Jump to content

chrisg

Superherø
  • Content Count

    16,870
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Everything posted by chrisg

  1. chrisg

    i see dead people

    A very bad day for less recognisable by name but know the face actors, Ron Liebman has died or pneumonia complications at 82. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/ron-leibman-who-starred-in-friends-norma-rae-and-angels-in-america-has-died-aged-82/news-story/02195e97b78c746e6f94e9b1fd4c7885 Another great actor. RIP. Cheers
  2. chrisg

    i see dead people

    Had one of those faces that now has you saying "Oh yeah, who was that guy?" The movies need them, the lesser sung heroes. Cheers
  3. chrisg

    What a joke

    I kinda think you are flogging the dead horse Flip, if "history" prevails here he is about to go into "wall of quotes" mode aided and abetted by dubious stats he pulls out of his ass... Cheers
  4. chrisg

    Mindless ramblings

    Adelaide is just not trying yet this year - 23 degrees C at 5.15pm is not December Adelaide. Perth was apparently expecting close to 40 today, that's more like it Still, it's Australia we always seem to be heating or cooling our homes or moaning abut it.... Cheers
  5. chrisg

    i see dead people

    A very working actor who just never made the big break but has so many great supporting roles Robert Walker has died at 79: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7765463/Star-Trek-actor-Robert-Walker-Jr-dies-age-79.html Most would struggle to recall his name but he was so often in the supporting roles without which the stars would not have shone so bright, RIP. Cheers
  6. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Well, I was being careless, more water than we presently are certain of. The "atmosphere" is already predominantly CO2 anyway so there is carbon there but the sand is not simple silica, its a mix of whatever the volcanoes have brought to the surface but that will include carbon. Domes are pretty much a given I'd agree, it would be a very, very long time before there is enough ozone to cut down on the radiation and a magnetic field is a challenge... Nothing is insurmountable though, if the building blocks are there then it's a case of shuffling them around. Some people have suggested that we are not likely to find too many planets that are sitting in the Goldilocks zone anyway so most of our future probably does lie under domes, or in space. It's all a thought experiment. On balance I agree with you, and unfortunately with Bezos, we are better off in very large habitats and using the planets for material to build them but that does mean some of us will be spending time on the surfaces getting the materials. That is unless we get so smart with robotics that we can just send our machines but that particular possibility perturbs me rather. Men and women are explorers, we need to go there, not watch it on TV. Cheers
  7. chrisg

    What a joke

    Exactly - guess it went over your head... Cheers
  8. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Oh, using anything we have thought of doing thus far yeah, Mars would be a terrible candidate for any conventional "shake and bake" as in whack it with an asteroid or three and go away for a couple of millennia then see what you have. But how about thinking outside the box ? We strongly suspect that Mars has SOME water but no obvious life. Somewhere in the next few decades we will become adept enough at gene structuring to develop an algae tailored to an arid environment such as Mars that could for example live on sand and excrete CO2. Seed the planet with that - better make sure you have an antidote, and let it multiply. Once the CO2 levels are high enough introduce another bug that we had better have invented by then that ingests CO2 and excretes oxygen and you have the beginnings of a planet. It is still going to take several generations but not millennia. In today's world I utterly agree with you Cybes, for all his bullshit Bezos does have a better near-term goal than Musk, but Musk is the better visionary. Bio-engineering, provided you can turn off what you turn on, has much more promise than brute force for transforming an ecology. Cheers
  9. chrisg

    What a joke

    Careful Scruffy, you are asking questions... cheers
  10. chrisg

    Mindless ramblings

    Yeah J, just another December day in Darwin Cheers
  11. chrisg

    Mindless ramblings

    Heh, They must be getting soft in Darwin, although to be honest after two years living up there then coming back to Adelaide I bloody froze for a winter until I readjusted. Cheers
  12. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Hmm, That is true Cybes, both ways, exploiting the moon will almost certainly be a commercial endeavor. I'd tend to think a fairly simple accelerator on the surface to chuck some material into orbit and then build an elevator. Once done it becomes near zero cost to ship out material. the question then becomes what to do with it, I'm rather more in favor of habitats than cluttering up the earth but probably a bit of both. With radiation the same can be said of most anywhere in space that is outside the earth's atmosphere Datafast although Mars is not TOO bad it does have a bit of atmosphere. Very long term we will probably be looking at terraforming the place. I intend to be here for a looong time, but I doubt that long. In the very long term however I suggest it is inevitable that we overcome the hurdles and colonise the place. In a pragmatic sense you are right, the Cold war encouraged the "me first" attitude that took us to the moon, perhaps sooner than we would otherwise have gone there but I suspect that eventually we would have gone anyway, we are curious creatures. The question really is if we are in much of a hurry to go back, we already know enough about the place to know that it is not a great deal of use apart from for building material and the advantages of low gravity but I'm more interested in the lagrange points. It seems NASA are determined to go back though. I'd rather we did other things in space with the money then when we do go back it would be a simple thing, not some massive endeavor. It reminds me of going to the South Pole, the first few people who tried did not succeed then the next did - just. When we went back again in the 50s it was in style, we drove there Cheers
  13. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Right now, as Cybes says, it is impractical because of the material physics, the numbers do not add up. However we do not yet really know what we can do with manufacturing in hard vacuum and micro gravity, I've a feeling there will be revelations when we get serious about that, possibly graphene or similar. The concept has been around for quite a while and it is generally accepted that given material of a suitable tensile strength the rest is" just" engineering on a big scale. The trick is first establishing more than a foothold in space, which is what the ISS really is, we need to be living there, manufacturing in orbit, possibly at one of the Lagrange points. To do that we need something better than capsules. I wont link the Wiki article because they are on a "pop up and beg" drive again and I don't know about you but I've given more than enough, but it is apparent that the idea is very much alive. Only late last year the Japanese did an experiment in orbit of cable linking two cubesats, which is an early proof-of-concept for an elevator. Daring to dream big is what took us to space in the first place now we need to set up residence, an elevator is in the long run by far the most economical way to do that. It's worth noting that building one on Mars would be much simpler, then we could really go colonising Cheers
  14. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Hmm, It depends how you burn it Cybes. The shuttle was not QUITE an SSTO, it needed dual solid fuel boosters and a big tank both of which compromised it but it took some very big loads to orbit, with basically late 60s/early 70s tech - we've been going backwards. For some reason we have, almost, abandoned mixed fuel dual stage to orbit initiatives but it actually makes very good sense, use jets to get to altitude then let rockets take over - that is what Virgin Galactic and the Stratolaunch is all about. It does not have the glamor of a big rocket launching into the heavens but who cares so long as we get there ? Long term I want beanstalks but the catch 22 is you have to go up there and get the material to build one, from orbit to earth - I really do not care how we achieve that so long as we do but it is not going to come about with capsules. Cheers
  15. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Me either. Cheers
  16. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Dunno, the Shuttle was probably a bridge too far but by now we really ought to be able to do Single Stage to Orbit repeatedly - I guess the privateers have to re-climb the ladder - the way they are going it probably will not take long Cheers
  17. No, it doesn't but they do tend to be much more lacking in guile. Cheers
  18. chrisg

    What's on your mind?

    Way to go SpaceX !! https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/spacex-to-attempt-cargo-launch-upper-stage-experiment-for-second-time/ Incredible really, in a short space of time they have begun to eclipse the Atlas, which no one ever regarded as a reliable or safe booster in the first place. it took a John Glenn to have the balls, or stupidity, to ride that rocket. SpaceX does it whilst keeping the booster for another shot. I still think I'd prefer a next Gen Shuttle but this is fine for now. Cheers
  19. chrisg

    What a joke

    Like I said you argue like Trump - but to play along, just where is the HIV/AIDS link ? It has never been demonstrated. Cheers Actually I was up most of the night working on a most bemusing network trace, so I am due for a nap
  20. chrisg

    What a joke

    You always know when those who are losing the argument have had enough - they start asking questions... Cheers
  21. Yeah real, he demonstrably is not. Cheers
  22. ...He's a cop,... they can think differently including stupidly. I agree, wombats are delightful, so far as I know harmless creatures, that do not need this idiot preying on them - I'd love to know what real aboriginals have to say about the case. Cheers
  23. chrisg

    What a joke

    I agree with what Datafast has said, completely. Both NATO and the EU are well crafted institutions that do what they do very well, NATO has in many ways a simpler task, which is just as well because military minds tend to the pragmatic. The EU is, I'm getting tired of saying it, an organisation overdue to be trimmed but it had a complex task to do, one that has thus far, aside from the ridiculous intervention of Brexit, been achieved fairly well. It is not that the EU has to handle trade, it is that placing that responsibility in the hands of a military is way beyond foolhardy - it is not what a military is designed to do. It is also why history has shown the wisdom of keeping such decision making away from the military. Otherwise you tend to get over ambitious Generals and coups. Your simplification of centuries of European intrigue is breathtaking, in its stupidity, how very Russian of you. The way you are framing this makes me wonder if you do not have wet dreams of being the next Hitler... ( Sneaky suggestion: It did not go well for him.) Europe remains a very complex beast, simplistic solutions will not resolve the entanglements, not when Spain cannot decide if it wants a monarchy or not, is still dealing with Basque insurrection and was once a rival to Britain as lord of the sea, Italy still fosters a degree of fascism, Germany can quite easily tip right without a firm hand, France can get snooty any time, take its ball and go home, England demonstrably has lost the plot, the Scandinavians wish they were far away, the list goes on, those are just the main players. You approach is stupidly simplistic and seems born of some bewildering hatred of the EU. I'll say it one more time, the EU promises an enduring peace for Europe - that is worth putting up with its short comings. Oh, which countries might those be Eveln ? Cheers
  24. chrisg

    Post Your Latest Real Life Purchase!

    Ozito is a moving target, it was crap, it keeps getting better. Long way to go to match Ryobi for example but with a drill especially the typical home use is so limited you might as well go with Ozito. Cheers
  25. chrisg

    What a joke

    Heh, The Turkish S400 buy is a military choice that is causing some significant rumbles within NATO being it is one of the few missiles that might have a chance at knocking down an F-35 and Turkey is a signed up member of the F-35 consortium. That is not a political involvement it is a military discussion. Turkey sits in a position straddling Europe and Asia and overlooks the Black sea including Crimea which Russia has taken back from Ukraine. As such it would be rather uncomfortable for NATO to have Turkey cosying up to Russia which is exactly what it is doing with the potential that they may leave the -35 programme and buy Russian aircraft as well. That leaves their standing in NATO rather moot but it is again a military situation, not political at all. NATO has to decide if it can trust Turkey or not but there is as you say the matter of Greece and the long simmering animosity between the two nations to take into account. Again, a potential military situation, and one that is keeping people awake at SHAPE. NATO would doubtless like Erdogan to just go away. Similarly with Venezuela, the Russians are getting very friendly down there so NATO wants solidarity within its membership. These are military concerns, a long, long way from getting involved in trade talks which is way outside of NATO's remit. NATO has kept the peace, in terms of keeping first the USSR and now Russia from hostile acts against the European nations for a very long time. It has been involved in the Balkans, a very uncomfortable situation that was pretty much a proxy war and lately in Syria which is again a proxy situation. Pragmatically it did not want to be involved in either, even less so Syria but its hand was forced by your pal Putin. I'm of the opinion they should not have been involved there at all, Israel is much better positioned to deal with it, but I don't get a say. Brussels was I believe chosen as the site for NATO HQ both because it is very central in European terms and because Belgium is a pretty inoffensive member. It seems to have worked out very well. The same logic presumably applied to the location for EU HQ. You do realise of course that without the Alliance the USSR and now Russia would feel considerably more emboldened to provoke Europe ? That's why so many of the old Warsaw Pact countries have joined, to come under the umbrella of Article Five, which ties Putin's hands rather well and possibly explains his courting of Turkey to attempt to destabilise the organisation. I needed to check the exact wording of the charter on non-hostility between members because there most certainly has been between Turkey and Greece as you note, on Cyprus in particular. That is however about the only inter-state animosity that exists. Many within SHAPE would be perfectly happy to kick Turkey out but as you have said that is complicated. Regardless NATO is about defending Europe and supporting its members, it is not about Trade discussions. I have not had much of anything to do with the organisation since I got out of uniform but it has certainly lived up to its Charter better than most ever really expected. I don't often agree with much that Trump says or does but I did agree with him that the member states needed to pull more of their own weight - I did not agree with him on raising the contributions to 4% of GDP, that is not sustainable by any member. I do not think however that the moron ever understood how the 2% is arrived at, it is not simply a case of cash. Taking the UK for example it has always, in real terms, been above the 2% with its commitments to BAOR and RAF Germany plus its contribution to SHAPE and the backing it provides through all of its armed forces, not least the Royal Navy as one of three nuclear member states in the Alliance. However, NATO is, to repeat, not about trade, or borders, it is about defense, the EU is the body that deals with those. Supra national it may be but it is in my opinion a vital part of Europe going forward that has by and large put an end to inter country machinations that have been the under-current of Europe for centuries. You may not like it but it is far better than the fragmented alternative. Cheers
×