New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#301 2026-10-26 13:08:45
- HG Muller
- Member
- Registered: 2017-06-17
- Posts: 53
Re: RobertDyck Postings
Dr Muller,
We're not wrecking our own country.
Well, wait and see...
Maybe you should spend at least as much time learning about Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris as you do fixating on President Trump, because those were the alternatives presented to American voters.
Why would I want to do that? Hillary is old hat. I watched the debate between Trump and Harris, and noticed that what Harris said usually was true and made sense, while Trump just spouted nonsense and falsehoods.
Europeans cooperate to talk trash about the US, but not much else, certainly not on defense. The Romans and Alexander the Great predated the power structures established after WWII.
So did WWI...
I never claimed the US was a peaceful nation. We've been at war more often than not, but somehow we didn't start either of the two most destructive conflicts in human history.
And yet you are dismissive about the idea that one of these abundant wars might spiral out of control? How well are you doing in Iran at the moment?
So was I.
No, you were talking about tariffs.
I would prefer to see American cars on American roads, British cars on British roads, and so on. That means every nation has its own automotive industry. I know that's a crazy concept, but there it is. If everyone has their own domestic manufacturing and supply, then they don't need to fight over what they already have, their middle class has stable jobs, and factories are where most manufacturing innovations occur.
It is a highly inefficient concept, so economists woulld indeed consider that crazy. Some countries can make things cheaper than others, e.g. because of proximity of natural resources. By trying to do things you are ill-equiped for yourself, you greatly drive up the cost of those. And you will make little use of your own opportunities when you hardly utilize those, because you produce only for the domestic market. It is just a recipe for keeping your citizens poorer than necessary.
We don't have to fight over anything, because we make good stuff that trusted partners are eager to trade for what they are good at making. Nothing wrong with the stability of jobs here.
What you propose is known as 'strategic independence', and it is quite expensive. But in some situations it might be worth it. One should see it as an insurance; the premium is basically wasted money, except a disaster happens, which you hope it never will. E.g. you don't want all food production to move abroad, even if it is way cheaper to import than to produce. Because what if your source his crop fails? But it makes no sense to insure against imagined risks.
Freeloading... That's an interesting choice of words.
Well, just follow the money. The U.S. profits from Europe by buying more valuable stuff from them than they sell to it. The dollars we earn but cannot spend are then loaned back to the U.S., to finance their insane deficit and national debt. Which they will never be able to pay back, or only with highly inflated money. So basically we just gave away the stuff for free.
If all trade with the US ended tomorrow, what would happen to the global economy?
It would sharply decrease, of course, because profits from trading are counted as part of that economy. That would probably mean everyone gets poorer. U.S. citizens the most of all, because these would suffer the loss many times over, once for each bilateral trade relation they have. All other countries would only lose their trade with the U.S., but would happily continue trading with each other. And probably intensify that, through redestining the production surplus they now have to the remaining trade partners. I am not even sure they would suffer at all.
If Greenland broke away from Denmark completely, they were planning to invite "infrastructure investments" from Chinese state-owned enterprises. CCCC was going to build or expand an airport on Greenland, they were going to open an Iron and rare-earth-metal mines. They needed money and jobs, which is understandable. I don't blame them for their needs, but if China is the nation meeting those needs, then it's a direct threat to the US, unless we're supposed to pretend that the communist Chinese and Americans are great old-time drinking buddies.
Ah, the military base has disappeared from your arguments? So it is not a military threat that disturbs you, but the fact that they have valuable natural resources that you want to appropriate for yourself. So that it is a 'direct threat' to the U.S. if they would trade it with others? China is not under sanctions, not even U.S. sanctions that you might want to enforce outside your jurisdiction (which is also imperialistic / colonialistic behavior, BTW). This is what we call preying on the wealth of others.
Yeah, America and Britain built oil infrastructure in Iran, their leader wanted to steal what he never built, so then we "stole it back". Funny how thievery works, isn't it? If someone can generate more force, then they can always take back what you took from them.
So to you it is just "might makes right", and you get upset when you are on the losing end of that, such as during the islamic revolution.
I'm at least curious enough to listen to people I mostly disagree with. You're clearly afraid to listen to American Democrats talk to each other about what they actually think and feel about their own party. If you're intellectually honest and the evidence doesn't align with your assertions, it means your understanding is wrong.
My assertion has nothing to do with Democrats. It has to do with POTUS.
Concerned citizens don't chase the Police 50 miles away from where they live. They're paid activists. Public records show payments between government accounts and these activists. This may not specifically be illegal because attribution is difficult to prove unless someone confesses, but impeding federal officers executing lawful arrest warrants is a federal felony:
So you just shoot them because they annoy you, without due process?
The real issue is not checking whether the person entering America is already a convicted felon or known terrorist from another country.
Don't you think such checking would be pretty pointless? As long as you still have leaky borders, don't you think that terrorists and convicted felons would naively walk in to let that be checked, rather than cross the border by illegal means? This very quickly truns into the idiocy I had to engage in each time I visited the U.S.: all passengers had to fill out a visa-waiver form, where you ad to answer questions like "did you ever abduct any American children" and "did you serve as guard in a concentration camp during WWII"... Do they really expect anyone would tick the box 'yes' on such questions, even if they did exactly those things?
Offline
Like button can go here
#302 2026-10-26 14:55:51
- Calliban
- Member
- From: Northern England, UK
- Registered: 2019-08-18
- Posts: 4,451
Re: RobertDyck Postings
I would prefer to see American cars on American roads, British cars on British roads, and so on. That means every nation has its own automotive industry. I know that's a crazy concept, but there it is. If everyone has their own domestic manufacturing and supply, then they don't need to fight over what they already have, their middle class has stable jobs, and factories are where most manufacturing innovations occur.
It is a highly inefficient concept, so economists woulld indeed consider that crazy. Some countries can make things cheaper than others, e.g. because of proximity of natural resources. By trying to do things you are ill-equiped for yourself, you greatly drive up the cost of those. And you will make little use of your own opportunities when you hardly utilize those, because you produce only for the domestic market. It is just a recipe for keeping your citizens poorer than necessary.
I wonder how inefficient it really would be. We aren't necessarily talking about every nation becoming completely autarkic. Just that we each look to become more self-sufficient than we are now.
I find it hard to believe that Europe is less efficient because Sweden still has an independent car company (Volvo). Would the Swedes be better off closing Volvo and buying BMWs instead? Just so that Europe could get better scale economies on the fewer car companies it has left? Or are they better off driving their Volvos and actually paying their own people to make cars? Is it really in the UKs interest to have no domestic steel smelting capability? Isn't the resilience offered by paying a little more for that capacity actually worth something? What about ship building and aircraft? At some point, it does make sense for multiple nations to pool resources and specialise in different industries. But there is clearly a lot more than the unfettered whims of the market involved in that decision. Or at least, there should be.
The UK now buys a lot of raw steel from India. Not because the Indians do it better. But because an Ibdian billionaire bought British Steel and decided to asset strip it back to his own country. Maybe they can make steel more cheaply in a perfect world. But is it really a good idea to have our steel dependant on such long supply chains? Looking at the volatility of the world right now and global shortages of diesel, it looks like a rather stupid idea to let this happen. Also remember that when you lose an industry, you also lose the skilled workforce and technological innovation that the industry generates. Without a steel industry don't expect to be able to lead the world in steel metallurgy. Without a car industry, you won't be producing much innovation in that area. There are clearly limits beyond which this ceases to be sensible. It wouldn't be sensible for every country in Europe to make its own jet aircraft to their own design. But overall, deindustrialisation has done bad things to the skill base in western countries. We need a rebalance.
Last edited by Calliban (2026-10-26 15:25:43)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
#303 2026-10-26 16:33:10
- HG Muller
- Member
- Registered: 2017-06-17
- Posts: 53
Re: RobertDyck Postings
Note that I never claimed anything about different countries doing the same. Most efficient is when countries do what they are best at. (In economy this is known as the law of comparative cost.) If there is more than one country good at producing cars, then there is nothing against both of those doing that. And there is no efficiency gain (other than possible economy of scale) by transferring that industry to a country that is equally good at it.
Efficiency loss comes from forcing countries that are not good at it to do it anyway. In the Netherlands we have no car industry, and in fact very little heavy industry, because we don't have much natural resources like iron ore and coal that are required for that, and would have to be imported from far away. We earn a large part of our GNP through logistics, for which we are are very well positioned having a port that can service a very large part of Europe through rivers that happen to reach the sea in our country. If Germany or France would have to do that on their own through Hamburg or Marseille, they would not get very far, and would have to use much more rail or road transport.
The other things you mention are about the issue of 'strategic independence'. Whether you want that (and how much you want to have of it) depends on the reliability of your external supply. If there is only one supplier, you might not want to be dependent on that. If there are a hundred, having your own capability hardly improves your resource security. If you cannot manufacture the product to be competitive with the market price you will run at a loss, you will have to intervene in the market. Either by subsidizing the manufacturing or taxing foreign import. One costs taxpayer money, the other drives up the price for your citizens.
Offline
Like button can go here
#304 2026-10-26 16:43:30
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,573
Re: RobertDyck Postings
Dr Muller,
Well, wait and see...
I've been told my entire life that America has already failed, or is about to. Somehow, we're still here. Eventually, somebody will finally be correct in that assertion, but I won't hold my breath, and I advise everyone else to take a deep breath.
Why would I want to do that? Hillary is old hat. I watched the debate between Trump and Harris, and noticed that what Harris said usually was true and made sense, while Trump just spouted nonsense and falsehoods.
Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were the alternatives.
Kamala Harris Rips 18-24 Year Olds
"What else do we know about this population, 18 through 24. They are stupid. That is why we put them in dormitories and they have a resident assistant. They make really bad decisions. So, we focused on that age population." - Kamala Harris
"You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" - Kamala Harris
"It is time for us to do what we have been doingand that time is every day." - Kamala Harris
"Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine so basically that's wrong." - Kamala Harris
It's pretty hard to make President Trump look like some kind of political genius, but Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris both did just that. That's why they lost. Your commentary here reveals why.
This was the Democrats' alternative:
"This generation isn't stupid. They know what we did to them. They're fighting to make our country live up to its highest ideals. We shouldn't be deriding them. We should be helping them, and we should be fortifying them, and we should be apologizing to them for the betrayal that we perpetrated on them." - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
I'm guessing you'll never figure it out.
And yet you are dismissive about the idea that one of these abundant wars might spiral out of control? How well are you doing in Iran at the moment?
As with love, everything is possible in war. Wars are seldom started for rational reasons. That doesn't mean they're going to result in WWIII. Since WWII, the US has gone to war with:
Korea
Dominican Republic
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Iraq
Somalia
Bosnia and Kosovo
Afghanistan
Libya
Syria
Iran
Technically, we have special forces in Ukraine as well. They never left. President Trump never had them leave. I really thought he would, but he didn't.
So... The possibility of WWIII...? Very real, but also very remote. I'm not telling you that you're wrong to worry, but freaking out over something that hasn't happened since 1945 is probably a waste of your time and energy.
It is a highly inefficient concept, so economists woulld indeed consider that crazy. Some countries can make things cheaper than others, e.g. because of proximity of natural resources. By trying to do things you are ill-equiped for yourself, you greatly drive up the cost of those. And you will make little use of your own opportunities when you hardly utilize those, because you produce only for the domestic market. It is just a recipe for keeping your citizens poorer than necessary.
Economists don't run businesses. Academics, such as yourself, have no earthly idea about what's required to run a successful business. That's why they're in academics. The fact that you don't think manufacturing is how less wealthy nations become more wealthy, and raise the standard of living for everyone, tells me what I need to know about your understanding. Simply put, I do not give a crap about making a wealthy person just a little bit wealthier by saving a few dollars and cents on the end product.
We don't have to fight over anything, because we make good stuff that trusted partners are eager to trade for what they are good at making. Nothing wrong with the stability of jobs here.
You've clearly never worked on a German car made in the last 10 years, but keep telling yourself that.
What you propose is known as 'strategic independence', and it is quite expensive. But in some situations it might be worth it. One should see it as an insurance; the premium is basically wasted money, except a disaster happens, which you hope it never will. E.g. you don't want all food production to move abroad, even if it is way cheaper to import than to produce. Because what if your source his crop fails? But it makes no sense to insure against imagined risks.
No, what's "wasted money" is pointlessly driving costs up while driving value proposition to the consumer down through the process known as "enshittification".
Your statement, "it makes no sense to insure against imagined risks" could be applied directly to the pointless spending on wind turbines and solar panels. France had "green energy" long before your "I am the green" followers became the next nazi death cult in Europe. The amount of money Germany squandered on solar panels by handing their money to the Chinese could've paid for a fleet of new reactors that would still be operating in another 50 years, unlike 100% of all existing wind turbines and solar panels, which won't be.
Well, just follow the money. The U.S. profits from Europe by buying more valuable stuff from them than they sell to it. The dollars we earn but cannot spend are then loaned back to the U.S., to finance their insane deficit and national debt. Which they will never be able to pay back, or only with highly inflated money. So basically we just gave away the stuff for free.
The manufactured goods we trade with each other are largely like-kind. At least for now, total dollar figures are roughly aligned. You're free to believe otherwise, as always, but the numbers don't support any other assertion. So, no, your assertion that you're giving stuff away for free is false.
It would sharply decrease, of course, because profits from trading are counted as part of that economy. That would probably mean everyone gets poorer. U.S. citizens the most of all, because these would suffer the loss many times over, once for each bilateral trade relation they have. All other countries would only lose their trade with the U.S., but would happily continue trading with each other. And probably intensify that, through redestining the production surplus they now have to the remaining trade partners. I am not even sure they would suffer at all.
The average US citizen doesn't buy many European goods. You're worried that the rich people would pay a little more for what they buy. I'm not. That means they're "naturally less wealthy" vs actually less wealthy, because who they do business with is a choice.
So to you it is just "might makes right", and you get upset when you are on the losing end of that, such as during the islamic revolution.
The Iranian people were on the losing end of the "islamic revolution". Ask the average Iranian woman if she'd rather live under a brutal dictatorship that will burn her, pour acid on her face, or murder her for refusing to walk in desert heat wearing a head-to-toe jet-black bed sheet, or here in America where all of that is optional. You can still "be goth" here in America, but nobody's forcing you to do it.
So you just shoot them because they annoy you, without due process?
No, we shoot them when they try to run over Federal Police with their cars, or point their guns at the Federal Police. Due process doesn't mean waiting until someone actually murders you for self-defense laws to apply.
Don't you think such checking would be pretty pointless? As long as you still have leaky borders, don't you think that terrorists and convicted felons would naively walk in to let that be checked, rather than cross the border by illegal means? This very quickly truns into the idiocy I had to engage in each time I visited the U.S.: all passengers had to fill out a visa-waiver form, where you ad to answer questions like "did you ever abduct any American children" and "did you serve as guard in a concentration camp during WWII"... Do they really expect anyone would tick the box 'yes' on such questions, even if they did exactly those things?
Checking IDs is not pointless. Most suspected and previously convicted felons with active arrest warrants are found by Police during routine traffic stops, not because the Police formed a dedicated task force to apprehend them. Criminals can try to run from the Police, and some do, but that's when the Police can stop them using force, because that's how our laws work.
The questionnaire you filled out during entry to the US was created so that if we later discover you falsely attested that you were not a convicted felon or terrorist, we can use your own official statements against you to secure a federal conviction. Your own government no doubt uses some variation of this enforcement mechanism, as nearly all governments do. Irrespective of who/what someone claims to be, we still check IDs and paperwork. You think it's all pointless because people can lie. We already know people lie, so we use their lies as a legal means to imprison them for making false official statements. Criminals tend to continually commit more crimes, as hard as that may be for you to believe, and making false official statements is likely routine for them. Their own antisocial behavior is what ultimately entraps them.
If you truly don't understand these basic legal and enforcement concepts, then consider this free education. If you do understand, then you're making a bad-faith argument against enforcing borders because there's no such thing as a 100% secure border. If a wall alone were sufficient, there'd be no need for border guards. If border guards alone were sufficient, there'd be no need for a wall. Using both drastically reduces successful illegal entries while dramatically increasing the cost and complexity of any attempt.
Offline
Like button can go here
#305 2026-10-29 15:24:23
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 26,355
Re: RobertDyck Postings
For RobertDyck,
Can I interest you in a new flow in the Boron-11 topic?
With the arrival of HG Muller, we have the potential to build up a small ? amount of knowledge about this important topic?
HG Muller added numerous additional insights relating generally to the problem of fusion.
I would like to see if we can create a series that a serious student would want to take the time to read.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#306 2026-10-30 14:49:11
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 26,355
Re: RobertDyck Postings
For RobertDyck ...
If you have a bit of free time, and are not engaged in battling grizzly bears in the Northern reaches of Canada, please take a look at this opportunity.
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 24#p242524
We have two members of the forum who are qualified to discuss the topic, and you are gifted with the ability to explain complex subjects in a way that is helpful to the rest of us. Please see if you can help build this topic.
I am aiming for a collection that a serious student will find value in reading.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#307 2026-11-02 07:16:33
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 26,355
Re: RobertDyck Postings
For RobertDyck re new topic on flight in air reservoir on Mars...
This is certainly an interesting new topic!
Please add a post with information about the density and pressure of the air in the reservoir.
There will certainly be reservoirs of air on Mars, and in every location humans travel away from Earth.
It is fun seeing Robert Heinlein's name back in print. It's been many decades since I saw him at an L5 event in San Francisco.
Your athlete flyers will have to deal with the difference between pressure inside the reservoir and their normal living pressure on Mars.
One option might be to wear a breathing apparatus able to lower the reservoir pressure to 1/2 bar, and then (somehow) push the exhaust CO2 back out into the reservoir.
It would definitely be interesting to see Heinlein's text in presenting this idea. Did he deal with pressure difference? Was he even aware of the need for it?
Again! Interesting new topic!
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#308 2026-11-03 08:22:34
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 26,355
Re: RobertDyck Postings
For RobertDyck re flight on Mars (or the Moon for that matter)
There is a time honored way to provide humans with flight opportunities on the Moon and Mars.
It has been done on Earth for many years.
On Earth the movement of the atmosphere has provided flight opportunities where land obstructs the flow of air.
On Earth, humans have flown to high altitudes so they can jump out and experience "flight" while passing through the standing air on the way down.
What I am thinking about in your vision is the use of powerful electric motors to create wind flow that is strong enough to hold up a human in the mouth of the air tube. The experience of the subject would be identical to flight falling from an aircraft, and a ** lot ** safer. The air in that scenario is breathable, so no extended pressure adjustment is needed.
I'd be interested in your analysis of what it would take to provide the same experience for a Mars resident in a 1/2 Bar chamber. The gravity is less, and the air density is less, so it's not clear (to me at least) how the experience on Mars would compare to what is done already on Earth.
Beyond the simple simulated aircraft drop flight experience, it would be a lot more satisfying to be able to pilot a small glider in a flow of 1/2 Bar air. You can use Gemini, ChatGPT or CoPilot to create images showing what a flight experience might be like if you designed a suitable system.
Come to think of it, that idea might even work on the Earth. I presume no one has invested in such a system because the Earth provides so many opportunities on the surface. However, in a location on Earth with limited wind, or temperatures that are too low for comfort, an indoor glider experience might be fun and good exercise as well.
Folks in the Middle East could have afforded to build such a system before the present era.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#309 2026-11-03 09:13:48
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 26,355
Re: RobertDyck Postings
For RobertDyck .... following up on the idea of an entertainment facility on Mars, here is output from a conversation with Gemini:
A key discovery for me is the benefit of using Argon instead of Nitrogen!
The source for the above image is a publication. I will try to show the references.
Vertical Wind Torus for Martian Human Glider Flight
Overview and Facility Concept
To provide a psychological and recreational outlet for Martian residents, a vertical toroidal cavern habitat can be configured as a continuous closed-loop flight tunnel. Rather than body-only skydiving, this facility is scaled for full hang glider human flight.Atmospheric Physics & Argon-Rich Habitat Mix
* Habitat Total Pressure: 0.50 Bar (50,000 Pa)
* Oxygen Partial Pressure: 0.21 Bar (~42% molar share)
* Inert Argon Partial Pressure: 0.29 Bar (~58% molar share)
* Temperature: 20 degrees C (293.15 K)Gas Density Calculation
Using the ideal gas law:
Density = (Pressure * Molar Mass) / (Gas Constant * Temperature)* Molar Mass of O2 = 32.00 g/mol
* Molar Mass of Ar = 39.95 g/mol
* Average Molar Mass of Mix = 36.60 g/mol (0.0366 kg/mol)Calculated Habitat Air Density = 0.75 kg/m^3
Flight Aerodynamics Comparison
Earth Sea Level Air Density: 1.225 kg/m^3
Mars Habitat Air Density: 0.750 kg/m^3 (61% of Earth sea level)
Raw Mars Outside Density: 0.020 kg/m^3 (35x thinner than habitat)
Glider Trim Cruise Speed (Earth): 35 km/h (10.0 m/s)
Glider Trim Cruise Speed (Mars Torus): 45 km/h (12.5 m/s)
Structural Layout
Top Section (Flight Zone): Wide clear-span upper arc of the vertical torus designed for smooth laminar airflow, launch ramps, and glider turns.
Bottom Section (Machinery & Circulation): Houses industrial axial blowers, flow straighteners, and heavy safety protective grates to prevent any debris from entering the fan stages.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#310 2026-11-03 09:31:08
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 26,355
Re: RobertDyck Postings
Here is a follow up:
Vertical Wind Torus: Integrated Visual Systems for the Flight Experience
The Shared Experience: Duct-Integrated Displays vs. Personal VR
A critical design choice for maximizing the entertainment value is how the environmental imagery is displayed.Personal VR Goggles (The Isolated Flight):
Advantage: High resolution per eye, capable of perfect immersive perspective.
Disadvantage: Isolates the pilot; observers see nothing; adds weight and complexity to the flight gear; risks spatial disorientation during complex maneuvers.
Surface-Integrated Visualization (The Collective Flight):
By lining the curved upper section of the torus (the flight regime) with modern display technologies (e.g., curved LED panels or multiple projection mapping sources), the entire environment is transformed.
Shared Perception: The pilot, launch crew, and observers all see the same simulated environment, enhancing the reality of the experience.
Safety: Pilots have unimpeded vision and situational awareness within the physical duct.
Versatility: Displays can change rapidly between any environment: Earth's Grand Canyon, ancient Mars, or purely abstract lighting landscapes.
Durability: While requiring more surface area than VR headsets, the visual system is physically integrated and not prone to falling or pilot-induced damage.
Technical Implementation Challenge
The main challenge lies in the sheer surface area of the upper toroidal arc. This requires significant data bandwidth and precise calibration to minimize seams between displays and provide a smooth, coherent image at operational glidespeeds. However, on a settled Mars with access to advanced composite materials and microelectronics fabrication, these are surmountable engineering hurdles.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here