New Mars Forums

I keep seeing things that tell me others are reading what we post here on NewMars. Many in Canada were speculating about the current leadership race for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's Canadian equivalent to the Primary. Some media pundits have speculated that a couple Conservative candidates are the Canadian equivalent to Trump. I posted that it isn't the "next" leader, for us it's "been there, done that". I posted the Canadian equivalent is Brian Mulroney. So now the media is reporting the Liberal Party is talking to Brian Mulroney himself. That Mulroney is personal friends with Trump, so the Liberal Party of Canada is now using former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as their liaison to Trump. Uh huh. Not only is he Conservative, he's the individual who killed the Progressive Conservative party. This guy?!? Really?!? This guy?!?

CBC: Brian Mulroney to address key Canada-U.S. cabinet committee
CBC: Brian Mulroney speaks to Liberal cabinet on NAFTA

Well. At least that tells me someone in the Canadian government is reading what I post.

Tom:

I would point out that Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark into the west (that part north of what was then Mexico where California,  Nevada,  Arizona,  Utah,  Colorado,  New Mexico,  and Texas are today) on a government-financed exploration mission in 1803-1805,  simply to find out what was there.  Objectives:  (1) means of transportation by river,  and (2) what resources might be there. 

The "mountain men" fur traders were the first non-governmental entities to go into that west,  after Lewis and Clark returned and reported on the resources.  It sort of snowballed into a mix of private and public-private ventures after that.  Pretty much private from the time of the California gold rush of 1849. 

The initial immigration of Americans into what became Texas was an effort by the government of Mexico to populate a sparsely-populated region.  They offered land as an inducement to come.  The idea was to get Texas better-settled before the Americans got their west settled,  to preclude the sitting-duck invasion-target effect.  This was two infusions of Anglo settlers under Stephen F. Austin,  that together with the locals,  came to call themselves collectively "Texicans". 

This might have worked better for the Mexican government if Santa Anna hadn't come to,  and abused,  power in Mexico.  Ultimately,  that abuse led to Texas independence,  and 9 years later,  its joining the US.  It also led to the northern 1/3 of Mexico becoming US possessions by conquest. 

Point:  it's never quite black-or-white government vs private interests when you look at the history of exploration and colonization.  But it usually (not always) gets started with some sort of government-funded exploration venture of some kind.  Private-concern interest comes later,  just as Tyson said. 

Our government has become so inept that in 40 years,  it has never attempted the Mars exploration thing other than by robot probes,  and has never followed up on the moon after landing men on it in a Cold War flags-and-footprints stunt.  A lot of this ineptness traces to plain vanilla corruption:  politicians doing the bidding of corporations who bought their jobs for them.  This takes the form of multiple needless wars-for-corporate-profit over the decades since the moon landing goal was set,  most but not all with poor outcomes geopolitically.

Until that corruption is eradicated from our midst,  our government will do nothing exploratory anywhere off Earth and will eventually abdicate from Earth orbit (because there is no massive profit in it,  for the corporate masters). 

Visionary private entities like Spacex and precious few others might actually do something.  Maybe,  maybe not.  Long-delayed profit based only on faith is not something most corporate governing bodies understand,  much less subscribe to.   

GW

Membrane separations are usually done well above 500 psi,  as best I understand it.  1000 psi should be a pretty typical figure.  That's over 433 feet of elevation change,  if you use elevation to create the pressure.  In most desalination plants,  they just pump it to pressure against the membrane.  There's quite a lot of strong brine by-product too.  Somehow you have to dispose of that so it won't get sucked into your intake pipe,  and without killing too much local life at the efflux point.  Strong brines are pretty toxic.  It can be done,  but it does require careful thought not to shoot yourself in the foot. 

Myself,  I like the idea of vacuum-flash distillation,  using some source of waste heat that you already otherwise have as the necessary heat source.  For over a century,  the Navy has done this using waste heat from ship's boilers,  and just sailing away from the waste brine they dump.  Carriers today can do this sitting in port.  Not so sure about the smaller vessels.  My direct knowledge of naval power systems is 4 decades obsolete. 

There ought to be a way to add such a unit to every chemical plant on the coasts.  They have plenty of waste heat. 

GW

You know Tom, I posted before that we have to accept the fact Trump is president. Try to work with him. That makes sense, but your rants can only result in rabid opposition. Also realize Trump is still recovering from a massive loss from years ago. The reason he doesn't pay income tax is a massive carry-forward loss from 1990-something. He's not as rich as he claims to be, and has to find a lot of money to pay his debts.

And the election was extremely expensive. Any businessman would treat that kind of spending as an investment, and demand at minimum recovery of said investment.

That means finding a way to make money from being president.

And not a little money, enough to pay for everything he spent during the election campaign. That's a lot. Making personal profit from being president is highly illegal, but a business perspective will demand it. Government ethics and business ethics are in direct conflict.

I'm not sure what will happen to the GOP after this. Will there be a GOP after Trump? But for now, he's President. He did sign a NASA reauthorization bill. Could we convince Trump to kick ass over SLS like he did with F-35? Get ULA to get it done faster, cheaper, and more reliable. And for God's sake, stop delaying SpaceX Dragon v2 behind Orion. The Orion is over priced and over weight, let SpaceX go first.

Tom, I'm in Canada. This argument of a business man is "been there, done that". In 1984 a businessman won the nomination of the Conservative Party in Canada. He was CEO of a multi-billion company, so his supporters hoped he would know how to run a large organization, and would know how to manage money. They also hoped that since he wasn't a career politician, he would be honest, would do what he said he would do. He won the election, became Prime Minister of Canada. His election promises: eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, reduce taxes. This would be accomplished by: reduce government spending, reduce the number of individuals hired in the civil service. Once elected what he did was: increase the deficit, triple the debt, increase taxes. He increased government spending, and increased the number of individuals in the federal civil service. To put numbers on that: on election day 1984 the deficit was $38 billion, the largest deficit in Canadian history...up to that point. On election day 1993 the deficit was $42 billion. In each case there was a change of government, so the deficit changed after the election, but that's what it was on election day. And the debt: on election day 1984 it was $150 billion, and election day 1993 it was $453 billion. I could cite sources for those numbers if you want.

The election of 1984 resulted in the largest majority in Canadian history. Actually, there were 2 elections previous that resulted in proportionately as many MPs, but it was equal to the previous all-time high, and the last one was in the 1950s so it was a generation since anyone saw a majority that large. But the total number of seats in the House had increased, so in terms of shear numbers of MPs (representatives) it was the largest majority ever. They got re-elected in 1988, still with a majority, but a reduced majority. But in 1993 they went from majority in Parliament to only 2 Members elected to the House. Under Canadian parliamentary rules, they were considered no longer to be a party.

At that time the party was known as "Progressive Conservative Party". In order to have any chance of getting elected, they had to merge with the Reform Party. The merged party is now know as the "Conservative Party of Canada".

So now you guys have Trump. Uh huh. From my perspective: been there, done that. The result in our case was one of the two parties major parties in Canada, one of the only two that had ever formed the federal government of Canada, had ceased to exist. Now you guys have Trump. I'm expecting Trump to kill the GOP. Just like Brian Mulroney killed the PC Party of Canada. The question is whether Trump will do it in one or two terms.

Another bit of Canadian history. Just a few months before the election of 1993, the PC Party convinced Mulroney to step down, let someone else lead their party in the 1993 election. Voters were highly skeptical, they pointed out that party may have changed leader, but the rest of the party cronies were the same. However, they were willing to hear what the new party leader had to say. The PC Party even selected a woman as their leader, the first time in Canadian history. But during the election campaign, she didn't say anything. Until one reporter cornered her, and asked her bluntly "What is this election about?" Her response was "An election is not a time to discuss policy. An election is a time to discuss personalities. We can discuss policy after I'm elected." Ohhhhhhhh, that was so bad! In reality the PC Party had no chance of winning that election, but that one statement was the difference between them losing the election vs losing their party.

And lastly: there were serious allegations that Brian Mulroney took kick-backs on deals to purchase military helicopters and aircraft. The helicopter deal was cancelled by the new government in 1994. However, it was too late to cancel the purchase of Airbus aircraft. The Canadian military still has those aircraft. Two are configured mid-air refuelling of Canadian fighter jets and other military jets, two more are configured as utility aircraft. They can be used as cargo aircraft for military logistics, or seats installed for troop transport, or hospital beds for mass MedEvac. The last aircraft is also utility, and can be configured for the same purposes, but it has one more "kit" that is usually installed. It's the Canadian equivalent to "Air Force One", with leather seats, bar, etc. The new government had the RCMP (Canadian federal police) investigate Brian Mulroney for kick-backs. However, he was lawyer, and hired high-priced corporate lawyers. He sued for slander. His lawsuit shut down the RCMP investigation. Not only did he get away with it, but the government was required to pay him $10 million in legal fees.

So now you have Trump. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Business leadership[edit]

Mulroney took the job of executive vice president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a joint subsidiary of three major U.S. steel corporations. Mulroney earned a salary well into the six-figure range. In 1977, he was appointed company president. Drawing upon his labour law experience, he instituted improved labour relations, and, with commodity prices on the rise, company profits soared during the next several years. In 1983 Mulroney successfully negotiated the closing of the Schefferville mine, winning a generous settlement for the affected workers.[14] Under his leadership, the company was sold off to foreign interests. In the wake of his loss in the 1976 leadership race, Mulroney battled alcohol abuse and depression for several years; he credits his loyal wife Mila with helping him recover. In 1979, he permanently became a teetotaler. During his IOC term, he made liberal use of the company's executive jet, frequently flying business associates and friends on fishing trips.[3] Mulroney also maintained and expanded his extensive political networking among business leaders and conservatives across the country. As his business reputation grew, he was invited onto several corporate boards. He declined an offer to run in a Quebec by-election as a federal Liberal.

Thanks for the super helpful pictures and examples....
So it doesn't need to spin amazingly fast then? Or do you work out the required speed based on size, local gravity and desired gravity?

And the person would only feel completely normal as long as he stayed within a fairly limited area of the whole chamber + leaving the room while it's operational... Or could they leave easily through the nave?

I don't care if our President previously lived on the street or in a gold plated palace.  All I care about is that our President has the right sort of policies for our country.  I don't vote for people because they have a sliver tongue or based upon what their previous position in our government was, if any.  I want to know that our new hires have the requisite motivation to do whatever the job requires and that they have demonstrated the ability to lead.

"America First" is absolutely the right policy to have.  Our President is not the President of the World.  That means he or she shall represent Americans first, the rest of the world second, and humanity always.  The leader of the free world needs to value individual liberties, free market principles, and equality before the law.  The man or woman selected must respect their fellow Americans as well as people from foreign countries, even people they don't like.

As I've stated previously, the government that governs best is not the government that governs most or least.  The government that governs most effectively and efficiently governs best.  We haven't had a government that's governed effectively or efficiently in quite some time.  President Trump seems more than willing to listen to anyone willing to compromise, so long as that compromise is in the best interest of the American people.

Here's a list of things that are definitely not in the best interest of the American people:

1. An energy policy that increases energy costs for American families and companies
2. A trade policy that favors foreign products and services over domestic products and services
3. A taxation policy that incentivizes American companies to move their manufacturing operations to other countries
4. An education system that does not adequately prepare students to become globally competitive workers
5. A byzantine regulatory policy that is nearly impossible to comply with
6. A failing health care system that incentivizes immoral behavior from insurance providers
7. A military used for purposes other than defending our country and our allies
8. A procurement system that incentivizes irresponsible behavior on the part of government contractors
9. An infrastructure investment plan that does not improve the flow of people and products
10. A scientific investment plan that does not address the most pressing issues first, namely energy independence

If those issues are adequately addressed, then Americans will live long and prosper.  President Trump has a herculean task set before him.

The Apple has not fallen far from the tree as President Trump has granted both daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner powerful positions in his administration. But they hold hundreds of millions in assets and continue to benefit from their business empire. So what steps have they taken (if any) to remove any conflicts of interest from there seats of power. Trump deserves to be impeached for his conflicts of interests and kicked out of the White House, as well as the rest of his family.

Lincoln has nothing to do with today's Freedom Caucus,  Tom.

That movement got started under a different name by Newt Gingrich,  Cantor,  Ryan,  and some others.  It picked up on earlier Gingrich-led far-right Republican minority efforts,  among all the other factors in the so-called Reagan Revolution.  Even that was 120+ years post Civil War.

As for your contention that the GOP is still the "Party of Lincoln",  and by implication (or direct statement) the Democrats are still the party of slavery and continuing oppression,  that hasn't been true for a very long time now.  The so-called "southern conservative Democrats" were the very Jim Crow abusers whose political heritage traces to Civil War-era slavers that you refer to.  They deserted the Democrats and became Republicans in the decade following the 1965 Civil Right act!  A matter of the public record!  Verified fact!

The truth is far uglier (and you won't like it).  Both parties completely sold out to corporate lobby money long ago,  selling most of us down the river in doing so.  The Republicans did this big time by the 1890's,  and the Democrats did it during WW2.  Both sell-outs are long-ago history now.  The proof is in our ridiculously-complex and riddled-with-loopholes-for-only-the-super-rich IRS tax code,  and in the fact that only the rich or their backed candidates can run for office.  This has been known for decades,  and has gotten worse with every single Congress,  irrespective of which party controls.

You need not try to maintain that giving away the store to the rich is a good thing.

There is NO SUCH THING as "trickle-down economics" that actually works,  there never was,  and any professional economist can tell you that.  They quite often do,  in guest columns in newspapers all over America,  even today.

That "trickle-down" nonsense is nothing but a political fiction designed to deflect attention away from the fact that the giants just pocket the money Congress gives them in return for their political jobs.  It's getting more than a bit worn-out as an excuse.  THAT is where Trump’s blue-collar support comes from:  people tired of being left behind,  by both parties.

“Trickle-down” is just plain BS.  THAT is why the recovery after the 2008 crash was so slow,

and THAT is why the Great Depression came roaring back in 1937 when the GOP forced FDR to curtail some of his spending on the common folk.  We need a simpler code with lower tax rates and ZERO loopholes.

As for the GOP alternative to Obamacare,  it was certainly no better than Obamacare,  and probably not as good,  according to virtually all of the experts who should probably know.

It was pathetically-obviously a rushed deal,  which is to be expected,  if they never actually had a worked-out plan during all those years that they claimed they had one.  So they lied,  for 7 years,  egregiously.

What I see in your responses to things you don't like is (1) trying to divert attention with fake political facts like your "Lincoln = freedom caucus",  and (2) trying to divert attention with false claims that I (or others) said something that we most certainly did not say.

This is a pretty common response that I (and many others) see in someone who lives only in his own echo chamber,  where incessant reinforcing repetition leads him to believe only his own fake facts.  It is known among the social scientists that confronting such echo-chamber types with actual facts almost never changes their false belief systems,  so my post here is probably pointless.  But I feel compelled to at least try.

As for Trump,  he will stand or fall on his own record.  Like all,  he will do both good and bad.  They all do!   It will be the judgement of history some years hence,  not you,  not me,  whether Trump does more good than bad,  or more bad than good.  (My opinion is only my opinion:  it appears to me that he will do more bad than good,  but not deliberately so.)  I also thought it would have been about the same with HRC.  I didn't like either one of them.

As for the Democrats,  I certainly do hope they will obstruct (such as on that botch-up of a GOP healthcare plan),  especially on stuff that hurts the poor just to give the store away to the rich.  But I also hope they have the maturity,  and the sense of civic duty,  to work with the GOP on things that really would benefit the country.  They used to.  Not long ago,  in fact.

But for the last 8 years I have seen very little sign out of the GOP that they have the maturity to govern for the common good.

For much longer than that I have seen precisely ZERO indication of that same maturity to govern for the common good out of the so-called "freedom caucus" right-wing extremist minority within them.  But I have seen that minority exert political control over the rest of the party!

Put those three things together,  and THAT is why I said what I said about them not being fit to govern.  I and a lot of others (roughly half the voting population) said so at the polls last November.

Extremism in politics gets you needless government shutdowns,  at the very least.  At the worst,  it gets you the Nazis,  the Bolsheviks,  Pol Pot,  and all the rest of the mass-murderer states.  Extremism in religion kills people,  and it always has.  Sometimes by the millions.  Very often by the thousands.

Extremism is bad.  Very evil.  In any venue.

GW