Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 Tacos4Brkfst
Male, 18-29, Western US
 562 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:23:29 AM
You can blame the fact we dont have people living on mars right now on people that are against this research. |
|
 Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:12:42 PM
Load it up with a telephone pole, and spear of God their asses!
YEESSSS!
As you may have guessed from previous posts of mine... I LOVE the Rods from God idea, lol. |
|
Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:08:00 PM
lol @ madest, he can't come up with an argument because he's a retarded partisan who just got actual facts thrown at him. |
|
 auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8683 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:21:30 PM
@barber:
Let'em bitch.
If it doesn't cause fallout, then they can suck my ass. Load it up with a telephone pole, and spear of God their asses! |
|
 barberthe
Male, 18-29, Southern US
103 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:57:16 PM
If they make a railgun powerful enough to be substitute to nukes, I have no doubt that it would end up classified as a WMD. Hence, it will probably end up being banned. Also, since the railgun isn't quite a "conventional" weapon, it currently falls into a gray area. Odds are since we're the only country with a decently functional prototype, everyone else will bitch until it gets banned from such uses. |
|
Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:46:26 AM
Actually, that part has yet to be signed by ANY country, so as it stands, only nuclear weapons and WMD's are prevented.
Continuing on this, it's called the Space Preservation Treaty, as an extension to the Outer Space Treaty, and while some NGOs and individuals, particularly in Canada, have SUPPORTED it, no countries have actually SIGNED it. There's a MASSIVE difference, dumbass.
Besides, I highly doubt treaties like this will stand once we've actually reached the point of being a space-faring species. For a LOT of reasons. Peace on Earth and all that crap, but what happens if something else out there doesn't like Earth? |
|
Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:40:02 AM
What you and the moron before you don't seem to grasp is the only place that THIS PROTOTYPE could be mounted on is a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
You just contradicted your own point by saying that this is a PROTOTYPE. In other words, THEY'RE WORKING TO MAKE IT BETTER. In other words, it's only a small part of the process of research and advancement of the technology, which could and will eventually prove highly useful. In other words, it's not a waste of money, because eventually it will be making money.
You saw WMDs and nuclear but if continued reading you would have seen that the treaty was expanded upon to include all weapon systems
Actually, that part has yet to be signed by ANY country, so as it stands, only nuclear weapons and WMD's are prevented.
Lrn 2 check facts. |
|
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8683 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:37:37 AM
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). <b>However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit.</b> The treaty also states that the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries and shall be free for exploration and use by all States.
dratSTICK! |
|
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8683 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 8:40:04 AM
"AJ, as barberthe pointed out we have treaties that won't allow for space based weapon systems."
Conventional is allowed. Nuclear and WMD are not. |
|
 duffytoler
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
5220 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:43:14 AM
Doesn't need a nuclear reactor. Madest doesn't understand the difference between power and energy. |
|
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8683 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:28:17 AM
"In fact the only place this waste of tax dollars could ever be mounted is on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier"
Until they figure out how to make it smaller (which they will). Then it can be mounted on:
A satellite, A destroyer, A mobile armored vehicle, in a silo, etc....
It can be used for:
War, space exploration, delivering satellites into deep space, fast travel on Earth, etc. |
|
Tacos4Brkfst
Male, 18-29, Western US
562 Posts
|
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:36:17 AM
"needs to be within feet of a nuclear generator"
Protip - The us has a navy powered by nuclear reactors.
you're pretty ignorant if you think superconductivity is the only thing learned from these kinds of tests.
Besides, do you really think its going to be cost effective if/when we hang out on the moon on a regular basis a day to use chemical rockets to reach lunar orbit? |
|
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8683 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 9:10:38 PM
"This is a job for private industry not the Navy."
Private industry cannot afford it.
This is one area where government spending is warranted. Research to make our lives better. |
|
 ROK9
Male, 18-29, Western US
1838 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 2:14:17 PM
lame |
|
 Volsunga
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1548 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 1:07:09 PM
@Madest
Putting it on hold = scrapping it.
Where I think your misunderstanding lies is that you think that the money is being spent on the gun as a whole. The money is really being spent on "making superconductivity becomes a reality or inventing some other form or power supply". It is, in a sense "on hold", because what they are really working on is the superconductive materials and other technologies. |
|
 Airclot0
Male, 13-17, Western US
56 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 12:33:55 PM
@madest If everyone took your point of view, we would all be living in mud huts using smoke signals as communication.
That's the point of research. TO FIND A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM.
People have said in the past that trying to go into space was a waste of money, and now look at us. Satellites doing useful jobs. Numerous technologies coming out of it, that we now use in our own homes. Plus not to mention PROGRESS.
I would rather pay extra taxes so the Government can do research into new technologies than to pay less but slow down progress. |
|
Volsunga
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1548 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 12:05:51 PM
@madest
Without money, it won't be overcome. Wow isn't that simple. |
|
Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 12:05:40 PM
@ Volsunga, That's my point. Until that's overcome this is a waste of taxpayer money. Wow isn't that simple?
Seriously, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about, do you?
They have the rail-gun, so where do you think the f*cking money is going now?
You're skull is too thick for actual reason and logic to penetrate, isn't it? Been wearing a hard-hat so long it's actually fused with your head, hasn't it? |
|
Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 11:50:51 AM
Instead of attacking everything I say think about what I'm saying because clearly you're too dense to understand me.
No, I think you're just too retarded to understand the concept that sometimes money can go to multiple places at once.
The money being spent on this WHOLE PROJECT isn't just going into making the rail-gun itself. They have it already. It's ALSO going into making it practical.
I.e. They're most likely doing research into superconductors and the like AT THE SAME TIME.
You don't hear about that, because it's boring. You hear about this because A) it's cool, and B) it's pretty obvious when they test it.
As for putting one in space... Like I said, Kinetic Bombardment system. Rods from God. Drop a telephone pole from space. And it doesn't even violate the Outer Space Treaty because it's considered a "conventional weapon," albeit gravity-based. |
|
Volsunga
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1548 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 11:45:59 AM
@Madest
The point I was getting at the first three times is that the money budgeted for the railgun project is being spent on "overcoming superconductivity at normal everyday temperatures". That's the roadblock they have before this can advance further, so that is what the money is being spent on. That is how research projects like this work. Seriously, what do you think they are doing with the money? |
|
nijd
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
267 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 11:22:51 AM
"Instead of attacking everything I say think about what I'm saying because clearly you're too dense to understand me."
Rofl, you don't agree with my opinion so you're clearly just plain dense. Awesome debate skills. Idc about this useless argument but that was too funny to leave alone. |
|
Volsunga
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1548 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 10:35:39 AM
"Until someone can figure out a way to harness an enormous amount of power in a significantly smaller device this will remain a pipe dream."
again, why the f*ck do you think they are spending money to research it? That's the whole f*cking point. Do you seriously think that the entire budget for the project goes into the building of the device? F*ck no, the budget goes into experiments to make it smaller and more efficient. From what it looks like, there's maybe about $2 Million worth of parts in that thing, which is a minute fraction of the project budget.
Please, stop with the luddite fallacy, you're not impressing anyone. |
|
barberthe
Male, 18-29, Southern US
103 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 10:11:50 AM
DickenMcHunt, it could, but what would it be fired from? We can't forget the conservation of momentum. If it were mounted on a modern spacecraft or satellite, the craft would be torn apart when the projectile was fired(not to mention thrown out of orbit). This is a result of these objects being made as light as possible in order to make them easier/cheaper to put into orbit.
In order to use this as an orbital weapon(which is against the Outer Space Treaty anyway), you'd have to have something with approximately the same mass as a modern battleship to make this effect negligible. A more practical method of using this from space would be to build the railgun on the moon(preferably underground). Again, this is against the aforementioned treaty. Possible, but far from practical(at the moment, at least). |
|
duffytoler
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
5220 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 8:50:03 AM
>>something that needs to be within feet of a nuclear generator.
>>I know lots about railguns and their power requirements.
I don't think you even know the difference between "power" and "energy". |
|
 Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9438 Posts
|
Monday, December 13, 2010 8:10:44 AM
@mvanglid
In time yes. Granted the way it is right now it's VERY impractical. Ideas sometimes takes generations to become practical, but they eventually do. The idea of a rail gun has been around since the beginning of this century. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}