New Mars Forums

Once again we play chess, when the game at hand is Go.

Space Ship One cannot achieve orbit. Obviously.

However a Space Ship One sized vessel can be mounted on top of something bigger. Maybe even an R-7.

Scaled Composites was a leading contractor on the X-38 which was almost finished before being scrapped. Take a 5 seat Space Ship Two and add X-38 style heat tiles subtract the rubber rocket and there you go.

SS1 masses 3200 kg with fuel being 2000 kg of that.

Falcon V (allegedly) can lift 4200 kg to LEO.

= = =

SS1 / SS2 is cross bred with X-38. Scaled Composites did both projects.

If Falcon fails to come through, license a plant in American Samoa to build Russian R-7s and plop an even bigger SS2/X-38 hybrid on top.

Over the weekend, I speed-read a new book, European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin. An uneven book, to say the least. Yet it portrays a patently Western vision deeply at odds with the Ameican vision.

Whether George W. Bush represents where Western culture and civilization is heading actually is the real source of US tensions with France, Germany, Spain and Russia.

And poor Tony Blair is the mouse trapped between two elephants.

= = =

I agree with you, Cobra, about Gulf War 1. But there were several conflicting goals.

If containment of radical Islam was the ONLY goal, letting Saddam just have Kuwait would have made much sense. Then Saddam could have been our surrogate to pressure Iran and Saudi Arabia.

However Saddam also threatened the established system of nation-states created by the British in the early 1900s - - we just couldn't let that happen.

Saddam also happens to be a vile MF.

= = =

Choices, choices. No good choices.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArt … on=news]EU - Iranian nuclear deal pending.

If France, Germany, Spain and Britain say the deal is done, is that good enough for Washington and Tel Aviv?

What about France, Germany & Spain, without Britain?

Build Kliper in Puerto Rico or American Samoa?

Overwhelming initial force would have suppressed much of the early post-Saddam disorder.  Sure, it would not have been zero but weigh the costs of having sent 100,000 more men versus the benefits of having secured substantially more of Saddam's weapons.

Suppose the historial truth is that we secured 80% of Saddam's weapons. Had we secured 95% then the terrorists would now have only 25% of the weaponry we allowed them to loot from unguarded bunkers.

And its not like the Pentagon wasn't warned (calling Gen Shineski. . .).

= = =

Going forward, how can we have confidence that similiar mistakes won't be made again?

= = =

Allawi's strategy for Fallajuh?

Lets see, 60 days of martial law, then a election?

Cobra, had Bush sent another 100,000 men, we could have had it both ways. Once again, Cobra, you defend the weak Roman way of doing things.

= = =

I am not angry with Bush for fighting terrorism, I am angry with Bush for fighting terrorism in a half assed way and then claiming scads of credit for it. . .

= = =

I want to WIN the "War on Terror" - - not merely fight it.

No, the city did. :;):

My extended family lives in the metro-area, outside city limits. 40 years ago, they all lived inside Detroit proper. No more.

Now its Livonia, and Bloomfield Hills, and Burton (next to Flint) and even Gaylord (waay north) and Kalamazoo.
 
Cobra, you have political beliefs I think are simply daft. But you are a good guy.

= = =

My Mom and Dad moved when I was 6 weeks old.

To Dallas. And I've been a Chicagoan since I was 6 years old.

Do you like turmeric?

Yet won't the "winners" spawn further internal divisions amongst themselves?

In colonial New England, Puritan-ism spun off a plethora of sects many having one or two members. At the University of Chicago, one year, we had precisely FOUR communists (Spartacus Youth League) and TWO Nazis. The rest of us found it all hysterically funny.

Especialy since the two Nazis agreed to rotate being Fuhrer.

I also was an early member of the B.C.R.D.L.S. or Bourgeouis-Capitalist-Running Dog Lackey Society.

Winning and losing depends on your level of observation.

Individual winning or team winning?

Suppose Kobe Bryant is 2 points away from winning the league scoring title. Its the last game of the season and all other games are over.

Lakers are down 1 point and must win to advance to the play-offs.

3 seconds left, and Kobe is just outside the 3 point arc but guarded closely while Shaq is wide open under the basket.

Pass to Shaq, win the game for the "team" but fail at the league scoring title?

= = =

IMHO, to argue competition is better than cooperation, or the reverse is like arguing whether the positive charge (+) or the negative charge (-) is more important for building an electronic device.

= = =

PS - - Cobra, I agree with you. Human beings will continue to kill each other and blow stuff up. Even out in space. Think how boring things would be otherwise.

Yet what percentage and how well we mix cooperation and competition amongst ourselves will determine how well we compete against those nasty aliens.

In that one Star Trek Movie, the Klingon captain summarily executes a pilot who peforms badly. Long run, its a bad policy if you want a strong professional space navy.

For those who say the problem is:

"They hate" and we do not, explain the relevance of this http://www.thegag.com/jw-0139.html]item.

If you do not "get it" I cannot possibly explain.

= = =

Now, merge this with Drake's equation and Carl Sagan's legendary "billions and billions" of stars.

Billions of intelligent species spread across the cosmos, as they climb the evolutionary ladder (okay an anthropomorphic metaphor, but hey) will sooner or latter face the challenge of the Chinese finger puzzle.

Those that pass the test survive and become space-faring. Others species cannot stop pulling.

What happens when both people pull too hard on the puzzle?

How dare you threaten the foundations of Western Civilization and all good and righteous moral upbinging!

Ah, you have nukes?

Okay, nevermind.