanded Canada scrap it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO allies to not buy any from Canada if we did finish it. France placed an order for Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines to be installed in their Mirage fighters, but they wouldn't buy any Arrow fighters. So we went through this before, why would we do it again?
#536 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-26 11:42:32
I normally do not want to participate in the overheated political BS sessions I see here, but I cannot let this egregious BS pass.
Tom, the entire southwestern US and California were once part of Mexico. The US obtained them by conquest.
And how did Mexico obtain that land? By Conquest of course! It wasn't called the Mexican Empire for nothing you know!. Mexico by the way started out as the Capital city of the Aztec Empire, before they were conquered by the Spaniards, and you know what the Aztecs did before the Spaniards came? They made human sacrifices of their enemies to their Sun God Quezaquotal!
That means Mexico IS here, inherently, in a major part of our country today.
Well you see, that's why I don't want too many more of them coming here to take it back! Are you an ethnic Mexican by any chance? GW Johnson doesn't sound like a Mexican name, and you are a native of Texas as I recall, do you "remember the Alamo?"
The US government then made promises to the indigenous inhabitants of those regions about them retaining their land holdings, which it immediately broke, turning them into second- or third-class citizens. They were actually lucky at that, they could have suffered the genocide the Indians suffered. The ones in what is now New Mexico fared the best. California, Arizona, and by a different path Texas, fared the worst.
Perhaps you are referring to he Commanches, they were not called the "Mongols of the West" for nothing you know!
US history is, in many ways, as abominable as that of the Nazis (looking at genocide and slavery). It is certainly not something to be proud of, but it is something to learn from, and it is definitely something not to repeat. Your comment about "If you or Robert want to surround yourself with Mexicans, you could always go to Mexico rather than bring "Mexico" here." -- reveals a clearly-racist attitude on your part about both Mexicans and US citizens of Mexican descent.
What's wrong? Didn't you like that picture I posted?
I thought it was a lovely picture, quite colorful, not disrespectful at all I'd say. But we're the United States of America, not Mexico, unless Mexico wants to join our Union. I'd rather have all of it or none of it. You see if Mexico is a part of the United States of America, they won't be taking the Southwest back, and Mexicans can then come and go as they please! Wouldn't you like that?
Would you like this to be a map of the New United States of America? Canada is welcome to join as well or course, unless they don't like Mexicans!
I feel sorry for you, that ugly attitude will hamper you all your life, for as long as you keep it.
My own attitude is more like that of the first wave of Anglo settlers to Texas when it was still part of Mexico in the 1820's (and I chose that attitude, it was not what I was taught). They fitted in with the locals, who were very good people. It was a mix of Anglo settlers and local Mexicans who conducted the 1835-1836 war for independence from Santa Anna's Mexico, and only because they felt they had to. The flag over the Alamo was an 1824 version of the Mexican flag, representing a wish to be free of Santa Anna's dictatorship, not really Mexico itself. But independence was the only way out.
It was the second wave of Anglo settlers, after Texas entered the union in 1845, that brought the racist attitudes that have caused all the troubles since, and which converted Texas folk of Mexican descent to second class citizens, just like they did in the rest of the Southwest after the 1846-1848 Mexican War.
I'm sorry, but we can just do without that racist bullshit. It only leads to evil.
The problem with illegal immigration from Mexico into the US is two-fold: (1) a disparity in economic health of the two nations that makes the US look like a better prospect for poor folks trying to make a living, and (2) a longstanding idiotic immigration policy that tries to ration far too few guest worker permits. This has been going on since the mid-19th century. You must fix both to solve the problem. The first requires both nations to cooperate in many different ways. Only the second is something the US can unilaterally address. Neither alone will do the job.
No "wall" is going to stop desperate people, because expensive walls can always be defeated by cheap ladders, shovels, and bolt cutters. Trump's popular campaign slogan about building a wall is utter nonsense as a policy prescription, and anybody not brainwashed by political sloganeering knows that. The only problem is that because so many believe the slogans that we will spend billions ineffectively, before the folly of this becomes painfully plain (the Chinese made the same mistake with their Great Wall; the resources would have been better spent on more troops). And don't you believe the Mexicans can be made to pay for it; for one thing, they don't have the money. Blood out of a turnip problem. Stupid.
What you want to do is sort through the illegal immigrants already here and find those that have been doing the right things since they got here. That would be working, paying taxes, and sending their kids to school in order to work and pay taxes here as well. And don't kid yourself, anybody working here pays taxes here, illegal alien or not. Those are the ones that deserve legal guest worker status. This is not something that can be finished in one or two presidential terms, but it certainly is overdue getting started.
I'm not related to folks of Mexican descent, but I enjoy having them around. The food and company is great, and they throw marvelous shindigs at weddings and the like. I have a lot of good friends who are of Mexican descent.
So I really do not appreciate your racist attitude about Mexicans, Tom. You are wrong. Wrong about those folks, wrong to hold such an evil attitude, and wrong in your ideas about walling-off the border.
GW
#537 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-26 08:48:32
Trump would just be enforcing the law as it was written, why should that come as a terrible surprise? If you or Robert want to surround yourself with Mexicans, you could always go to Mexico rather than bring "Mexico" here.
#538 Re: Not So Free Chat » Election Meddling » 2016-11-25 22:15:11
Now this is all to funny In bizarre ‘birther’ twist, claims Trump is Pakistani
Birther Boomerang: Report Claims Trump Was Born In Pakistan, Ineligible To Be POTUS
There are those out there that will believe almost anything.....this is funny......Now do we request a DNA test....
Now on the not so funny when Trump was saying he could walk down a NY street and shot someone and still become president getting away with it.
Donald Trump was joking and using hyperbole, he does that a lot. Trump is not a politician, he doesn't conduct himself as if every newspaper it going to measure every word he says with a microscope and take him literally and seriously about everything he says every minute of the day. He was kidding. Are you prepared to account for every word you have ever said every minute of your life? The problem with politicians today is they are so careful with what they say and how it may be interpreted by the press, that they are not themselves. Everyone who tells a joke and exaggerates is not Hitler.
Trump's Victory Has Fearful Minorities Buying Up Guns
Well he seems to have gotten his wish that everyone should be allowed to have a gun.....
Trump actually got more minorities to vote for him than Mitt Romney.
Now on the recount Election Recount to Begin in Wisconsin Following Green Party Petition, Officials Say
Green Party Candidate Jill Stein Files for Vote Recount in Wisconsin
However, reports of irregularities in the vote count — brought to light by a collection of scientists and activists — along with concerns over whether Russia may have attempted to influence the results and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's historic and growing popular vote victory, have provided the momentum and emotion behind this admittedly long-shot fight to force a recount.
Further funding will be redirected to Michigan, where the filing cost will be $600,000 and the challenge deadline is Monday, and Pennsylvania, where the filing cost is $500,000 and the deadline is Wednesday.
If there are irregularities in the count, it is most likely by the Democrats, Trump doesn't have the machine politics of the Clinton/Democrat machine. There probably were some irregularities, such as illegal aliens who shouldn't be voting, dead people under who's registration someone else was voting and so forth, in spite of that, there were enough actual votes to overcome that and give Trump the electoral majority, and he might even have the popular vote majority if we were to illuminate all the illegal votes.
Mostly on the Democrat side. Trump has spend fewer resources on his campaign than Hillary Clinton, his focus was on the message, he did a bunch of rallies to get his message out, and they were well attended. Hillary needed to help of musicians and celebrities to draw crowds, they mostly didn't come to see her. Hillary had to focus on the ground game of getting out the votes of party stalwarts, her message was mostly negative about what a racist/fascist/Nazi Donald Trump was, and how dangerous it would be if he ever were to become President, and the only choice to prevent this "Potential Future Hitler" from coming to power and starting the "Fourth Reich" was to vote for Hillary. This character the Hillary Campaign was trying to paint Trump as bears little resemblance to the host of Celebrity Apprentice, and is not consistent with that of a billionaire who married a foreigner twice, has a Jewish Daughter and Son-in-law, has hired a lot of minorities in all his businesses, this is not a "Hitler!" I didn't like Hillary's attempt to distort and smear Donald Trump, but a negative campaign was all she could run and it didn't work. The country is better off jus letting Trump be President and be given four years to prove himself, or to let the Democrats make a case against him based on his record as President so they can try again in 2020. That is what a democracy is all about.
#539 Re: Human missions » Time to go! As much water as Lake Superior- MarsColony Green Light! » 2016-11-25 21:50:35
louis wrote:Are you sure about that? It's not just bones at a macro level we are talking about but cells at a nano level. Anyway, I would also hope that 0.38 is "good enough". Certainly in terms of bone stressing, with weighted suits and shoes I would think it is.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:It is useless to sleep in a 1-G centrifuge, because you sleep lying down and the weight is taken off those bones, plus there is wear and tear on the centrifuge. Either 0.38 G is enough or its not. Whether people can live permanently in 0.38 G will determine whether we can have a colony, or we can genetically engineer human beings to live there.
Yes. Bed rest reliably simulates the effects of weightlessness on the bones and cardiovascular system and is often used in peer reviewed studies as a proxy for weightlessness. Really, you want full gravity in situations where people are going to be walking or performing physical work. Spend six months in micro-G and so far as your body is concerned, you have spent six months laying in bed.
Take a look at this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540860/This leads me to believe that people who are active in Martian Gravity, will tend to be healthier than those leading a sedentary life in Earth gravity. If you are sitting or lying most of the day, bone metabolism is severely impacted regardless of gravity level. This certainly gives me pause for thought, as I sit behind a desk pumping out word documents for much of the time that I am awake.
Also you will be carrying the weight of the space suit, engineers will want to weigh it down so that astronauts can spend the maximum amount of time outside doing useful things, this means tanks of oxygen, nitrogen, and water. You can weigh down the suit with these things until the weight of the astronaut plus the suit approaches just the weight of the astronaut on Earth, this is a big help. the problem comes when the astronauts are inside the dome, where they weigh only 0.38 of their Earth weight.
#540 Re: Not So Free Chat » Election Meddling » 2016-11-25 09:55:46
Why is that not the same with NATO? Canada is a NATO country. Some of those countries you talk about have a larger population than Canada, including Poland, Germany, and the United Kingdom. My cousin on time said she would move to Canada if Trump got elected, I was wondering why not move to Poland instead? If Hillary got elected instead of Trump, I could probably move to Poland easier than Canada since my wife is Polish, the only down side is I don't speak Polish, not enough of it to hold a conversation anyway. On the Map Canada takes up half a continent and is larger than Poland, but population wise, Poland is larger than Canada, it has about 40 million people. Like Canada, Poland has a parliamentary system of government, but unlike Canada, it also has a President, and Canada on average has a colder climate than Poland. But in any case Trump won, and if Trump really was the Fascist many liberals were claiming during the election, Canada would not be nearly far enough. If Trump was Hitler, then Canada would be our "Austria", but I don't think Trump is Hitler.
#541 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-24 22:13:16
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Yes it started with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and not minding its own business! If it didn't do that, none of what followed would have happened!
Then the guys in Washington tried to treat the Mujaheddin as "their dog". Stop trying to duck responsibility. Your country started it. Perhaps we can convince Trump to stop fucking with the Middle East.
And while he's at it, the rest of the world. Trump expressed concern over the cost of US military bases in other countries. No, NATO is not going to pay for that.
The second option is to allow Poland, Ukraine, Japan, and South Korea to have nuclear weapons. If the Germans want us out of their country, we could always leave our nuclear weapons behind and give them the codes to launch them, would you prefer that?
It's time for the US to stop occupying western Europe.
But its not, Occupation is more than just operating a base on their territory with their permission. We have bases in Canada with the Canadian government's permission, do you feel your country is being occupied by the United States? If so then Canada has already lost its independence, so why do you bother voting in Canada's elections? The US has bases in Canada, that is a fact, do you call that "occupation?"
A "foreign" military base is one not within the territory of the country that owns it. There are 56 foreign military bases throughout the world, other than American ones. The US owns over 800 foreign military bases. One way to balance the budget, one way a businessman can improve the finances of the US federal government, is close most of those foreign military bases. Start with Guantanamo Bay, because Cuba has said they want it back.
Will Russia give their Crimea base back to Ukraine plus the territory they stole? If not, then I believe Trump would call that a bad negotiating position if we give tuff away for free while getting nothing in return! how about we make a trade, Cuba gets Guantanamo back if Russia hands Crimea plus that base back over to Ukraine, does that sound fair enough to you?
How did we start it? You said yourself he Soviets invaded Afghanistan, not us! If the Soviets had not invaded Afghanistan, we wouldn't have interfered, but they did! Our policy was quite clear, containment. If the Soviets pursue an expansionistic policy, we get in their way, we do not invade their territory, but we do get in the way of their invading other countries. Our job was protecting the status quo as it affects the free world, if the Soviets wanted to interact peacefully with their neighbors, we would let them do it, but if they invade, we stand in their way, and if that means arming those who would oppose them, then that is what we do!
#542 Re: Human missions » Time to go! As much water as Lake Superior- MarsColony Green Light! » 2016-11-24 21:58:56
It is useless to sleep in a 1-G centrifuge, because you sleep lying down and the weight is taken off those bones, plus there is wear and tear on the centrifuge. Either 0.38 G is enough or its not. Whether people can live permanently in 0.38 G will determine whether we can have a colony, or we can genetically engineer human beings to live there.
#543 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-24 13:52:38
Yes it started with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and not minding its own business! If it didn't do that, none of what followed would have happened!
#544 Re: Human missions » Time to go! As much water as Lake Superior- MarsColony Green Light! » 2016-11-24 13:03:27
Interesting, isn't this where one of the Viking space probes landed? Utopia Planitia? Okay, we have a site for a possible space colony. 10 meters of ice will provide as much protection from cosmic rays as Earth's atmosphere. This is in Mars' "temperate zone" 45 degrees is the same latitude a New York City on Earth.
Just two things remain, getting there and 0.38 times Earth's gravity. Under a dome, we can replicate Earth conditions except for gravity, without using centrifuges.
#545 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-24 11:38:32
It's not just Muslims. All religions that I am aware of can be perverted to suit the objectives of the power hungry, with horrible consequences for those designated as "not of the faith". It just happens to be Muslims at this period in history.
"Christians" have been guilty of similar things (eg Spanish Inquisition).
Also prone to similar perversion are the various isms which great leaders have exploited to the same ends- Communism, Fascism, Nationalism etc.
The difference is that Christianity is a religion of Peace while Islam is a religion of War, Christianity need a lot more perversion to become violent than Islam does. As an example take the two founders of these religions, Muhammad and Jesus. While Jesus was turning the other cheek and getting nailed to a cross, Muhammad was leading armies into battle! Doesn't that tell you something about the nature of these two religions, and you want to bring more Muslims into the United States. Yes, I agree that they are no all violent, but a larger percentage of them are. The Crusades were a reaction to what the Muslims did, people being human will fight back when attacked, even Christians despite Jesus calling for them to turn the other cheek, most don't. The Spanish Inquisition can about due to a long period of Muslim occupation of Spain and Portugal, the Spaniards had to learn to fight them, and they eventually drove them off of their territory, but unfortunately they learned a few things from their former Muslim occupiers, fighting back is how you gain your freedom, they brought this attitude towards the Jews, Non-Catholics, and into the New World when they encountered Native Americans. much of Spanish cruelty was learned from the hands of their previous Muslim occupiers, and they took that cruelty they learned from the Muslims and applied it elsewhere after they won their freedom, the Spanish Inquisition was a result of what the Spaniards learned from the Muslims they fought.
#546 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-24 11:26:19
Tom Kalbfus wrote:What do you want Muslims for? Muslims want to live in the 7th century, why would they want to go to Mars? If they don't want to live in the 7th century, then why are they Muslims? Islam springs out of a religion which states that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is a certain duality that religious people have to deal with, one is the religious world which they live in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, and on every other days of the week except during prayer time for Muslims, they live in the 21st century.
You could say the same about Christians. Most Muslims are not violent, terrorism is a perversion of that religion. Christianity has the KKK, and the KKK are about as large a proportion.
There are large numbers of Muslims that believe in that perversion, I just don't believe in taking chances by bringing them here. The KKK never took over a country, like these violent Muslims have, the KKK never started a war, they were always a tiny minority.
Tom, why don't you get it? Terrorist leaders are trying to convince all Muslims that they are under attack, that they have to fight Christians or die. The reason for reassuring Muslims that they aren't, so to deprive terrorist leaders from new recruits.
Why is it our job to convince them otherwise? If their society is sick, and they are apt to believe they are under attack by phantoms and they go around attacking us because of their self-induced hallucinations, they make it into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but we aren't concerned with why they attack, or what is going on in their heads to make them attack us, only that they are.
Targeting Muslims falls into their trap. Terrorist leaders actually just want power and money, and are willing to kill to get it. It's always about power and money.
Here is what I saw, we were minding our own business and Muslims attacked us on 9/11, they knocked down the World Trade Center by hijacking airplanes with passengers inside of them and crashed them into those building killing thousands of people, and then afterwards more Muslims from the Middle East started streaming into our country to fact our wrath and prejudice they just created by attacking us on 9/11. Seems to me that the United States would not have been the best choice in destinations right after 9/11, so why did they come? I see more mosques now than I did right after the 9/11 attack, more people are dressed in burkas now than right after the 9/11 attack. I don't know why the Obama Administration decided to let these people in, there being here doesn't make us safer, they just give the FBI more people to watch who might be terrorists, and I don't think we need these people in out country all of the sudden when were are worrying about Islamic Terrorism.
In this case they perverted the religion of their part of the world to achieve their lust for power. If you fall into their trap, you turn a petty warlord into a holly leader, a messiah or prophet. There are more Muslims in the world than Christians, so turning these petty warlords into a religious prophet leading a crusade? We don't want a modern crusade; that could be very dangerous.
If they attack us, we will fight back, so they are trying to convince Muslims to attack us because we are fighting back? Did that work for the Japanese? I don't care about what lies the Muslims are telling themselves before they attack us, the only part of it that is important for me is the fact that they attack us! The Japanese government told their people that we were monsters, some Japanese were so stupid that they killed themselves rather than be captured by the Americans, because they believed their lying government.
#547 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-24 02:24:46
Here is the Polling calls to U.S. Muslims raise surveillance fears
Muslims across the United States feared they were being targeted for surveillance this week when they received automated polling calls asking them to press one if they identified as Muslim or two if they did not.
Dial 3 if indian, 4 for negro, 5 for russian, you get the jist...... Who made these calls?
The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet
Gee just pay a settlement payment and make the criminal charges go away......
What do you want Muslims for? Muslims want to live in the 7th century, why would they want to go to Mars? If they don't want to live in the 7th century, then why are they Muslims? Islam springs out of a religion which states that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is a certain duality that religious people have to deal with, one is the religious world which they live in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, and on every other days of the week except during prayer time for Muslims, they live in the 21st century.
#548 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-11-23 10:31:32
I've said it before, don't bully Russia. Don't expect them to back down. Just stop messing with their back yard. If they want to take out ISIS, let them. Don't poke the Russian bear.
Who's being a bully? Has the United States ever invaded Russian land? Seems to me that the Bully is Russia, so how many Russians would like to die because Putin decides to grab more land? I'd say the advantage always goes to the defender when both sides have nuclear weapons. The United States has Nuclear weapons, and so does Russia, and Russia wants to take some land from some neighboring country that doesn't have nuclear weapons and the United States says No! What if the United States was to back that up by sending troops to help Ukraine, and Russia insists on taking more land, who is risking nuclear war now! The United States is not seeking more land, Russia is, Ukraine wants help, the United States gives it, but Russia sends troops into the Ukraine and a shooting war starts. What is the worst that can happen? Lets say there is a conventional war going on between NATO and Russia, and NATO and the United States are basically mopping the floor with Russian troops, Lets say wounded and dead Russian troops are streaming back across the border into Russia, large Russian troop units are being defeated and captured by NATO forces, and the war is all but over. No one has yet entered Russian territory, but Putin is looking at his nuclear options, so what are they?
He can accept his defeat and negotiate an end to the conflict, pulling back Russian troops, or he can launch those missiles at the United States and die! Which option do you think he would pick? Which option would be less costly for Russia and for him?
#549 Re: Human missions » Possible goal for Trump Administration: Build a Lunar Hotel » 2016-11-22 22:21:00
Here is the diagram for a standard basketball court
This is how we modify the court for Lunar Gravity.
Underneath this floor is an in ground swimming pool, and within this gym we can also set it up for Tennis or Volleyball. I got the idea for the swimming pool from the movie Its a Wonderful Life.
#550 Re: Human missions » Possible goal for Trump Administration: Build a Lunar Hotel » 2016-11-22 09:13:36
One could substitute large flat screen, maybe even holographic 3D, video screens for windows, that way you'd reduce the chance of kids jumping on the beads and accidentally breaking those windows and depressurizing the hotel room if not he entire hotel! You also cut down on the radiation, because ultimately we want this hotel to be buried under a layer of regolith to reduce the cosmic rays that would penetrate into it. At least when guests are in their hotel rooms, they would not be receiving a dose of cosmic rays, if they go outside into space suits, they would be taking that risk of course. My idea was to provide a lot of entertainment within the walls of the hotel, basically taking advantage of the low gravity to do novel stuff. One could simulate an EVA using a teleoperated robot on the Moon's surface, removing the radiation risk of visitors. The people most at risk would be the staff of the hotel. I suppose the staff could be rotated in andout just like the guests, they could train at an Earthside mock up of the Lunar hotel, so they know where everything is when they get there. The staff, when they are done with their tour of duty at the Luna hotel, can then continue working at some terrestrial hotel, My guess is, that in the early days, they won't be bringing their families along with them to live on the Moon, though later on that might change. When guests travel to the Hotel, they would bring their food with them, along with the chefs to prepare them in that same spaceship. And interesting question is what happens to the scraps, the human waste and garbage that gets created during the guests stay on the Moon? Organic matter is valuable stuff, the Moon doesn't have much of that, it needs to be stored and recycled. Later on with some growth, the hotel can expand into a full fledged colony, it would then need soil to grow stuff in all those scraps the guests leave can then be converted into topsoil when missed with lunar regolith. The hotel would expand with permanent living quarters for the hotel staff and families, eventually indoor farms would be build for growing local food and reducing the cost of shipping it from Earth. An athletic center would be very important to keep the guests occupied with their low gravity antics, perhaps even a swimming pool, a tennis and basketball court, probably one and the same. A movable floor can cover the swimming pool when people want to play basketball or tennis on top of it. The ceilings would need to be pretty high, raising the basketball nets above regulation height might also be a good idea! Some games could be broadcast back to Earth for some extra income.