Alias72

The discussion on solar power has evolved into a topic on nuclear energy. Because this is off topic I thought it might be a good idea to continue the discussion here.

Nuclear energy has a number of issues. Those issues need to be discussed objectively, not with a logical fallacy designed to shame its supporters. Coal has had greater health effects then previously thought. The main issue is that coal dust is a carcinogen and a toxin. Coal dust can cause massive respiratory issues. Coal is actually the most lethal form of power generation of all the ones we have discussed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ The US number is the best to go by. Safety issues and a lack of regulatory control add to other nations death-rates. Nuclear and wind are the best.

That's a moronic thing to say. It would be the equivalent of: everyone wanting to use coal should have a coal mine in their backyard everyone wanting solar power should give up their yard for the panels. everyone wanting hydro-electric power should flood their backyard as a reservoir we separate living and industrial spaces for a damn reason. None of the above should be in anyone's backyard. If society decides to build those energy systems they go on public space. If someone suggests that a certain power source be built we must consider the fact that it will likely only be appropriate to build it on public space.

So long story short we have found super potatoes. Mark Whatney would be proud.

The only correct answer to your question is yes. The reason is that everyone who said no will die off leaving only the people who said yes. The result is that all of humanity agrees with me. because every individual makes up a fraction of humanity they cannot outvote me.

Our official declaration of surrender

harder to answer. All measurements are made from a reference frame. If we accelerate from earth away from the reference frame then relativistic effects will increase. If we accelerate from earth towards the reference frame then relativistic effects decrease. If our frame of reference is the earth then it does not matter. Both rockets accelerate away from the earth at the same rate and experience the same amount of relativistic effects. Another way of putting it is that all objects experience relativistic effects relative to all other objects in existence. If the objects are moving in the same direction with the same magnitude then the relativistic effects are zero. This is the equation of time dilation. dt is the time measured by the moving object. dt' is the time the observer measures v is the velocity of the moving object compared to the observer. because v is the difference in velocity between the observer and the moving object it is different from every conceivable point at which you could measure it.

The way we define a societies intelligence is by taking a sample of its most educated/powerful people. Western society is considered advanced because of the skill of the engineers and scientists in it. This means that an incredibly unequal society may still rank as intelligent. An example would be 18th century empires. perhaps as much as 1% of the population had an education. The presence of the other 99% does not drag our opinion of those societies development down because we ignore the peasant rabble. Having an inequitable society leads to internal friction, however. Ultimately the technology of a civilization is not directly dependent upon the intelligence per capita. That said a society with high technology but low technology per capita is likely to suffer from internal strife. An example might be pre-soviet Afghanistan. Those in the cities were significantly better educated than those in the rest of the country. When those people began to influence the politics of their country they faced resistance from those who lived under different life circumstances.

One thing to understand is how pathetic Earths atmosphere truly is. The RSS mod gives you a pretty good sense of how low the altitude cutoff for jet engines is. It is also in a really bad place. Even if you get your speed up to a decent amount at the cutoff altitude your angle will be so shallow that most of the gains will be eaten up by atmospheric drag as you try and push yourself into orbit. There appears to be no good option when it comes to angle and velocity for spaceplanes.

Based on their cost versus performance as well as their good showing during CRS-1. Also there are political currents in the US pushing for a new competitor in the space industry. SpaceX has revived american commercial spaceflight and many politicians wish to be associated with that. Finally. Aerospace is conservative. SpaceX has been partially accepted into the "in" club.

Everyone knows SpaceX will get one of the spots. Most people here have concluded that the competition will be between Boeing and Orb. The winner will be whoever has the nicest price point (as I believe that was the main issue with Orb in the last contract.) So the question is whether Boeing's new design can out-compete Orbitals.

This is a two part question. 1. Is Skylon physically possible. Yes. Space planes are not, strictly speaking, over difficult to design. (the issue is are they worth it.) 2. Will Skylon get the support it needs to function. ummmm...... not sure.

Internet memes. They can have over 9000 internet memes.

Has SpaceX won the contract yet?

There may be a little more to it. Perhaps people simply trust ballistics more then pilots? after all who wants to see space jockeys joy riding over Nevada at mach 8!

I love how the sovereignty of Canada is being sidelined for a discussion of internal american politics. I expect you to do that with Latin american countries, not your biggest trading partner. As for Canada's stance on this, we like our environment, an environment built around thousands of small freshwater lakes. If Americans want to live in a desert then they can live with the consequences. If you wish to buy or water we will sell you what we think is fair. If that means that your quality of life drops because we "charge to much" then that is your problem. As for charity, that argument is bull. You don't hand over half your paycheck to third world countries to improve their quality of life. You give what you want. That is always less then what would be necessary to make things fair. people still starve to death while our two nations burn wheat in the field to keep prices up. The United States of America subsidizes corn production despite what that has done to Latin american farmers. We do not accept a decreased standard of living to achieve what is "fair" and the comment-- On one hand, "we like our water" is unreasonable. Canada has multiple orders of magnitude more water than its population needs. Most of it is frozen, but that's easy to address. It's like saying "As an American, I'm against donating to poor African countries because we like our money." is a biased point. We like our water IS reasonable because its OUR water. You see something that you feel you need. You don't own it, so your desire is to take it. That makes you a thief at best and, given that we won't let you plow over half of Canada for a canal, war criminals (murderers) at worst. The real question should be. How many american lives would you be willing to sacrifice in a war to take that water? Of course all of this is hypothetical. No one with half a brain is seriously considering this, or a similar project. But I want to point out that it is unfair to treat Canada's water as a tool for Americans to make use of. especially given that no one hear is considering Canada's stance on the issue.

NASA apparently didn't want a metal cylinder filled with radioactive death near their astronauts. Also the damn thing only produced 100W. It was never really used for electricity in the Book, mostly just for Heat.

Still it was a really cool spacecraft

Agreed. Were not Mark Whatney, we don't need duct tape (but it's magic and should be worshipped!)

Guys we have to stop this. It is off topic and the mods will eventually shut it down. I have already sent a pm but honestly we should get back to the satellite. crazyewok thank you but he is right about me not researching my criticism. You are also right about my lack of sympathies to a dictatorship. Issue concluded.

Which still puts them behind the curve. And I will continue to criticize a regime that cannot feed its people and that heaps tremendous praise upon a single autocrat.

It didn't take the United States 500 years to succeed. But Global Empires involved more then just the United States. Britain's Empire gave it the strength in the long run to fight Germany to a stand-still in the first world war and the resources to last the second. Talking about the failures of colonialism is more difficult then this thread suggests. Just as you could point out the collapse of the Spanish Empire in the early 19th century, I could point out military occupation by Napoleon. Just as you talk about the Decline of the British Empire I could point out two world wars crippling said Empire. Just as you Have pointed out American independence I WILL point out French Dutch and Spanish interference in that independence. And we could come to the conclusion that Empires fail under external pressure, and at the same time those empires help resist that pressure. So perhaps empires are doomed to fail. But perhaps those empires are merely more fragile then the Imperial state itself. Either way this situation requires more exploration.

North Korea has not been able to keep pace with the rest of the world. In particular they lack modern microprocessor and materials technologies. They have alienated themselves from everyone (including China) and can not produce enough food to feed their civilization. Internal descent is more frequent then it at first appears as many people are forced to operate black market business rather openly simply to survive. The country is not catching up. Not keeping pace. but falling behind. While I do not doubt that they will eventually launch a successful satellite, and that they have managed to invent nuclear weapons, these achievements are not considered modern. Nuclear weapons have been around since 1945 and North Korea tested theirs in 2006. Orbit capable rockets... 1957. DPRK.. pending (maybe 2016). This indicates that North Korea is about 60 years behind. I do not criticize North Korea for having propaganda. I criticism them for having BAD propaganda. Then again it wasn't made for me. It was made for the citizens of the DPRK.

full of tons and tons of chlorine.... I still think carpet nuking Earth is our best defense plan. What would be a good name for it though?