Raider5678

Like a miracle?

How much Delta V do you think is required? I mean, if you can find an asteroid weighing 1 kilotons, and attached a rocket to it, you'd need a certain amount of delta V to move it into orbit around earth. Now getting it from the asteroid belt seems like a bad idea to me because the Delta V required to get to there and then back to earth would be more then what it takes to get to the moon. Now, the interesting part about this is that the rocket will change in delta V as soon as it grabs the asteroid. SO you'd need to calculate how much Delta v is required to get the asteroid back before calculating how much you need to get there. For getting the asteroid back, if you disregard the billion or so people who will be really pissed with you for almost destroying life as we know it if you accidentally mess up, you could potentially use areobreaking to slow down the asteroid to help get it into orbit. That would reduce delta V required. Once you know how much delta V you need to return with the rocket, you then have to calculate how big of a rocket would be required to get to that asteroid, how much fuel it needs, etc. So the "payload" would have to be the rocket capable of moving the asteroid. Now it doesn't make sense to me to send this as one giant mission for a few reasons. 1. The size of the rocket goes up exponentially with the payload size. 2. Maneuverability will decrease if you only have 1 rocket in the back, compared to 6 different smaller rockets at strategic points. Now I think about 20 different rocket engines launched in maybe 10 launches would be much more helpful as I don't feel like asteroids are symmetrically inclined to work with rockets. So a lot of them would be required to control it. Now the problem with so many launches, is that the total cost of each launch will increase the price of the the system*. Additionally, at the end of that we'd have to build some kind of mining operation on the asteroid in orbit. But. If we did this with a big enough rocket we could potentially have enough water on the asteroid to make fuel for hundreds of years. We'd have to see though. In any event, having a refueling station in orbit means we could launch dry rockets into orbit and then refuel them. Meaning it will cost less then launching it as one big rocket. Additionally, in an emergency asteroid situation, we have more technology at our disposal. *Unless Elon Musk get's his butt moving on those reusable boosters. Then we can cut this cost down considerably. Simply change whats on the other end of the docking mechanism.

I'm a kid, so I play video games. And while I'm certain it's far from real life, there's a game I play where you design rockets and launch them into orbit and all that or basically whatever you want to do. One of the problems is fuel, because by the time you get to orbit, even at the most efficient and lowest orbit you can be at(around 70km) you've usually used most of your Fuel. In the game though, you're capable of bringing asteroids into a more stable orbit. You simply attach a rocket to it via a drilling mechanism and set it to full thrust. This can alter the course of the rocket and put it in orbit. Once there, you can send up a mining operation section by section. But from then on, if you simply engineer a docking port into your rocket, you can refuel at that fuel station. This allows much easier interplanetary travel. Saving you trillions of dollars in game. The cost of launching up the rocket first, then docking with it 3 fuel tanks, and then launching up engines. It get's expensive quickly. Now this is obviously a game, but it's designed to mimic real space travel and problems, and was used in an astronomy class once. I just bought the game after the class was over. The asteroid doesn't need gold or iron or silver to make it valuable. Oxygen and Hyrdogen, as someone mentioned, could by worth trillions more, and for hundreds of times longer. With the average cost of moving the asteroid reaching close to 15 trillion if you use a huge one, and as little at 5 trillion if you use a small but still useful one.

Physchologically rapists aren't simply normal people suddenly turned evil. While it's been proven that most people will eventually give under pressure and do horrific things, rape doesn't typically fall into the construct of great pressure forcing them to do it. So that leads to the other idea that it's often a fantasy. There's predator rapists, who will stalk their victim for a long time before actually committing the act, often even knowing the victim for a long time. These are quite common believe it or not. They fantasize about it, and eventually do it. In other cases they don't plan on doing it, but when mind altering substances are involved it appears that the ability to control themselves is lost(go figure) and their likely hood to rape someone goes up. So technically with alcohol involved good people can do much worse things then they'd usually do, but often it's because of previous thoughts. Alcohol doesn't create thoughts. And then there's rapists who get off on the idea of actually raping someone. Not a specific person. These people will use opportune moments to rape someone because it satisfies their sexual craving. If part of their sexual craving included fellatio then it wouldn't be all that surprising.

Yes. The irony. It's like republicans constantly complaining about gun laws when it's still relatively easy to get a gun as long as you're law abiding. It's like them complaining about tax raises, when they wouldn't want to have to pave their own roads in their town.

I really should change my Bio age if I want to keep posting about school shouldn't I. You can find it suspicious. You have right to be. As for political motivation, I think guys should be able to claim rape too. And I'm pretty sure they can, but it appears to be quite hard.

"What is America's biggest problem?" Complainers.

A boy in my class was supposedly raped. However, while he's my friend nobody will believe he was raped. No one. Not his parents, not his teachers, not his friends. His parents just don't care. They think he got laid and then regretted it. Teachers pretty much think the same thing. His friends say he can't be raped because he's a guy. Also, since it was the "school slut"(don't crucify me. That's what they say) that he had sex with they say he took advantage of her. And all three of them say he enjoyed it. He's not the strongest kid. Rather scrawny. But he's smart and honest. I've worked on stuff with him a lot and I believe him when he says he was raped. It happened a while ago but I've been thinking. Isn't this sexist? If a girl made a rape accusation that kid would have his life ruined whether he did or not. And no. The kid did not "enjoy it" because he was a guy. That's wrong. Totally wrong. It's like saying because a girl got wet due to stimulation that she enjoyed it. And if any one of you claims that then you can kiss your ass goodbye because I will tell you otherwise.

I bid 36 cents. This deal is burning hot. It's just radiating energy.

I didn't say I thought it was just you. I was saying I think there are better things to get offended over, then how an animator drew a cartoon. But I mean, what ever your priorities are have at it. Anyways, regarding movies. The Help. The Butler. I will follow. After Earth. Sure, they're not 100% minority characters, but wouldn't saying that has to be a requirement for it to be fair counter act that idea that Stand by Me(I've never seen it or heard of it so whatever you're talking about the plot you're gonna have to explain more.) is wrong? I mean, I don't know what the plot is so if this is a totally racist movie I don't know about it. In which case, it's simply a bad movie. And After earth is almost entirely centered around 2 Black main characters. You can't say white people aren't willing to watch movies that star black characters only.

Yes, because it's so much better when I'm trying to organize a play for VBS and someone yells "Do you have a black actor?" Because THATS the way to make sure they don't feel left out. Honestly. Screw ethnicity. If people are gonna claim everyone's equal, you can't go around telling them they have to include a black actor. And the kid who ended up getting chosen to be an actor. In front of everyone else. Because he was black. I'm sure he loved that part. Mainly because he was the only black kid there. And there were 5 actors. Out of 40 plus kids. Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, and Eddie Murphy are all successful black actors, WELL known too. Your view is kinda biased. OR. It simply makes for better kids cartoons if they don't make the princess weigh 500 pounds and the prince a short alcoholic. I mean. Come on. Of all the things to be offended of. I've never heard someone yell "You don't look like Cinderella!" as an insult. I'm not saying that they're not biased, but I highly doubt that the ultimate goal of them was to advance a white supremacist agenda. Most likely, they just made movies that they thought kids would like.

So they're predetermined inside automatically? Would it not be easier to make it so that they simply become what ever their internal gender is? I mean, then you'd run into the problem of them switching genders still, but you're going to find that even with this set up they're going to have the wrong gender and want to become the other gender.

Virgin birth for the first one, aka Jesus. Then it was two to tango form there on out. Also, I've been a Christian my whole life and I've only ever heard "don't have sex outside marriage" as the rule for sex. Generally anything goes as long as it's your partner. And you're not killing people or anything.

Hey, I've run into a minor question I've had while trying to work out the physics for my rockets and building others. Mainly because I live in a fairly populated place and launching my rockets off of basic math isn't as accurate as I'd like. Let's say I have a model rocket about 20 inches tall weighing about 5 pounds. It deploys a parachute, and it's decent rate is 15 feet per second. If the wind is blowing south east at 5 miles per hour, how can I calculate how far it will drift per foot in altitude that it loses? Let's set a basic height it's expected to reach at 750 feet. How far in which direction should I expect it to land? And how many degrees should I set my launch rod to tilt at to for the most part neutralize the effect of the wind? Important factor I discovered is that tilting the rocket can dramatically decrease how high it will travel, hence throwing off some estimates. But I haven't been able to test this extensively. I'm mostly looking for the right formula to use. We can go ahead and assume perfectly flat ground for 1 mile in all directions(it's not. But for the sake of simplicity) If it's easier to answer in metric I'm okay with that too. Actually, someone answered on another forum. I'll post it here in case anyone ever wants to look. "A simple way to think about wind drift is to scale the problem to a 10 mph wind and the standard descent rate of 15 fps.10 mph is 15 fps, so if you descend at 15 fps in a 10 mph wind, your rocket drifts 1' sideway for every foot of altitude lost. For example, if you apogee at 1 kft, take a 1 kft walk.With a 5 mph wind, the drift is half, and with the max 20 mph wind it doubles." I had already just used the standard descent rate.

You know, I 100% agree with you on that. But it was an attempt at sarcasm. I don't want to start a new thread, but if I used the same argument that "Guns don't kill people, it was bad people aided by power." it'd be shot down in a heart beat. Just saying. But it's off topic anyways. It's highly possible the the sugar changed how the body digested the alcohol, and maybe it even diluted it a little. To an extent. Very little.

Beer was enough to put my family through three years of living hell because of my dad. Marijuana was enough to get a lot of girls at my school raped. But hell. Let's make it legal. It's the stuff the doctor recommends. Alcohol is enough to kill at least 2 kids every year at my school. Anyways, for the OP. I think it depends on the person for how certain qualitative effects are brought out of them.

I asked you about veterans memorials in general. From vietnam, to world war 2, world war 1, revolutionary war, civil war, etc. I know people on the left side of politics, who think there should be no memorials to those people. Do you agree? And if not, do you agree for particular wars? And if not then, do you think there are any veteran memorials that should be taken down? It's a very simple question. Do you have anything against any veteran memorials?

George Washington was a traitor to Britain. Anyways, what's your opinion on veteran memorials? You said it depended. I provided my opinion and others. What is yours?

What hero's though? What hero's didn't do anything wrong? Also, what about veteran's memorials? I wrote a large part about that. I know for a fact there are people on the left who think all those veterans should be tried as criminals. One of them went so far as to spit on a Vietnam veteran. I don't think Vietnam was a war worth fighting. But most of those soldiers were drafted and were following orders. And I respect that fact that they were in war, and I was not. A war where people died. People they knew.

Actually I'm against removing the statues. I'm sure you didn't have time to read our conversations thoroughly, but I just thought I'd point that out. Anyways, the confederate army played the defensive. It's one of the reasons they did so well compared to the Union. And it's false to say they sought to end us, because we know know, and I'm sure they knew then, there was no way they could destroy the Union. They were outnumbered. They had worse equipment and they had no formal army compared to the Union. The only way the confederates would have won the war is if the Union simply gave up. Not surrendered, not defeated, not destroyed. Simply decided it was too costly to force the confederate states to join the United states again, and gave up. That is the playing card General Grant was playing off of. But when the war started going in their favor, he sought to get Britain to ally with the confederate states. If he could have proved that the confederate army was capable of winning battles on enemy ground, the Prime Minister would have most likely joined the side of the Confederacy. At which point, the Union would have stopped attacking the Confederate forces. Confederate soldiers joined the army because the Union was invading their homes. They were burning their land, destroying their crops, and devastating everything they captured. They didn't join to destroy the Union. They joined because it was a matter of survival. If they lost, they'd lost everything.

Only about 40% owned slaves. And while I agree with you, I'm sure even more aspired to own slaves, you can't deny the tensions the rose previously over that because of state rights and the such. The idea that states should be allowed to choose to own slaves I'm sure, is something a lot of confederate soldiers fought and died for. But the idea that confederates only fought to protect slavery falls apart when you see why the union fought. The union fought to protect itself from destroying itself. Not to end slavery. Also. If we went back in time and told the confederate leaders they weren't fighting to protect slaves, I'm sure they would have called us fools. Because part of it was about slaves. But you can't say it was the one and only reason. And slavery is just one issue. What about the massacres of Indians? Imprisonment of Japanese? And Vietnam? If we tore down every statue of someone who did something bad, we'd have no statues left. We'd have no pictures on our currency, we'd have no memorials, we'd have nothing. I'd go with John. Keep the statues. Change the plaques . Vietnam memorial because those soldiers were all "baby killers" , "murders", and "Torturers." I'd assume on your part? Because you know. Those guys wanted to be drafted. How about world war two memorials? "Pointless war. Those soldiers fought for money and to create nukes. They were all stupid, thinking they were fighting for a good cause." How about world war one memorials? "Another pointless war for power and money." Civil war? Obviously. We're talking about it right now. Revolutionary war? "They fought for a good cause. But a lot of those soldiers did bad stuff, and they were cruel to people back then. They hung people and were merciless. They don't deserve respect." I'm sure not everyone on the left side has the same opinions as the few people I've quoted here. But I warn you now. What seems extreme today may be common place in a decade or two. It's like the Republicans arguing Democrats are trying to support and encourage abortion. To us (let's not get into an argument about abortion. This is an example. There's plenty of threads on abortion already, so don't start an argument about it.) it's barbaric. We're killing Babies in our opinion. But to democrats, I'm pretty sure most support the decision to committing abortion, rather then saying people should abort babies. The support of the action, and the support of the decision are different things. Don't forget that. If the confederates said the non slave holding states were trying to take power away from them. Note that during the election the confederates had 5.5 million people. Versus the Unions 18 million. They were incredibly outvoted. To the point they had almost no say in the national government. And since this group of people was grouped up geography, it led to a lot of problems. If they had no state rights, they had no power in government. The issue of slavery was the spear point. The issues with government, politics, and other things, was the shaft driving this spear. It took an otherwise weaker problem, and made it a threat.

You must also take into account what the confederacy fought for. I'm sure you know your history well enough that they didn't ONLY fight for slavery. The average confederate soldier had basically no care at all if slaves were owned or not. Most didn't own any. The statues represent history to me. Not something we celebrate. Memorials, reminders, warnings. And celebration is included in that. Yes. I suppose you support tearing down veteran memorials too? Not straw manning. Asking. Do you or not? Because there are democrats that I KNOW who think both civil war statues and veteran memorials should be torn down. On the case that "We shouldn't celebrate war."