A death ray on the moon is not subject to atmospheric conditions, which is why the Hubble telescope is in space and not on land. I don't know if the sum of all benifits and flaws makes it a better place for your death ray, just that there are actually some real benifits in the physics of shooting a death ray from the Moon as opposed to from on the Earth.
Neither is one orbiting the earth, which is why the Hubble telescope is in space and not on land. Although I would say at this point we have many, many, many ways to kill each other and destroy things on our planet, atmospheric effects notwithstanding, to the point where this is a low priority, somewhere behind creating Robocop and ED-209. Are you jumping on the Lunar Death Ray wagon too? Feasibilty study?
So you are claiming that a telescope on the moon would have optical disadvantages to one in orbit, or is this just obfuscation?
No I am claiming that a space laser would have no optical disadvantages to one on the moon 93 million miles away. That was pretty clear - are you obfuscating? Or is that just a word you use when confronted with analogy that you don't want to understand or believe?
No the "one" in the clause "Neither is one" referred to the generic Death Ray/space laser. The conjunction "neither" referred to the fact that a death ray (in this case, one "orbiting the earth") is, like your Lunar Death Ray, "not subject to atmospheric conditions" - just like the Hubble Space Telescope example you described. Anyway I'm not sure if you are being denser than our future asteroid nickel mines on purpose or not. Regardless, since i took the time to explain that to you, I'd like you to explain something to me. I'm more than a little miffed that you never responded to my proposition - on a cost benefit basis - does Lunar Death Ray come BEFORE ED-209 on the priority list or not? Remember, the initial ED-209 was just a prototype. It certainly had trouble with stairways, but AI has advanced considerably since then. And it was good - very good, at elminating adversaries.
Sam, what in the hell are you babbling about? You're attempting to parse whatever you're talking about to death. We get it. You don't care about manned space flight and a permanent manned presence in space in the forseeable future. Some liberals do. Some moderates do. Some conservatives do. Live with it. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots.
Wow. You showed me with your sarcasm and ridicule, SamFisher. Such wit is truly biting. And who would have expected such a novel technique from you? Because deciding to drop all pretense and bail out with something like this on page four or five of a thread is so out of character for you. You sure are cool. I hope I can be smart and cool like you one day.
Well obviously sicne you went back and erased your earlier post, you understood that it made no sense. Therefore when I read it I assumed you were just f-king with me to be a jackass. Anyway, it does go to a larger point. I'm sure there are many wonderful things we can say about a lunar death ray - and a in a world with unlimited resources it would be cool to have - just like having an array of ED-209's would really help reduce crime. However, in a world with finite resources and a seemingly infinite number of intractable issues - to make the argument, right here today, that lunar death rays should figure prominently (or even minorly) into our calculus with how to allocate resources does not resonate. Anyway, I'm glad that you've proved yourself to be thoroughly above the fray with this thread, and truly beyond a 6 hour internet pissing match ("Bluster and retreat" ). It's commendable. PS are you still smoldering from some internet wound? I sense your reference to "bail out and retreat" is to something recent, is this from that second amendment silliness? Please highlight the issue for me and I will try to address your concern - Need to repair my BBS pride - while you may be above the fray, I, sadly, am not.
the guy said he didn't understand the sentence, i tried to explain it to him. He raked me over the coals earlier when i said "man have times changed" instead of saying "man, have times changed!" so I didn't know what to do other than explain it to him.
Did I miss a joke earlier in the thread? ______ If you are interested in unmanned spaceflight I suggest this forum UMSF -- one of my favorites. This is all very silly -- there is plenty of money for us to go to the moon, mars, and continue our little jaunts into low earth orbit. Obama is just trying to score some talking points.
Well... I'm not sure if you realize this but you were on the other side of that pissing match. I have enough sense to realize that I am pretty much a looser with no life and too much free time. How 'bout you? I apologize if my 'bluster and retreat' comment offended. It was my belief at the time that that you were throwing epithets in order to change the subject. If that estimation was wrong, I further apologize. As your ridicule/bail out method, I've seen you use it with basso at least twice, a few times with New Yorker, and probably once or twice on other occasions. It has nothing to do with any interaction with me in the past. It just seems to be a preferred method of disengagement while getting in a last jab at the same time.
You're damned right, after you realize you've had the same argument with the same people about 37 million times for 12 hours then there's no choice but to bluster and retreat. That is how the internet is won.
Giant lasers didn't exist in 1969 but missiles did. Anyone the answer for why we didn't shoot down Yuri Gagarin or the Soviets Apollo 11 has very little to do with technology.
You're right - it was a unique event that happened in a very specific time and place in a world that wasn't as complicated, at least not in the same ways - which is why I think that the response would not necessarily be similar.
That is part of the answer but the answer we were looking for is if we shot down Yuri Gagarin or the Soviets shot down Apollo 11 that would've precipitated nuclear war. Given that the PRC is also a nuclear power, and also a big trading partner, we will not shoot down a Chinese lunar mission. We will do like we did in the '50's and '60's and have another space race to be the first country to send a man/woman to Mars. Also for that matter no space laser or space missile would've been needed for us or the Soviets to militarily prevent the others space program. The whole new where Cape Kennedy is and we knew where the Baikanour was. A long range bombing mission with B-52's or the Soviet equivalent would've done the job. But then again we get into the whole nuclear war thing.
I've skimmed through this thread and most of this seems overreacting and ridiculous. Lunar death rays, shooting down other countries space missions? Obama isn't advocating doing away with manned spaceflight but scaling it back. While yes this will put a serious dent in NASA its very unlikely an Obama Admin. would backout of maintianing the ISS. Even without the US government's involvement the Russians and Chinese will continue to fly, Europe and even India might get into space flight and private space flight will advance. There might not be an American Moon base in 10 years but there likely will be one eventually.
This is an issue I feel very strongly about. Like I said earlier, I would like to know more about what his plans are for NASA and the manned space flight program, but if this is his intent, then I will oppose him in the primaries. I'm sure that'll have him quaking in his boots! D&D. Attempt Push-ups! Impeach Bush for being a Chump.
and i think the fact that some liberals would use this not to vote for obama, as you said you wouldn't, is the reason democrats have a hard enough time getting elected. this is a fringe issue regardless of what side you happen to agree with.
