some kind of SIRI to defend NATO?
How much trust can we put in the black boxes the US put in our F-35s?
The US can be sure they are only listening to manual input, we never can.
I can't really think of a reason why corporations would go there. On the other hand, people are talking about mining in space already so maybe some rich people are willing to try and invest in that.
If the moon turns out to have a lot ov He3 then corporations might be falling over themselves to get there.
(I wonder if that Chinese probe is sneakily testing for He3)
How much trust can we put in the black boxes the US put in our F-35s?
The US can be sure they are only listening to manual input, we never can.
It's all just evolution - improving the breed. Drones will control the sky, robots will handle the ground warfare. People won't need to be involved. We'll just move the borders after one side declares victory.
It's all just evolution - improving the breed. Drones will control the sky, robots will handle the ground warfare. People won't need to be involved. We'll just move the borders after one side declares victory.Unless, of course, you consider the humans killed by those drones and robots as people.
Veritas Vacuo, your stupidity and trolling is becoming highly annoying. Why don't you go back to your darkened basement before you soil yourself in fear? Feel free to cuss out those darned scientists who research stuff you don't like, instead of spending their efforts in maximizing the comfort of your nest like they should.
The deuterium-helium three fusion reaction (D + 3He → 4He + p + 18.35 MeV) is relatively easy to achieve, but limited by the availability of 3He. It is not as easy to achieve as deuterium-tritium fusion (2H + 3H → 4He + n + 17.58 MeV), but there is much less neutron radiation (about a quarter compared to deuterium-tritium fusion at the same energy output; and that due to unavoidable deuterium-deuterium fusion, 2H + 2H → 3He + n + 3.27 MeV, in the conditions where deuterium-helium three fusion occurs).
Deuterium is relatively abundant in the oceans, and isn't expensive to extract. 3He is rare. It is estimated that you need about 20g of 3He per gigawatt-hour of energy produced, in a practical fusion reactor.
The main problem currently is the fragility of our current materials in such a high-energy environment. High-energy charged particles (electrons, protons) escaping from confinement and impacting the container walls is a real practical problem: stainless steel, for example, becomes horribly brittle very fast. Neutrons are even harder to handle, because they cannot be contained by magnetic fields; and good neutron absorbers we have erode too fast by those high-energy charged particles.
Completely sealed miniature fission reactors (say, the size of a shipping container) are trivial in comparison.
how is the f111 bad? what else would have been able to be used in the same way as the F111? You can argue the strategy it was developed around was bad but it managed to destroy iraq and also scare the soviets with nuclear weapons. who says there is another solution that would do both things? that plane is extremely scary.
what are you gonna do fly a bunch of f15's into the middle of russia with bombs? is that even a credible threat?
LOL
To do what, exactly, you space cadet? Slightly lighter party balloons?
You guys with your religious talking points are hysterical. He3! Asteroid mining! Space based solar power! Colonies! The Species!
It reminds me of high school. Very funny stuff. Keep it up!
pew pew pew!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram
For $30 billion, with a larger power generation capacity, the loop would be capable of launching 6 million metric tons per year, and given a five-year payback period, the costs for accessing space with a launch loop could be as low as $3/kg.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTramhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
how is the f111 bad? what else would have been able to be used in the same way as the F111? You can argue the strategy it was developed around was bad but it managed to destroy iraq and also scare the soviets with nuclear weapons. who says there is another solution that would do both things? that plane is extremely scary.
what are you gonna do fly a bunch of f15's into the middle of russia with bombs? is that even a credible threat?
The program itself, McNamara's insistence on a single plane for both Navy and Air Force (only 1 F111B ever landed on a carrier), those kinds of things.
The plane worked, the electronics worked, there was some question about the wing pivot joint. At one time I worked overhead in the shaker facility where they were testing that joint.
There are varying opinions, all related to the program and the single plane concept. The Navy was never going to accept a bomber for a fighter role.
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/13_sep2018-cancelled-f111b-1-180969916/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTramhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loopI'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:
I'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTramhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loopI'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:Nice perpetual motion machine they have there! Are they actually serious?
I would expect that any tidal effects in a 40,000km long ring would rip it all apart. It would also be inherently unstable - any slight deviation from perfect will cause thing to do downhill very quickly.
How do people get the money and time to propose such things?
I'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:Careful, you'll give in Vacuo a heart attack.
I'm just guessing here but I would suspect that military related projects likely have a very high profit margin compared to civil projects, also whatever (international!) procurement rules that already apply to them seem likely much more likely to be restricted to a nations own firms, or those of a close ally, so the bidding likely is not as competitive.
Perhaps we rarely see infrastructure projects that need to be done getting done for that reason, as of around two or three years ago some of them must be put up for tender out all over the world so the tax money likely no longer creates jobs locally. (Unless the firms are managing it and they subcontract out the actual work)
The same applies to a bunch of other areas. As this is the least complicated, simplest, most easily verified answer its likely the reason.
I'm just guessing here but I would suspect that military related projects likely have a very high profit margin compared to civil projects, also whatever (international!) procurement rules that already apply to them seem likely much more likely to be restricted to a nations own firms, or those of a close ally, so the bidding likely is not as competitive.
Perhaps we rarely see infrastructure projects that need to be done getting done for that reason, as of around two or three years ago some of them must be put up for tender out all over the world so the tax money likely no longer creates jobs locally. (Unless the firms are managing it and they subcontract out the actual work)
The same applies to a bunch of other areas. As this is the least complicated, simplest, most easily verified answer its likely the reason.
While you are guessing about the profitability of military you might want to ask yourself where the military companies stand on the wealth/profits list. Hint, it isn't at the top, which is occupied by commercial companies and banks. Then, since as is widely pointed out the US is the largest arms builder in the world, look at US law on the subject. There are laws limiting maximum profit on various kinds of contracts. Limits range from 12% up to around 40%. The high end for those defense contracts is about the bottom end of what commercial companies want.