Seems confused mental wandering to me.
|
|
|
"...Almost nothing in SpaceX is original..." " Rapid Unintentional Disassembly" is a tradition (baptism of fire?) of all agencies and companies that have embarked in this business known as "rocket science". NASA and the Soviets had a long series of catastrophic failures, and even the meticulous europeans once uploaded the wrong software to a rocket that was perfectly fine (Arianne 4 parameters into Arianne 5, IIRC); and everyone learns from those mistakes. Even Von Braun with the Nazis had a lot of failures with the V2, there was this hilarious comment of a general about its usefulness as a short range artillery weapon (when failing and blowing spectacularly at/near the launch site. But then, after so many failures they did it:
With a historic landing, SpaceX launches new age of spaceflightAnd this is their merit, one of many, and I expect them to keep delivering and return us to an age were we can dream again. It is nice that brilliant people planned and hoped to realize this within NASA or other State agencies, but what is the value if it remains buried behind eternal bureaucracy and budget cuts? Yes, Orion could have performed this decades ago, but they didn't do it. In fact there is a lot of trouble just to send anything "nuclear", even a small passive generator for deep space missions, let alone using directly the energy from controlled nuclear blasts. At least these people are opening a path, and i hope they can make it sustainable. I'm sure if an idea doesn't seem feasible, they will change it to one that could. From my fuzzy memory i think Elon was once asked about the ferry loop idea, IIRC he said something along the lines of: "that is not ruled out". I might be mistaken, but if it makes more sense from their point of view, they will reach to it one way or another, just like you see them using concepts and ideas others proposed decades ago. Be careful, there are two things named Orion. First is the conceptual nuclear rocket, which was never built. Second is the current generation Orion deep space vehicle. This thing is a genuine class act and very impressive. (SIDE NOTE: Trump was pushing NASA to send 2 men on a cis lunar orbit in 2019, but NASA said they need more time, and that 2020 was possible. I have to laugh....let the democrats try to beat Trump as he takes us "Back to the Moon" right in the election cycle...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) What I was trying to impress is a very simple fact, that math and physics RULES, not what Musk says. With an understanding of some not-difficult level it's rather easy to think these things out. As for nuclear, nuclear power is used routinely in spacecraft, "nuclear batteries." Apollo left polonium generators on the surface powering instrumentation, the Russians used plutonium batteries (and we do also). You would not have robotic spacecraft going to Saturn or Pluto without these. Nuclear power plants such as NIRVA are totally practical for long distance travel such as to Mars and beyond. Again, physics rules. Mission profile is compared to possible power methods, then one is picked. just like you see them using concepts and ideas others proposed decades ago.More correctly, math and physics of spaceflight have not changed.
|
|
|
.....Versed SJW's do not diagnose solutions to oppression, but listen to activists from oppressed group's and then use their voice of privilege as a megaphone for the voices of the oppressed. You are correct in calling the "we know better" attitude bigoted but you are incorrect in accusing me of doing that. My feminism comes from women, my positions on trans, comes from the trans movement itself, and so on......]
What you display is outright racism and bigotry. Where it comes from is not exactly "listening to activists from oppressed groups..." but more just listening to other SJW, which results in nothing more than a big circle jerk. What you don't understand is that others, such as I, hear the non-oppressed voices from the minorities, from the women, from the trans.
|
|
|
..... Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).
Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.
Personally I'm indebted to Chomsky, for giving me more understanding of liberal progressive philosophy than 999 of 1000 liberals have. This kind of understanding is only possible by reading the key documents, and understanding them. Listening to and/or believing or parroting the current popular politicians simply does not do it. Absolutely. He is a smart man, but his purpose ultimately is to sell a lie, and he even so much as admits it. When I read his work I was a true believer. OFC this was in the context of George Bush Jr., which I still stand by him being net negative and a tool of his father (as other POTUSs were). Luckily I had a strong background in psychology and philosophy so I started to see the contradictions and cognitive tricks played to sell these ideas. Along with a little more life experience, and a rapidly shifting Overton Window, suddenly my once liberal ideologies are now "far right" to some people. As you state though, that is one of the primary weaknesses of the left. They like to pretend to know about you and your ideas, but they hardly know their own. If you don't cultivate your mind, other people will, and it will not be for your own good. Collectivists love it though... for a while... Tucker Carlson vs Chomsky in a debate, Chomsky would lose.
|
|
|
..... Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).
Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.
Personally I'm indebted to Chomsky, for giving me more understanding of liberal progressive philosophy than 999 of 1000 liberals have. This kind of understanding is only possible by reading the key documents, and understanding them. Listening to and/or believing or parroting the current popular politicians simply does not do it.
|
|
|
Now, I dont trust that donal trump is a president of america. He is just a businessman, not a politic......
A majority of voting Americans saw that as the solution, not the problem... So far it looks like we were right... My test of whether he is good is very simple. Can he solve the problem of North Korea.
|
|
|
.....
But the fact is that he's the first one completely out of control xD
There is really a huge "I don't give a fuck" coming from him. That makes him different from all the previous POTUS.
Well, you may have a point there. "Out of control," as opposed to "Yes, we career Washington people can control him." I know which I'll pick.
|
|
|
I think it's a great campaign and great message After a fair percentage of the male population is intimidated and pussified by this kind of bombardment, do all the women of the country get divided up by the remaining small group of manly men? Already happening. See The Pareto Principle. Monogamy and the family now effectively destroyed, 80% of the woman now chase after the top 20% of men. This is confirmed by dating site scrapes as well as numerous other studies of nature. This of course leave the other 80% of men without the primary motivations men have to build societies, like a family. This is why there is an epidemic of men happy earning just enough to survive and play some video games, and a bunch of women demanding government be their sugar daddy and make those men provide for them by force via taxation. In summary women want all of the benefits with none of the costs or responsibilities. I was joking, and you point out the harsh reality. Those thoughtless fools that parrot these concepts, the Useful Idiots, are used by truly evil people and organizations, with no thought of the future consequences. Hence it's a good idea to point it out every now and then.
|
|
|
Anything one wants to ask about traveling to Mars could be asked to a number of people who have studied the problem intently for decades, which Musk has not. That's why he's capable of making simple errors such as those we discussed. There are many truly brilliant people holed up in NASA and universities; you have never heard their names and likely never will. Radiation protection is best handled by shortening the trip; that is accomplished by ion engines, which can reduce a 8 month trip to 40 days. Using such an engine, acceleration is low, like 1/1000 of a G. Acceleration force on the airframe such as you mentioned, capable of going to space from earth and capable of descending to Mars, is perhaps 6G. That is a difference of 6000 and you can directly note a difference of 6000 in the weight of structural support in the spacecraft. For a ship headed to Mars, that 5999/6000 savings in structure translates directly to more payload, humans, supplies, etc. This is the primary reason we separate a "spacecraft" from a "launch vehicle." Dead weight and fractions of dead weight to useful payload. Such ion engines require electrical power, most likely nuclear. A good reference book, available free online is Dr. Robert Zubrin "The Case For Mars." http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/%7Emeech/a281/handouts/mars_case.pdf
|
|
|
....I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit ...
Really? Is that your opinion of Smith's analysis of the way a culture valued the "jack of all trades" held that society back, as opposed to industrial and trade specialization? (reference first 20pp). Or alternately, maybe you haven't read it. Or perhaps you got choice-fed morsels from socialists... Well reading you it would seem I indeed haven't read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations... I have no idea what you're talking about, but maybe it's due to translation? I have to confess I never read Smith in English as his work is famous enough to get fully translated. I don't understand the expression "jack of all trades". "Jack of all trades" is pretty archaic in English today. It refers to a sort of "handyman," but in pre-industrial ages. https://ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdfpp.8 on to 15-20 explains it very well. Smith pretty much (and correctly) defines the development of "Industrialization" as the development of work specialization to the task level. On example he uses is a general iron smith might make 200-300 nails a day, but a smith that did nothing but nails would do 800-1000, and often 2000-2500. It's simply not possible to characterize such ideas as bullshit.
|
|
|
I think it's a great campaign and great message After a fair percentage of the male population is intimidated and pussified by this kind of bombardment, do all the women of the country get divided up by the remaining small group of manly men?
|
|
|
Where exactly did my statements contradict?
Its not low expectations to acknowledge who has the power in society and who doesn't. I didn't make it that way. I'm just diagnosing reality. These groups aren't naturally weak but their current position in society is weak because of historical oppression by white men....
Racist.
|
|
|
Note that I referenced THINGS THAT EXIST. The Orion exists and is a deep space capable vehicle.
If you want to extend the subject to conceptual plans, would you like to see a hundred? Of which you have shown one, right?
There is a lot wrong with this particular scheme that you linked to. It may interest you that for the US Apollo program, a similar "single big rocket lander and return vehicle" concept was considered, and abandoned, in favor of the Saturn stages, command module and lunar excursion module.
Mathematics and physics dictated that decision. The original research paper comparing and contrasting the two approaches is available from the NASA archives; but one may also calculate directly.
Spacecraft are optimized to transit in space. They can use propulsion systems that won't work to land on planets or take off, but which are very practical for missions like 8 months to mars. (VASIMR, ion propulsion).
Landers, re entry vehicles and launch vehicles are all optimized for specific mission profiles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for going into space and staying there. But there's either a practical business model or there's not, and more of the same-old-same-old grubbing for government dollars is not going to make this all happen. Nay-sayers shut down the Apollo program early, in the Clinton years NASA was given a choice: The space station or the shuttle. In that case there is nothing to do but wait until they deliver. Do you think SpaceX doesn't know about the advantages / disadvantages of staging? I see them using stages in their current rockets, up to the falcon heavy... On the other hand, how many years have passed since the Apollo program? You'd think some advances have been made in all these years. They want to reuse parts, yet they can't recover the second stage in their current rockets. Perhaps keeping it all together allows them to achieve that goal? In my opinion, they are going to waste more fuel by not using stages, but don't forget they don't plan to go straight away, they plan to refuel in orbit so the fuel they need is only to reach orbit, not Mars. The more efficient engines for vacuum/light atmosphere are already attached to the spacecraft. Once (if) these concepts become reality, we can see if they were wrong or not. At the very least, they have been delivering results so far. FYI, the debate over "keeping it all together" started WITH the Apollo program, and physics/math defeated it. But the concepts continued, and found advocates during the 1980s. In the 1990s BMDO created the Delta Clipper test vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2sHf-udJI8That used four RL10 h2/o2 engines as a proof of concept. That's where these ideas come from, they do not originate with SpaceX. With Mars mission profiles though, I can guarantee you that the concept drawing you showed me is not feasible and the opposite of optimum. Let's just say it's ridiculous. Elon Musk is not going to open up Mars to humanity with bad ideas. But who knows, maybe someone will talk some sense into him. I am curious, though. Why would you not see the merit in a true spacecraft, something that could loop continually between Mars and Earth? It could have artificial gravity, use ion propulsion, be extremely lightweight as it would never be stressed by gravitational fields, and in every way be optimized for deep space extended travel. As an example of this, consider that you could attach a suitable propulsion unit, and send the ISS to mars and back. Then you would have ferry style transports at each planet.
|
|
|
....I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit ...
Really? Is that your opinion of Smith's analysis of the way a culture valued the "jack of all trades" held that society back, as opposed to industrial and trade specialization? (reference first 20pp). Or alternately, maybe you haven't read it. Or perhaps you got choice-fed morsels from socialists...
|
|
|
"I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions: -Shoot anyone trying to pass -Accept everyone trying to pass"
Hmmm looks different than "inefficient" to me. Looks exactly like that false choice fallacy I mentioned where you claim it either works or it doesn't.
If you had come to the adult table as an adult we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. Snowflake, that's... original. You ALMOST had a thought of your own for a moment there. It almost made sense too! You were so close! Keep trying.
That was a summary of a previous post. Hence less complete because an answer to someone who was supposed to have read the whole thought. The important part of the reasonning is that I say the two extremes solutions should be most considered because most efficient. Again read my whole posts don't just cherry pick what you need for your argument. Can't say any better: read. If you can't, learn to. Oh, good thing I have you to tell me what the IMPORTANT part of the reasoning is. I don't know if I could have figured that out without you dictating to me which logic is a valid consideration or not. Read, that's... funny, coming from you. Let me know when you get done with Manufacturing Consent. Of course, it's necessary to have a Learned Scholar assist in interpreting the Chomsky model. Times have changed. For example, where Chomsky says this... "The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns." ...we replace (5)b. with "communism and socialism" as a national religion and control mechanism. When Chomsky wrote that paragraph, he was looking at a specific geo-political matrix and from his personal bias. I'm not certain that m0gliE understood this in the prior discussion, although it should be obvious. A "propaganda model" is an abstraction. It exists, but differs in various differing cultures. Saudi Arabia obviously has one differing from the current US model, or the classical Communist Russian model, or the current Russian model, etc, etc.
|
|
|
....
I might not be a citizen of the United States but I'm a 100% trump fan. Although I still prefer trump the businessman more than the politician. I just saw this tweet above and it got me laughing and thinking at the same time. Is trump the problem or are the US government/media confused I ask this question based on the fact that, if it was a more likable president that suggested the building of the wall he/she would had been supported massively but because it's trump everyone now against it. Just saying...
It's possible that they are hating Trump because they know he will actually do the job and get it done. Sure the others made their promises on border walls. But then they did nothing. That's okay with those in Washington DC (District of Criminals)
|
|
|
Here we are again, you want to be right but you don't want to do any of the work required to get there. Try "Manufacturing Consent", that is if you can manage to read a whole book without bursting into flames.
Could you fuck off please? Spendelus is saying "go read this guy" I'm asking "what would you advise me to read first as he has written a lot" How is that anything but being considerate towards his knowledge?? Or not doing the work? I should read everything he has written before openning my mouth? Shut the fuck up moron. You're pissing me off so much... Well, there's no need to be trading insults on Chomsky. We can simply agree he is the intellectual modern voice of socialist/communist thought and practice. Yet another one of those creatures that love to live with the benefits of the USA, while criticizing it non stop. You do find liberals don't know who or what Chomsky is. But so? Neither have they read Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. Liberals should learn the roots of their mistaken beliefs. But they should also pick up some Rush Limbaugh so as to be informed on ACTUAL modern conservative thought. Read Lenin, you'll immediately reject it as the most boring trash you ever picked up. Manufacturing Consent is okay for this subject which really is that of "manufacturing consent." Briefly Chomsky does not think things work "right" unless there is a ruling elite behind the scenes shaping and directing "progress." He considers the great mass of people "stupid." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rEIf I was back playing around in college it'd be great fun to do a class comparing and contrasting these two schools of thought. But that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TODAY, would it? And to understand why socialism has that totalitarian, narrow view, well you just have to go to the roots of that brain virus...
|
|
|
.... Yeah, MEN are unaccountable huh? I guess that's why men go to prison at a rate over 10x more than women, are about 80% of the homeless, and are falling behind in every stage of education. ....
Correct me if you have different experience but I don't recall guys being angry when the "Me-too" nonsense arose. After the slimeballs were unable to get Trump with it, they figured to find some other targets. I thought it was all rather hilarious actually. But what's that have to do with Gillette moralizing and lecturing the entire male population? Of course Gillette could produce an equal-annoying series of adds for women using a "Don't be bitches" theme, and lose sales from both sexes. Wait....you say that'd be SEXIST???
|
|
|
This thread is really just anger that males may have to actually be accountable for their actions and fear of a world where they can no longer behave with impunity. You could make a career out being wrong. I don't fear being accountable for my actions. I'm not .... Coins4 has confirmed, though, that you are under attack by those of his ilk. Secondly, he's parroted the lies which are used in the attack. There's no reason to argue with him. He'll continue to parrot those lies because to him it does not matter if they are true. He is only concerned with the destruction of the social order and what he sees as power structures.
|
|
|
As soon as manipulation works, and it does, then "democracy" does not mean "Power to the citizens."
That's an incredibly elitist and arrogant point of view. The people are too stupid to be able to govern themselves? That's the philosophical and practical basis of the US Democratic Party. Read the writings of Chomsky, as I suggested. It's all there. And yes, it's incredibly elitist and arrogant.
|
|
|
|