You are not logged in.
It was an example. I was making a point. Fine, you are the only computer scientist on mars, and you have silicon. Insert the rest of the jewelry story here.
Actually, there is enforcement online. There are rules about what can and cannot be posted, and so on. The internet is very ordered. There are internet cops all over.
But the reason for the explosion of the internet has been the promise of profit, at least as much as the promise of progress. But that doesnt fit into the anarchic ideals, does it?
There could be a number of biological reasons, but i dont seem to be a biologist, or a doctor, so i wont offer an explanation i dont have.
incidentally, i dont think our priests, rabbis, or mullahs have ever personally met with muhammad, or god, in order to explain his frame of mind.
I would expect god to know the alignment of his own universe, wouldnt you?
THC might not be addictive, but on a side note, i know people who are addicted to the high of pot. its like being addicted to happiness-you like the feeling.
The files are found now. I was getting the error like 10 minutes ago, while you were working on icons, i suppose, but now everything works.
An idea struck me today. Could we build large fusion or NPP ships that served as carriers? They could contain many smaller mining ships, or exploration ships, bring them out to the asteroid belt, send them out, and park while the ships did their work. they could serve as a mobile collection base. Every few years, a new carrier could relieve an old one.
The carriers could be visited by cargo ships every few months, which could take any goods back to earth or mars. This means that the ship doesnt have to bring the mass back with it, allowing for more ships, infrastructure, etc. Perhaps a hangar could be included, so new ships could be built, and so on.
the rest of the ship could serve as a research center, or whatever.
i was thinking a weight of 500,000 tonnes. This is a lot, yes, but the ship would be reusable, autonomous, etc. The material gain and research gain would probably be worth the cost.
Yeah, but im not finding some files...yet
I dont belive in god for many reasons.
1)All the people who claim to speak for god seem to warp the teachings. The Crusades, Jihads, terrorism, etc. are not teaching god would issue. If god existed, i dont think he would allow us to warp his teachings so.
2)How can the people representing god be right on god and wrong on so much else? geocentric universe, evolution, the inquisition, etc.
3)why have there been so many interpretations of god? if god were so omni-potent, one interpretation would be enough.
4) Every religious "miracle" can be explained with science, which seems to refute religion at every turn.
Im a little busy right now, so ill leave it there.
Funny how you seem to lack any desire to refute that property means nothing without enforcement of some kind.
If I grow a tomato in my backyard, that is my property. Where is the enforcement?
Lets take a situation without any enforcement. We have a bunch of people. Who controls what property? Who sleeps where? How do you appropriate resources without an enforcement agency in place?
No progress could be done without a government to keep a system of order. Why has communism never occured? Because we need a governming body.
Lots of resources means profit is not viable, little resources means the opposite...
Not true. Say there are 50 tons of gold. Only I have the expertise necessary to make that gold into jewelry. So everybody can get a ton, but only i get the maximum profit. So, profit is viable in any environment.
If you find a new and better way to use water, you can still profit, even though there is water in abundance.
Not necessarily on that last point, but i wont delve.
I dont really support a nuclear launch from earth either-my thoughts are to send them up on the elevator and use them in space.
I was just throwing an idea out there.
I say we create private space laws based on what i said, and thus, they would be easy to enforce (50 acres-100 acres).
Anarchy is just another form of utopian communism. It sounds nice, but it couldnt work. There is no order. Property must exist. If I am a farmer, and you are a clothier, you have something i dont. this is property. so i trade my food for your clothes. this is putting value on my food and your clothes. thus, we have money.
if we were to distribute everything equally, who would so distribute it? You would need a government, or a regulatory agency, which would negate the state of anarchy.
No, economics isnt about distributing resources. It is about managing resources. I wouldnt take translations too literally. The study of economics deals with managing your resources to their fullest, or so I was told by the NYU professor of economics when i sat in for a class with my mother.
So cynical.
Like i've said before, if somebody lands somewhere, i think they could have a 50-100 acre radius of land. Enforcing? The UN. All contracts would be upheld by UN law. It also would be an incentive to keep permanent settlements.
A company that sends people to Mars will be based on Earth---the normal corporate punishments could be used to stop illegal activity. Frozen assests, etc.
I know you think we should all go anarchist, but like i've said, just because a system is idealistic, doesnt mean its right. Anarchy is wrong on every fundamental of economics there is.
Sorry if that sounded overly harsh ???
Radioactive exhaust plumes? Thats an anti-nuclear propoganda line. This simply wouldnt happen. It sounds nice as an anti-nuclear protest line, but its not valid in reality.
You only implied that im stupid in every possible way without saying it.
Let the flamewar end...fine.
I dont think we should be developing HLVs as heavily as we should be developing the space elevator.
I also think we should start investing more into nuclear HLVs. The benefits are so much greater than anything existing, its worth any cost.
That is the best way to go.
Also, keep an incentive package for organizations that get to mars. A 100 acre parcel of land, and, say $10 million to develop it.
I tried to be reasonable, but you are simply moronic.
No, if the government doesnt want you to sue them, you cant. The only exceptions are very large businesses with large clout, or societal issues that have political backing. i guess youre not familiar with the fact that the supreme court only takes cases that it wants to take.
I dont know where i got the $100 billion figure from. However, I would like to know just how international this project is.
Despite what Boeing and Lock-Mart would like you to think, it is U.S. based firms that have been sucking the lions share of the cost overrun gravy out of NASA. This should make clear exactly who is screwing who.
Yes, I guess I just got it right from your words. I must be an idiot.
Im not taking anything out on anybody. So keep your anger to yourself.
I just realized Lock-Mart wasnt being deragatory...Lockheed is actually a better way to refer to them. Martin is just retained for contractual reasons.
And heres a little nugget for you. My dad had to do a few large jobs in less than a month that the russians bailed out on, and hes just a minor subcontractor. "Boeing and Lock-Mart" arent out to do anything-im basing it on personal experience. Are you going to say that a small contractor is out to screw Russia? Do you even know that most of Boeing and Lockheed's work is done by small contractors?
Dont even begin to say that my father is out to screw NASA-the government is far too powerful. You cant sue the government, you cant force them to pay you, and so on.
15-20% of 100 billion is 15 to 20 billion dollars. That money could be better spent building Mars Direct. I dont know about you, but I would like 15 to 20 billion dollars.
But thats a dumb, irrelevant question. And how much does a Soyuz cost? Im sure it is nothing like 15 to 20 billion dollars.
Could we pump out something else with it to dilute the white? Pure oxygen or nitrogen?
It would have to be a huge force...a pin is 2 ounces or so. A spaceship is in the 10+ tonnes range.
But I don't have an answer other than that it would be pretty difficult in any case.
Interesting, though.
What would that be?
It's not impossible, just difficult. I wouldnt rule out the possiblity that there is a solution perfectly viable with todays technology, that nobody has seen yet, because it isnt readily apparent, or it would be outside the box.
We should start development of both. Perhaps set a VTOL SSTO as a short term goal, and HTOL as a long term goal. If we never start development, the end result can never occur.
I said before that we should have both. I also said that developing a VTOL in the short term would help further SSTO research, possibly helping us develop bigger, better, and different SSTOs, including HTOL, in the long term.
That adds complexity to the design, which is not good.
It's also easier to sit horizontally than vertically...speaking from an ergonomic standpoint. You can fit more people into an HTOL more comfortably, and arguably, more safely.
If you wish to reject the possibility of having Europe, Russia, Ukraine etc. cover most of the Earth to Mars transport costs
I have to comment on this. Russia is untrustworthy. They screwed up on the ISS, causing our budget to overrun completely. I wouldnt trust russia to build a toilet seat on a humans to mars mission.
Well, we've been discussing all aspects of funding, technology, and so forth involved in a Mars mission.
This is partly on my mind because I'm writing a business plan for school, but anyway, I was thinking we should translate our ideas into a coherent, solid business plan.
A business plan is a very useful tool for getting resources and personnel. If we can show the technology that already exists, the budget, and the possible profit to investors in a single document that has a clear and concise purpose, we can get funds.
Include all manner of possible incomes, and expenses. Nobody wants to see a fluffy business plan that doesn't plan conservatively. But we should also show ad revenue, possible television revenue, book revenue, sales of related paraphenelia, etc.
So, why shouldn't we get started?
While we're at it, perhaps we should write a larger business plan for overall space development, including short term missions, medium term missions, possible developments that would aid our goals, etc.