You are not logged in.
No, I believe you said the iraq invasion threat was a bluff.
And Rush Limbaugh is a bafoon.
I just saw an estimate that we have some number like 8 million+ illegals living in this country, without a hitch!
They did renew their visas. Our government simply didnt take the time to fill out their end of the paperwork. Judging by the way things have gone, i wouldnt be surprised if theyd renewed their visas the day after they got here, and they still hadnt been filed by the government.
Where do we draw the line between nuclear power and nuclear weapons? Are they not allowed to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power? Your comments follow the same anti-nuclear viewpoint that nuclear power=nuclear weapons.
Congress has to approve anything. Unfortunately, now that we have started the ISS, to splash it would kill the space program more than it would help.
We need research programs on the magnitude of NERVA. NERVA is a great example, because in 10 years they made remarkable advancements in NTR technology, and this was with 1960's technology. If we restarted this program today, truly cheap and reusable SSTOs could be developed in 5-10 years. Doing some math earlier with a little input from another board member, we calculated that you could theoretically, using NERVA technology, get near 50% of the initial payload into orbit.
Compare this to shuttle, where about 100,000 kg gets to orbit out of a total launch mass of 2 million kg. Out of that 100,000 kg, 25,000 kg is payload that can be brought and left in space. 2 million kg to get 25,000 kg into space?
Granted, you need hydrogen tanks for an NTR, so lets say you have 10 tons of tankage per 100 tons. Even 20 tons. Since the rocket is included in the orbiter itself, and is reused, you dont waste 600,000 kg on a rocket that is left behind.
The larger an ntr is, the more efficient it is. As structure falls into the noise, so to speak, the ntr's efficiency is magnified. So the only major weight is the hydrogen and its tanks. Peronally, i would keep these all mission, up until landing. The higher isp means a greater exahust velocity, which also means you can carry more. The tanks could be reusable too, and you could have propulsion options all mission. this means, given any inefficiency, tank weight, and so on, you could still get at least 25%-30% of your mass to orbit as payload. This means 500,000-650,000 kg for a 2 million kg launch weight. This would a 1 million ton orbiter, at least!
unregulated capitalism led to the industrial revolution in england. so i guess you could say "doses" of unregulated capitalism can be very beneficial. But i still think that regulated capitalism, not completely regulated, but with reasonable checks, is the best system, practically, and theoretically, to date.
except in the US we have lawsuits for wrongs that have occured 15 generations ago, and 90% of americans had no involvement in. in tyrannical countries, the wrongs are never recognized in the countries, which is not so here.
www.fair.org is too biased for me to accept their view as a credible source, just as i wouldnt take the NRA on the other end. But to an extend, i dont think society should know everything that goes on. For example, public dissent at cold war methods of interrogation and counter-terrorism severely hampered our ability to deal with terrorists for the past 2 decades.
There is an extent to which we have a right to know, and a certain extent to which we dont.
But yes, that "they fought back, so we have to conquer them" is a terrible reason for imperialism, used by everyone from France before the 19th century to the original Americans. But those people never showed an intent to use weapons of mass destruction, which im not saying saddam does or does not have. he has expressed this desire, however.
if we could develop fuel cells, we would be able to end our support of despotic regimes. we wouldnt need the oil these regimes control, and we wouldnt need their political "support." See how much they hate us then.
well, not necessarily. 3% of 10 trillion is $300 billion. 8% of 5 trillion is $400 billion, which is 4% of the US budget. So, relative to the US budget, China is closing the gap at 1% per year.
and china hasnt been as affected by the current economic period as america. Growth rates were far greater in the US than they are now, and we can expect growth to increase once the recession lives itself out.
he was talking about growth. but i dont think anyone will surpass the US for a long time, the economy is still growing by a large amount, and the chinese and indian economies, while expanding, arent expanding by enough to meet us anytime soon.
china may become a rival yes, but not bigger-and india will still be far behind until they can solve their societal issues.
yeah, me too!
Heh, read the whole, ?Integrated Space Transportation Plan.?
Pretty, well... underwelming. The first flight is planned for 2015? Jesus. I hope China pushes us when they start putting people into space. Otherwise we'll be so pathetically behind, it won't even be funny.
The orbital space plane needs to be dropped. Any and all funding going into it needs to end right now.
The ISS needs to be scrapped.
The Shuttles need to be scrapped.
Nuclear rocket technology needs to be developed immediately.
Man, what I could do with $15 billion a year... hell, the $2 billion a year from SLI, going into the Space Plane alone could build a nice nuclear rocket.
well:
1) No, it shouldnt be dropped. The OSP looks like a very promising alternative to the Shuttle, one that can be built in 5-10 years. Until then, we should fly the shuttle. Think of the OSP as a "stepping stone" to third generation spaceplanes. It should not be permanent, but we need it to lower the cost of launches, and free up the shuttle funding, both for more launches, and more research.
2) No, not after already building it. It has some use, for medical research. Perhaps 5 years ago, but not billion of dollars later.
3) After we have an alternative built, yes. Until then, we need to keep flying the three we have.
4) Absolutely. But we need to free up money by using the OSP or VentureStar-which had other issues besides a landing strut. I would love a nuclear spaceplane. But we need an intermediary, and a chance to convince the public. Use the next 5-10 years to design a spaceplane free from critical failures, as the columbia was.
my idea, and others, of using the ntr for launch, orbit, then slowing down and shutting down the reactor for reentry would work well, because you only have a chance for critical failure in the first 5-10 minutes, which is very unlikely. You could even use a ramjet for low atmosphere, ntr for high atmosphere, so there is no real danger at all!
5) call bill gates!
after doing some research, i found that those 250,000 lb. numbers are from the late 60s/early 70s. These were still experimental engines, and given time and more funding, i think we could have expected double that, and greater isp. With 2 or 3 of these reactors, we could outperform the shuttle.
In addition, NTR engines provide power, which chemical engines dont. So your engine does double duty. another point is that many of these nuclear concepts, including mars missions, would be launched via heavy booster, and turn on in orbit, so they cant go hiroshima before then. astronauts are big supporters of ntr missions, in fact, because of the flexibility and speed, which allows them shorter cosmic radiation exposure.
so by comparison, the chemical boosters on the shuttle produce about 400,000 lbs. each, and these have been developed for 30 years. NERVA was researched for less than a decade! Imagine what the results could be at this point had we continued. These engines would use 77 pounds of uranium for a round trip mission to mars. Imagine the possibility for SSTO flights! Surely, not now, but after further development to ensure full reliability, this could be a great option. I wonder how much the chemical fuels weigh, and how much less thrust you would need to get an orbiter into orbit with nuclear propulsion because of the decreased weight!
i think you could design for more thrust...the Saturn V was a behemoth. If you designed a complete heavy lift booster using nuclear rockets, i believe you can do better.
Obviously you never lived there! Unfortunately for your argument, my grandparents did. It was nothing like capitalism. Many of the prominent industries, including the jewish-run ones, were taken over by the government. It was very socialist.
I think the claim that capital is not possessions is off. Let's take your heirloom. You weigh the value of the heirloom to its sentimental value. A possession is something you own. Capital is posessions you own, but use as assets, or liquid. They are still posessions, but serve a different purpose than your kitchen sink. Since you still own them, they are still possessions.
No, that is communism, not socialism. Germany was socialist, and it was not classless.
Fine Josh, if you want to argue simantics, yes, not all possessions are capital. What I interpreted was that you were saying no poessessions are capital.
What's sad, is that often times, people who argue the case for capitalism, equate possessions with capital
reading comprehension. ah yes. this is implying that possessions are not capital. you are bringing in things now that werent there. if you wish to communicate a point, do it fully, and not after the fact by slamming the person who took your words as they were.
Such as the 250 years it has gone on in the US, as compared to an 80 year socialist stint in the Soviet Union?
No, your post lacks water. You can get hostile all you want and take on an accusatory tone. This doesnt lend credence to your argument. History has shown that switiching over to capitalism has greater long and short term benefits than socialism. to say otherwise is to ignore the real world!
well, since it will be done in your lifetime, i just did!
well, first of all, europe would be out of a military. they would have to actually fund their own.
second, we couldnt ensure our own security. the american military is so big for a reason. with the middle east so hostile, and china increasing its budget by 15% a year, could we afford it?
But doutless, it's easy to assess that unregulated capitalism turns into despotic tyranny by its very nature.
What's sad, is that often times, people who argue the case for capitalism, equate possessions with capital
I doubt it, and possessions can be capital. Proudhon is no god of economics.
Office equipment is capital. A computer is capital. Having just consulted two economics doctorates, i can say this with certainty. And having heard it from three different classes in business and economics.
Doubtless? Well, lets just say I doubt it. No capitalist country has turned into a tyranny yet. For the capitalist example in recent years, i hold up either Russia or China. Russia went from a tyranny to a democracy. their economic weakening was due to a poorly executed economic transition, but capitalism is steadily improving their economy.
china, as they have increasingly become a capitalist economy, has become far more prosperous. the economic freedom brought by capitalism is apparent in dress and so on. I would even go so far as to say hat capitalism may facilitate democracy. this is certainly not tyranny in action.
even cutting off sunlight, i believe there is so great of a greenhouse effect as to keep venus hot for a long time. as for solidified carbon, i believe that would take a REALLY long time.
and then you have a temperate planet. now find water, and make it sutiable for settlement! At this point, venus is at the stage of mars today. so youre talking about at least another few centuries in time needed for venus colonization. although, i wonder if we could capture venusian greenhouse gases and ship them to mars! it would still take a long time for both though, while i think mars is the better choice.
you would still have to fly a ship to get there. it wouldnt work until we had a manned mars base.
1) aluminum is actually lighter, and what we use on our aircraft, but i dont know how it would hold up to atmospheric pressures. i believe titanium is one of the primary materials of the space shuttle.
2) NTR-based engines would solve any range and mass problems, by vastly improving the mass ratio. this would allow much safer systems, while still allowing much, much larger payloads with the same total mass.
Actually, the exhaust from a nuclear jet engine would not be radioactive. Neutron absoption requires a moderator, and I explained in another message that neutron absoption of 99.795% of oxygen would just transmute it into another naturally occuring, non-radioactive isotope. Neutron absorption of the 0.205% which is 18O would just turn into 19O, which would decay with a half-life of 26.9 seconds into 19F, which is the natural, non-radioactive form of fluorine. The decay releases beta radiation, which is an electron. You would get more beta radiation from sitting in front of your computer monitor reading this message. 99.9885% of hydrogen is 1H, normal hydrogen, which would turn into deuterium with neutron absorption. 2H is the other 0.0115%, and it is natural and non-radioactive. Neutron abosption by deuterium becomes tritium (3H), which has a half-life of 12.32 years to become 3He by beta decay. The incredibly tiny quantity of deuterium in moisture in the air would not produce significant quantities of tritium. 3He is a natural occuring isotope of helium, although only 0.000137% on Earth. With nitrogen gas, 99.632% is 14N which would transmute into 15N, the other naturally occuring isotope. 15N would transmute into 16N, which beta decays with a half-life of 7.13 seconds into 16O, the predominant natural isotope of oxygen.
Fission of 235U involves absorbing a moderated (slowed) neutron to become 236U. That breaks down in a fraction of a second into Krypton 89Kr, Barium 144Ba, and 3 high-speed neutrons. These byproducts are highly radioactive, but primarilly release beta readiation. Krypton 89Kr has a half-life of 3.15 minutes to become Rubidium 89Ru. 89Ru half-life is 15.15 minutes to become Strontium 89Sr. 89Sr half-life is 50.53 days to become yttrium 89Y, which is stable. The other product of uranium fission was barium 144Ba. 144Ba half-life is 11.5 seconds to become lanthanum 144La. 144La half-life is 40.8 seconds to become cerium 144Ce. 144Ce half-life is 284.893 days to become praseodymium 144Pr. 144Pr half-life is 17.28 minutes to become neodymium 144Nd. 144Nd half-life is 2.29 quadrillion years (10^15 years) to become cerium 140Ce, which is stable. All of these decay steps emit a beta particle (electron), except the last one. 144Nd emits an alpha particle (helium nucleus) to become 140Ce. The extremely long half-life means extremely low rate of radiation.
This means as long as you ensure the nuclear fuel and its byproducts are contained, the exhaust will not be radioactive. Just stay away from the engines themselves.
thats a Robert Dyck quote. I read over at nuclearspace that the NTR process is so hot you cant make radioactive hydrogen. i wonder if this means that there is nothing radiocactive to leak if an NTR hits the ground!
the problem is, many might chose to deny it, or might not even realise it, but america's military budget isnt only for america-its for western europe, japan, and some of our other trade partners as well. ever since world war 2, our military has kept western europe secure against the soviet union, and now, the middle east.
europe would have a major problem if they had to support a military with america's capabilities. the very threat of american intervention kept the soviets from moving across germany, and possibly western europe.
if we were to cut money, it would mean our overseas capacity would be greatly diminished, and our trade network would be insecure. this is not just from an american standpoint, our trade partners would experience the same problems.
it was an article at spacedaily, ill post the link when i find it.