You are not logged in.
Great idea. they have a chatroom at nuclearspace.com
im sure theyll be as excited as we are (actually, i know they are), and a big chat session will be in order.
This is incredible news. Now we have a chance of getting somewhere.
Basically, IMHO, strategic use of wind/solar power and tidal power (wind power on oil-rig style sea platforms, with tidal power units underneath, and solar power units on the roof comes to mind) with nuclear power as a conveniant back-up seems the best way to go (here on Earth) to me
Heh, I had the opposite view, with primary power as nuclear, with the rest as backups. I have said that I believe everyone should have a solar panel on their roof, but the energy is too unreliable, and not sufficient to power the average american home, or probably the average european home either. Try powering a factory with it. Wind power requires acres and acres to produce a fair amount of power.
Both of these would be great supplements, but at this point, fission is the most abundant potential energy source. In space, it is our best option, at this point. Until fusion comes out commercially, I believe it will be our best option.
Oh, and about the protestors, its kind of funny how they plan things. If the security guards stopped them, they would have complained about use of force, infringement of rights, etc. Since they were let it in, the security is too lax. Its a lose-lose. I suspect if the guards thought the protestors were a threat, they would have done something.
rob:
a lot of people at several forums have been keen on the idea of, if the space elevator is completed, or we have cheaper RLVs, sending a NPP or NTR ship up to orbit piecemeal, avoiding an earth launch.
this is especially attractive with the elevator, because its cheap, and easy to get to a central location. If you assemble it in orbit, and launch from there, you avoid the political implications of an earth launch, and are far more likely to receive political support.
I've been thinking of combining Orion-style pulse propulsion with an ion drive, for short bursts of acceleration combined with long distance cruising-its a great combination, i think. And ion sounds nice to the public. People will like the idea.
Get off of this conform word. Let me put this in bold letters for you: I do not expect for God to conform to my views; however, if God does not meet my view of a just God, then I will not worship said God. If my parent abuses me, and no, Im not saying that God abuses me, but if my parent abuses me, must I worship my parents, as my creators? No, a cruel parent deserves no worship. This is my view.
If God were all powerful, as his name implies, then he would be able to do something about it. And yes, I assume he should do something, otherwise, I would not view him as a God worthy of worship.
A true God is based on perception. A Hindu "true God" would not be a Jewish "true God." So, for me, yes, a true God would possess the qualities that I have said. Again, would you worship a God that was cruel? Answer this quesiton please. And cruel using the morals that you would live by, no simantic bs please.
I wonder how you would react in Mr. Wiesel's position. I would not have faith in a God that allowed my brethren to be murdered, tortured, and exterminated. There is nothing arrogant about that.
There is nothing ego-centric about my belief.
Would you worship a god that allows such things as the holocaust to happen? Don't blast me for holding such things up as unjust and cruel. You judge things callously as if they are minor events to be postulated, and lament people for losing faith because of them. There is nothing arrogant in losing faith because of genocide.
Why is this ego-centric? Because I have determined that I believe God does not exist? I never said I was right, so your whole ego-centric spiel is, to put it lightly, pointless. I am entitled to believe what I want, without being deemed as arrogant. Is it any less ego-centric to set up a Church to preach about God, because you believe he exists?
I never said God should conform to my view, I said that I would not worship a God that went against my views. Read what I said, dont extrapolate whats not there to support your arguments.
If you have never seen an Eskimo, there is nothing ego-centric about not believing in their existence. Again, this anecdote is pointless. If somebody said Bigfoot exists, and they saw him, would me doubting Bigfoot's existence be ego-centric? Certainly not.
Resources is part of cost. Cost doesnt necessarily mean money-so my initial statements are still quite valid.
But for an established colony, where children and families are involved, yes, risk must be kept to a minimum, but it will always be there. Thats what the frontier is all about. Families and children came to the New World, and encountered risks at every turn.
Your argument is laughable.
I do not go out and propogate my ideas while slapping down others, as you do. I state my own beliefs without forcing them on anyone else. So having a belief is inherently ego-centric? I've got to stop having opinions then...
And eskimos-well, inuit if you want to be correct, do exist, and have been physically seen and proven to exist unlike God. I have never seen God, but I have seen an Inuit.
For me to worship God, yes, I believe he should behave as I expect him to. If not, my faith would be a little shallow, wouldnt it? I would be ashamed if I blindly worshipped a cruel, and unjust (IN MY VIEW) God.
Ego-centric? Look in the mirror.
Did I say redundancy is bad? Our designers will have cost as an issue, though, and thats really what counts.
Redundancy is good, and should be applied, but only to the extent where the budget of the mission can support it. If we have three backups for everything, we wont be sending much to mars. We also need to take some risks-not stupid ones where it isnt necessary, but risks are assumed.
Ah, but you misunderstand. I expect nothing from God, because I don't believe in God.
Even if he does, yes, this would not meet my expectations, and I would not deem such a God worthy of worship.
You have to find a balance between cost and redundancy too. But your point is valid. Redundancy is good-to an extent.
you explain to me how a "reasonable, merciful, and just God" could let people be starved, raped, burned, tortured, exterminated, beaten, and on and on, for no reason other than that they were jewish.
how could a God let a race die? This is a perfectly rational conclusion, and I think you are belittling it to a horrific degree. Please read the book first.
CNCs are great. A single computer programmer can program 50 machines worth of work, and you cut down the people needed to do the machining. One guy can operate 5 machines, just checking each to make sure the material is being processed correctly, and typing in new programs.
I know a kid that smokes pot every day. He's a 4.0 honors student, and a star lacrosse player on varsity since freshman year. He is obviously very productive, cal, and his athletics isnt hurt at all.
In fact, many of the "potheads" in my school are kids you would never know-some you do, mainly because they play up the image to be cool (long hair, acting retarded, etc.), but most pot smokers are pretty normal.
I can understand a problem with religion. I can't understand having a problem with God since having a problem denotes a failing of expectations- what can we honestly expect from God? How can we even know those expectations are correct to have, or even the what they should be?
Have you read the book Night by Elie Wiesel? A young boy with intentions of being a Jewish scholar loses faith in God because of the horrors he experiences in German concentration camps. He battles confusion, but rejects God in the end-how could God allow this?
At one point, when a popular Kapo and his assistant were hung, he says to himself, "God is hanging there on the gallows."
I thought this falls under cost, logistics, and funding. Your choice though.
I dont think H2 explodes by itself. I remember hearing that the hindenberg accident, while exasperated by hydrogen fuel, was not caused by it.
Im sure these companies have also taken any risks into account, and have designed countermeasures.
the research should not be patented, but the resulting structure should be. That way, another company could use the research to build something else, maybe unrelated, maybe related but with a different design. So much research is done for one application that could be used for multitudes of unrelated applications.
Say a company does R&D on a fusion spaceship. A power company could use that research to build a better plant, and another space ship company could expand on that design to make it more efficient, smaller, bigger, etc. So long as its not a copy, it would not violate the patent.
no, no. I was replying to caltech about loaves, fishes, water, and wine.
I for one never saw jesus do any of these things.
Did Jesus pull the sword out of the stone as did Arthur? Oh, wait, theyre both fiction-neither happened, in my view.
Its a whole bunch of fluff.
As ive said, a physical good is not the same as research. A good should be patented, research should not.
Say what you will, in the early stages, at least, of mars, there will be currency. But I think it will be in the form of cards...not credit so much as debit. Because you cant send a wad of cash to earth, i think that most earth-mars transactions will be done via computer, through a computerized economy. It will be like a bank account, but without cash.
You could still use the dollar, or euro, most likely the dollar as the unit of currency. A sale would see the transfer of "dollars" to your account. This would be the dollar value of your good-but it would be purely numbers...our economy runs on this concept even today. If everybody were to cash out their net worth, there wouldnt be enough cash. If there were, it would be so devalued by inflation, that it would be useless.
The same goes for earth. When goods are received, computerized currency is transferred to mars accounts, which is used to buy goods from earth. Think of it as interplanetary paypal. Banks would be super-secure computer servers with a few technicians, and a few staff operating online, taking loan requests, deposits, etc.
A lot of paperwork would be gone.
On a similar note, i think mars may be our real chance to see a "paperless office."
did this get lost?
in any case, just a bump so it can be seen
i think the average person loses over 30%. so yes, a 20% flat rate would be better than the status quo. 15% if money were trimmed where it isnt needed seems pretty feasible to me.
according to my father, who is in the defense industry and did his doctorate on said industry, about $65 billion of the $300 billion defense budget is spent on equipment. The rest is salary and other stuff.
And our current levels suck. We should be more fiscally responsible. Government handouts in pork, government bureaucracy, and government mismanagement of funds costs a lot of money that could be saved.
Even a 20% flat rate is better than what we currently have now.