New Mars Forums

actually, not so far behind.  their rockets are not so technologically inferior to ours or russian rockets.  and if they want to go into space, i say go!

we'll eventually have to join them, and if they want to give us the push, its great.  again, i highly doubt china will be totalitarian for long, but i dont think with their nationalism, they will simply abandon a space program, especially if they get results.  the apollo program was also ended because of a few failures, like apollo 13.  the chinese have almost 2 billion people, and they arent shocked when a few die, so i dont think a few deaths or failures, however cold it sounds, will stop them.

if the space elevator comes into play, VTOL systems might not be needed.  Spaceplanes could be used to deliver small, urgent items, and the space elevator(s) could be used to deliver larger items.  a spaceplane could launch from any airport, quickly get into orbit, and then land at any airport, maybe even performing a passenger or cargo mission on Earth at the same time. 

This is why I prefer a spaceplane: infrastructure, versatility, and speed 

links links links!

in any case, could there be breeder reactors for thorium?  could thorium be used to make nuclear weapons? 

Just have to eliminate all the irrational fears...

youre arguments are fundamentally flawed.  you assume that they cant strike first.  the very threat of a nuclear attack is so great that it makes us take them seriously, especially considering their heavy development of long-range missles.

usually when we back out of treaties, barring irrelevant references to Native American agreements centuries ago, we get the approval of the other country, such as in the ABM treaty.

India and Pakistan have only become more tied to us because of recent circumstances, namely, Al Qaeda. 

We go after countries because we are frightened by the way in which these countries seek to use the weapons they develop, in the Cold War, the missle building was defensive--North Korea has nobody to defend against, thus, their missle building must be viewed as hostile.

nuclear weapons to make itself a world power.

oil is needed for almost every major industry.  why would they not need oil?

Maybe Bush is onto something:

http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=232]Article about Hezbellah use of Iraqi missles

http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=214]Article about Al Qaeda plans for terror attack against Israel

After reading the Iraqi missle article, I'm a little more in support of a war.  Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.

yeah, but VTOL wouldnt make use of our existing facilities as well as a horizontal SSTO.  nuclear powered thrusters would allow much greater payload, which would make landing gear trivial-and this is also within our reach.  nuclear powered vehicles can be made to be at least as safe as conventional vehicles.

if it werent for the chinese, we would have won the Korean War. 

Second, would a nuclear reactor stand up to continued bombing from normal airplanes?  sure, it could stand up to a certain amount of beating, but i dont think it could stand up to sustained, deliberate bombing for very long. 

third, what 2 wars?  yes, they used them in ww2.  when else?  and the use of them in ww2 probably saved western europe from a soviet invasion post-ww2.  it also showed the world the capability of nukes, and led to MAD, instead of wanton nuclear use.

Bill, if someone breaks a treaty to build nukes, what do you do?  Say, oh its ok, let me pay you to do what you said you would do, and hope they never do it again?  Thats ridiculous. 

We should throw out every treaty we ever signed.  Legality is of no consequence, a treaty is only valid as long as the country "likes" the terms.

el scorcho, if an iraqi bomber flies over your house, are you going to look at it and wave? 

iraq is cooperating with the UN.  Bush is trying to find any way to show that hes not.  one country says "We have and are building nukes" and Bush says "Well, we'll see what we can work out"  the other says, "We have none, go ahead and check" and we want to invade.  Wheres the logic?

it means you would have to have the jets propel themselves, rather than be carried by air, like rockets do.

thanks for the link austin.  so how efficient is this process?  what percentage of heat is wasted, just a ballpark estimate?