New Mars Forums

Backwards. It's in America's best interest to re-shore manufacturing from China, India, southeast Asia, etc. Bring manufacturing to North America. Strengthen economic ties with Canada and Mexico.

Tom,
I didn't see that woman. But I don't believe it's male vs female. There are incompetent female leaders in the US as well. I could point to Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Elizabeth Warren. I disagree with some positions of AOC, but I think she is quite competent.

As for Canada, we had a female Prime Minister in 1993. She was... bad. She lasted ~3 months. Helena Guergis was a Conservative MP in Canada 2004-2011. She was beautiful, but an air-head. However, I could point to many female MPs of both major parties in Canada who are quite competent. So again, I do not believe it's male vs female.

You like "really tried but failed anyway"? Ok. UK is a member of the European Space Agency. They developed the Ariane 5 launch vehicle to launch a capsule with crew to Low Earth Orbit. They also tried to develop a capsule. It was cancelled more for politics than anything technical. It became the ATV cargo ship, which delivered pressurized cargo to ISS. The service module for ATV is currently used by Orion to carry crew to Lunar orbit.

Well, luckily NASA administration is not as isolationist as you just demonstrate. NASA wants to work with other countries. And the Mars Society is international, not just US.

Void,
This is the Mars Society. We are concerned with international affairs for a few reasons. For one: why do we want to go to Mars? If we do not understand relations of nations on this planet, then we will repeat all the same mistakes on the next. So we must address the problems currently happening to ensure we don't repeat those mistakes on Mars.

For another: the Mars Society is not just about a "flags and footprints" mission to Mars. And it's not about just science. Science is good, knowledge is good, but Mars and space in general is not just about science. We want to go to Mars to live there. Settling Mars is a big adventure. It will take a lot of resources. This will require resources of several countries. So conflicts here on Earth interfere with getting to Mars.

The United States used to have a policy of not supporting a standing army at all. In fact, West Point was built as a military academy to teach officers. The goal was to maintain a highly trained, highly skilled officer core who could recruit soldiers from the general public (civilians) then train them quickly to become an effective fighting force. The US would not maintain a large standing army. Several reasons for this.

1. it's too expensive

2. a standing army will look for something to do. If they don't have an enemy to fight, they could interfere with domestic affairs within the country.

3. when looking for something to do, the standing army may start a conflict with other countries

4. military contractors will pressure politicians to start a war, just so the army buys more weapons and ammunition

The US is now experiencing all of these problems. The solution: shrink the US military. No, the rest of the world does not need to increase its military. The US needs to unilaterally shrink its military. In times of peace, you're not supposed to have a military that large. The complication with this is there is a major war going on in Ukraine. Countries are required to increase their military in times of war. And if there's a chance the war you're not involved with spills over into your country, you still need to increase your military.

Ukraine is not "somebody else's war". It's wrong to say it's "not our war". In 1994, US President Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum, pressuring Ukraine to surrender their nuclear weapons in exchange for the US guarantee that if Russia should invade then the US would defend Ukraine. Now the US under Trump does not want to bother defending Ukraine. The US is required to defend Ukraine. If the US doesn't want that responsibility, then give Ukraine back their nuclear weapons. And I said "give". Ukraine did not sell them. Ukraine did not get any money for the weapons they surrendered. So give for free, the same number of nuclear weapons Ukraine had before the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Each with the same yield as those Ukraine had. And mounted on ballistic missiles with the same range as Ukraine had. Not willing to do that? THEN GET OFF YOUR ASS!!!

Donald Trump doesn't seem to want to be held responsible for commitments made by previous presidents. Those commitments are part of the office of President of the United States. If Trump doesn't want those responsibilities, he can resign from the position of President.

I'm trying to make a couple points here. These points are NOT contradictory.

1. In times of peace, SHRINK YOUR DAMN MILITARY!

2. US is responsible for defending Ukraine

As you know, I live in Canada. Trump's behaviour has been a concern for Canada. The Manhattan Project was a joint venture of 3 equal partners: the US, UK, and Canada. Canada has had the knowledge to build nuclear weapons since the Manhattan Project. Canada built a nuclear research facility within Canada during the Manhattan Project. After WWII, Canada sold to Britain all the plutonium they needed to make their first nuclear weapon. The US pressured Canada to not build its own nuclear weapon, but to buy them from the US. So the US has some control. In the early 1960s, Canada purchased CIM-10 Bomarc Missiles from the US. They are anti-ballistic missiles, designed to defend against incoming Russian bombers or Russian ICBMs. Targeting with early 1960s technology was not good, so they had a small nuclear warhead. Intended to detonate in mid-air when they got close to their target. Canada gave them back after a few years. But Canada kept AIR-2 Genie missiles until 1972. Those are air-to-air missiles, intended to take out Russian bombers. Also with a small nuclear warhead. In 1972, the last ones Canada had were returned.

Canada and the US have integrated air defence over North America. That includes depending on the US to defend Canada from invasion by a country with nuclear weapons such as Russia. Can Canada depend on the US for that defence? Trump doesn't seem to want to protect other countries. He doesn't want the responsibility. If Canada can't count on the US, then Canada will have to build its own arsenal of nuclear weapons. That nuclear research facility built in Canada during the Manhattan Project was able to produce bomb grade plutonium. And was able to machine radioactive components into functional devices. That facility could be used to manufacture nuclear warheads. But some misguided civil servants wanted to ensure it could not be used for that purpose. A key piece of equipment in that facility had been replaced in 1958 with a new one. But that second one was shut down in 2007. Civil servants have tried to ensure the new replacement could not be used to make nuclear weapons. Civil servants today still have that obsession. Does Canada need to restore the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons? Again, Canada never built a single nuclear weapon, ever. However, until 2007, Canada has the ability to do so if needed. Does Canada need to restore that ability?

Hmm. Update already. Elon Musk denies any knowledge of the Starlink restrictions imposed on Ukraine. He says Starshield is owned by the US government. Starshield is a service that uses Starlink satellites. And Musk claims the US military has control over Starshield. Trump denies all knowledge as well. So who did it? One pundit I follow believes Pete Hegseth ordered it. Because Pete Hegseth ordered restrictions on deliveries of arms last spring. Either way, service is being restored.

But also be careful. Elon posted on X:

That isn't a denial. He's saying Trump is responsible.

As I have said before. Canada doesn't want to fight. Canada and the US are brothers. We may have disagreements, our countries may argue like brothers, but in the end we are brothers. Immediately after 9/11, Canada sent JTF2 into Afghanistan. JTF2 is Canada's most elite army unit; more elite than the US army Delta Force, second only to US Navy Seals. When aircraft were required to land quickly after skies were closed, Canada welcomed US travellers. The small town of Gander is the farthest east of any airport in North America, the last point before crossing the Atlantic ocean. Several US planes landed there. More passengers than all hotels could accommodate. So Canadian citizens allowed travellers to stay in their homes. Treated them as house guests. America aircraft landed in other locations across Canada, but large cities were better able to accommodate travellers. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the only country to provide aid was Canada. Canada sent navy ships, used helicopters to rescue people off the roof of their houses. Provided fresh drinking water, and even rations.

Our countries are brothers. Why does Donald Trump want to start a fight with Canada? It's stupid.

Elon Musk was born and raised in South Africa. He has definite South Africa attitudes and values. His mother Maye Musk was born in Canada in April 1948, her parents left Canada in 1950 when she was 2 years old. They moved to South Africa in 1952. Elon left South Africa at age 17 in 1989 because South Africa had mandatory military service aka The Draft. He started college at age 19 at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. In 1992 transferred to University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, age 21. Completed his bachelor degree in 1997, then moved to California. So he lived in Canada for 4 years in his late teens, and his mother left Canada age 2. Does that make him Canadian?

Canada/US relations have oscillated throughout history. Several times certain US politicians have attempted to use economic coersion to force Canada to join the US. This is not the first time. I could write a long-post with history, but you would find it boring. Let's just say others have tried to do what Donald Trump is doing. Every time, relations become strained, Canadians pull together to say we will never join the US. One of those times, not the first or the last, was in 1866, right after the US Civil War ended. Canada's response was to form a country. Canada became a country on July 1, 1867.

Yes, Canada has a problem with Quebec. The separatists in Quebec are a minority, but a loud-mouth minority. In October 1970, the FLQ attempted to use terrorism to force separation. They murdered a Quebec provincial minister. And they were planning to use explosives to bring down the tallest office building in Montreal. Police caught them with the plans and the explosives. They were arrested before they could place the explosives. Look what happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11; that's what the FLQ wanted to do in Montreal in 1970. But after the Minister was murdered, the War Measures Act was activated. Police got aggressive. Arrested them before the building could be bombed.

Yes, we have a problem that Alberta oil is taxed, and "equalization payments" are going to Quebec but not Alberta. That's an internal problem in Canada. After the Quebec referendum of 1995, the federal government decided to basically bribe Quebec to stay. But it's 31 years, it's got to stop. Equalization is supposed to be for young provinces that don't yet have the resources to provided the same services  as the rest of Canada. But the two big provinces when Canada was founded were Ontario and Quebec. They were still big when I was a child in the 1960s and '70s. But after the first referendum in 1980, many companies left Quebec. They left out of fear that Quebec would separate, so companies moved to other provinces to ensure they remain in Canada. That happened again during and after the second referendum in 1995. Quebec has no one but themselves to blame. They're still the 2nd largest province in population, after Ontario. There's no way anyone could justify equalization payments for any of the 4 largest provinces: Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta. Quebec is getting the largest sum by far, and it's got to stop! Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC get nothing, Ontario gets a tiny bit. Payments to Ontario also must stop. Those provinces can collect their own taxes to pay their own bills.

As for Globalism, Democracy and coordination is a good thing. But some corporations want to run the world. Corporate executives want national governments to become irrelevant. That isn't going to happen.

Elon Musk is someone who was born and grew up in South Africa. His mother grew up in South Africa. He moved to California.

I need a generic technology thread. Or do I create a new thread?

Latest video by Felix of What About It: SpaceX Starship Flight 14 Lost Way More Parts Than We Thought!
Second half of the video mentions Elon Musk wants to build an AI data centre in space. Satellites with greater solar panel area than the International Space Station. Each satellite would house a few blades of circuits, each with multiple processors. Each satellite would also have a large radiator to use space itself for cooling. These satellites would be in polar orbit, so receive sunlight 24/7. And the orbits would adjust, precessing as Earth orbits the Sun. So the orbit would complete one complete precess rotation per year. This means it tracks the Sun so all satellites are in direct sunlight 24/7. Satellites would communicate with Starlink, not direct communication with Earth.

I think this is dumb. Launching such a satellite requires a lot of money. Even with reduces launch cost of Starship. Service is not possible. When (not if) processors fail, they cannot be replaced. In space, the electronics must be hardened to withstand space radiation. Not necessary on Earth. Building a data centre on Earth appears a much MUCH more practical design.

One issue with a data centre on Earth, is cooling. These data centres have been designed to use evaporative cooling. That is, cooled with air conditioners. Like any air conditioner, there are two parts. The evaporator inside the building, where a coolant such as freon evaporates from liquid to gas absorbing heat as it does so. The other part is outside: the condenser. There the gas condenses to a liquid, releasing heat as it does so. Pressure of coolant in the condenser is higher, causing it to increase in temperature due to thermodynamics. That releases the heat. Pressure of coolant in the evaporator inside the building is lower, causing cooling due to thermodynamics. But data centres do not consider this to be enough. Clean water is sprayed on the outside of the cooling fins of the condenser outside the building. This water sprayed on hot aluminum alloy fins will evaporate into the environment. As that water evaporates, it cools, taking heat away. This consumes a lot of water.

This is not necessary. It's a design for a dry hot environment like Arizona. Some place that has a flowing river, you can have river water flow across an aluminum alloy heat exchanger for the condenser. The freon or whatever coolant is used for the air conditioner is contained. Instead of spraying clean water on the fins, river water flows across the fins. River water need not be clean, it can be river water. The river water will be warmed, but not boil. This will warm the river, but it means clean potable water is not consumed. The river is not consumed, it is just warmed.

If there is no convenient river, then the data centre could be built on the shore of a lake. The lake water could be pumped across the aluminum alloy cooling fins. This would warm the lake water. Or coast of an ocean. Ocean water can be pumped across the cooling fins. Again, ocean water is not consumed, it is just warmed. Nuclear power plants have been doing this for decades. It's not new. A simple way of building a data centre without consuming water.

By the way, ammonia is a more efficient coolant than freon. The first refrigerators were built with ammonia. The problem was one woman was asleep in her bed when her house refrigerator developed a leak. While she was a sleep, her house filled with so much ammonia that it killed her. She died in her sleep. Freon is clear, colourless, odourless, and non-toxic. If there's a leak, it's not dangerous. A refrigerator using freon consumes a little more electricity than one using ammonia, but it won't kill you. Then the fear that freon will destroy the ozone layer. Freon was replaced by something even less efficient, but will not kill you, and will not destroy ozone. I don't know what they're using now. But expect a data centre will use ammonia. Ammonia will not destroy ozone, just ensure no one sleeps there.

As the arctic thaws, more and more of the arctic will be ice free in summer. And for an ever longer period of time each summer. That will make all the resources of the arctic ocean accessible. And large ships can traverse the Northwest Passage.

For reference, here is a record of global temperature calculated from ice cores from Antarctica. Blue is the EPICA ice sheet, green is the Lake Vostok. Peak during the last interglacial roughly 125,000 years ago is 6°C above the pre-industrial temperature. 260,000 years ago was two interglacial periods ago; for some reason the interglacial was cut short so was shorter time and didn't reach the same peak as other interglacials. About 370,000 years ago was 3 interglacials ago; it reached a peak of 5°C above the pre-industrial temperature. They found an ice deposit even deeper, extending 800,000 years ago. There's an ice age roughly every 100,000 years. Roughly 80,000 years of ice age, and 20,000 years of interglacial. So the 800,000 year ice core records 8 ice ages and 8 interglacial periods. The long term trend is each peak is higher than the last. The point is just due to nature, the peak temperature will be warmer than today. Do not expect the peak to be limitied to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial temperature. More likely it will be 6°C, the same as the last interglacial period. Good news is that peak is not due for another 2,000 years. That does not mean it will happen all at once. It means slow but steady global warming for the next 2,000 years, with each summer setting new record highs.

During the last interglacial period, the north polar ice cap completely melted during the summer. At the warmest period. It will again.
(Image from Wikipedia. Click image for Wikipedia page.)

YouTube: How US aircraft carriers resupply in the middle of the ocean (the hidden dangers will shock you)
Video of at sea resupply of USS Gerald R. Ford, the latest US aircraft carrier. Video is 9 months old. 14 minutes long. Narration is dramatic. Shows how to transfer a pallet at a time of supplies from a dedicated purpose-built US Navy supply ship to the carrier. Includes sending a fuel hose to transfer aircraft fuel for aircraft that operate off the ship. The Navy has been doing this for multiple decades. Again, there's no need for the carrier to sail to Diego Garcia.

Again, narration is overly dramatic. Doing this near the Strait of Hormuz would not require the ships moving at maximum speed. They could slow to a crawl. Just barely moving enough so the ships could manoeuvre, to maintain correct distance between ships.

Maybe I shouldn't weigh in on Iran. But I was thinking, why is resupply so difficult? Last month there was concern that the USS Abraham Lincoln was short of food while deployed in the Strait of Hormuz. The base in Bahrain was damaged. But every Nimitz class aircraft carrier has 2 C-2 Greyhound cargo aircraft. Yes, limited range. But a C-130 Hercules, or C-17 Globemaster III, or some other cargo aircraft could carry supplies to a base in the region. Then transfer supplies to a C-2 Greyhound, to ferry those supplies to the ship. Isn't that what the C-2 are for? The US has multiple bases on the region. There are 3 air bases plus an airport in Oman where this could be done. If nearest supplies are Diego Garcia, that's 4,136km (2,233 nautical miles) one way. The C-2 Greyhound can only fly 1,300 nmi (2,400km) while carrying 10,000 pounds (4,500kg) of cargo. One way. But distance from Strait of Hormuz to Muscat International Airport is 398km, depending where in the Strait the carrier is located. Definitely can be reached. If not that airport, there are others.

This is basic logistics. Isn't that a basic part of the job for any officer of rank Colonel or Navy Captain or higher? Secretary of Defense shouldn't even have to address this himself, there should be staff to do this.