Photon Guy

On 4/22/2024 at 8:05 AM, Eise said:

The answer is in your question: animals being eaten are producers and consumers. Pretty useless question.

Nope animals are just consumers, it's the plants that are the producers. 

So from what I know about the eco system is that it's got producers and consumers. The producers are the plants that take in sunlight to undergo photosynthesis and to grow. That provides a food source for consumers, the consumers are the animals that eat the plants and animals that eat other animals. So the food chain starts with plants and then herbivores and then predators and so forth. However, the plants are always the producers and the animals, whether they be herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores, are always the consumers. 

However, I would think there are some cases in which a life form can be both a producer and a consumer. There are some plants that in addition to using photosynthesis will also feed off of other life forms as predators, perhaps the best known example would be the Venus Fly Trap. In addition to the Venus Fly Trap there are other plants that also eat insects so I would think they would be both producers and consumers, is that correct?

Ants are extremely strong for their size. Apparently ants can lift over 1000 times their body weight. As such, Im wondering how ants would be on planets with really high gravity, much higher gravity on earth. They would probably do just fine I would think. 

On 2/9/2024 at 6:48 PM, CharonY said:

the argument seems a bit backwards as without NASA SpaceX would likely have failed  https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-would-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/

Yes NASA has set the groundwork for SpaceX and other space companies but the way I see it NASA will be playing less and less of a role in space exploration in the future, even if it doesn't go away completely. 

On 2/9/2024 at 6:48 PM, CharonY said:

Moreover, much of the funding is still government contracts. I.e. whatever limitation of government money you see, it also applies to SpaceX.

For now, but Im talking about in the future. 

On 2/5/2024 at 11:07 PM, sethoflagos said:

Have you considered investing in this bold new venture?

Yes I have thought about buying SpaceX stock as well as Blue Origin stock. 

On 2/6/2024 at 10:22 AM, Phi for All said:

Right. Private corporations can't handle the R&D necessary. They're weak in that department, extremely weak. They need to show their stockholders that there will absolutely be a return on the investment, and they've almost always fallen down in efforts where they need to pioneer the knowledge and technology available. 

But look what the government did with the Postal Service! No private company was able to deliver letters to 50 states for the same rate, so the government made it happen. And now private interests want to swoop in and buy it all up for pennies so they can raise the rates like they did when they began taking over our utilities (oh gosh, I shouldn't get started on the stupidity of letting corporations manage our power structure).

But now we have UPS and FedEx that do much of the deliveries too. I know UPS and FedEx mostly deliver packages as opposed to letters but they are both very reliable companies and. people will often use UPS and FedEx over the postal service if they're mailing packages or anything bigger than a letter, even though the postal service mails such stuff too. Furthermore I don't get why we have to pay to use the postal service (if you're mailing a letter you have to put a stamp on it which costs money) if its government provided because something that's government provided means our taxes pay for it, unless you want to consider buying stamps just another type of tax, much like tollbooths on highways. 

The big limitation with government organizations such as NASA providing space travel is the limitation on how much money the government decides to spend on NASA, very few of our tax dollars go towards NASA like it or not. This isn't the 60s, the 70s, or even the 80s. We're not in the space race with Russia like we used to be. 

On 2/6/2024 at 10:22 AM, Phi for All said:

And NASA managed to take us offplanet in the ultimate pioneering effort. Personally, I think you read about the Challenger disaster and passed judgement on the whole program, which is very naive, imo. NASA has done more to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of space than any private company, and they did it without needing to make a profit. I'm very biased about the program. I'm friends with one of Buzz Aldrin's biographers, and the same guy made me aware of the problems with orbital debris, so I've studied quite a bit about how we deal with outer space as a country and a planet.

Not just Challenger but also Columbia, and it's not really NASA I blame but the people NASA hired for upper management. Some of the engineers knew that Challenger would be a disaster beforehand and they tried to warn the higher ups but the higher ups wouldn't listen. With Columbia they could've launched a rescue with Atlantis but they didn't, again I blame the people hired as management. 

NASA has done much to help us learn about space but much of that was done when we were in the space race, we're past that now. You mentioned Buzz Aldrin, one of the men who walked on the moon. That was back during the space race and since then the government has not funded any program to send anybody else to the moon, not since 1972. Why? The biggest reason is the simplest, the government hasn't seen any reason to send anybody back to the moon. 

On 2/6/2024 at 10:22 AM, Phi for All said:

I think what you're suggesting will be the downfall of our entire species if we don't stop trusting the private sector to regulate themselves. If we allow the private sector to have access to the resources available offplanet, we can expect every evil thing that's ever happened in science fiction. I don't think you understand how ruthless private interests can be if they aren't heavily regulated, and if you give them the ability to bring asteroids close enough to Earth to mine, you give them unfettered control over all of us.

But that's how it happens whenever new places are discovered and space is no exception. Just look at history, back when people first started crossing oceans that involved sailing across the ocean on a big ship that were only available to the really rich and really privileged and to the best of my knowledge such ships were provided by the various governments of the day. When the new lands were discovered (the Americas) more and more people wanted to go and private companies started taking over ocean travel. Today you can cross the oceans by simply getting on an airplane and flying across, an airplane that would belong to a commercial company such as Delta, United Airlines, American Airlines, ect. so traveling around the globe has gone the way of the private sector. Like it or not that's how I see it happening with space travel too in the future. 

On 2/6/2024 at 10:46 AM, exchemist said:

But the private sector needs a return on investment that justifies the level of risk in the enterprise. Where there is little or no commercial return, and/or the risks are high, private enterprise will not get involved. Private enterprise may also be denied access to a sector if there is no prospect of effective competition (anti-monopoly legislation). So these are the areas where governments have to step in.     

That's how its happened in history. Ocean travel used to be very risky when you had to spend months on a ship and sail across so I doubt there were much in the way of private companies investing in that. Then, as ocean travel became more and more safe, and faster, more private companies got into it. Now it's almost entirely private companies that do it. 

On 2/6/2024 at 10:46 AM, exchemist said:

I am honestly not sure I understand what point you want to make, apart from having some kind of animus against NASA. 

My point is that the future of space travel is going in the direction of the private sector. Not to bash NASA but that's the way it's going. 

Like it or not space exploration is going the way of the private sector. As it's been mentioned in this thread there's companies such as SpaceX and Bellend One and no doubt in the future there will be more private space companies still. That's how its always happened with travel and exploration throughout history, it starts out as something that is government funded and then goes the way of the private sector and more and more people are able to do it. 

So if Jurassic Park was real I wonder just how it would work out, if it would be a disaster like it was in the movies or if they would be able to make it work and just how successful it would be at producing funds. 

On 1/31/2024 at 10:23 AM, iNow said:

I don't disagree, but funding is clearly not limitless so focus areas must be prioritized.

Well I'm not sure just how much of a priority it would be to bring samples back from Mars as we already do have samples of Mars in the form of meteorites. 

On 1/31/2024 at 6:51 PM, swansont said:

Getting to that elevation is somewhat of a problem, unless you think sherpas can haul everything up.

Mount Mckinley is about two thirds the height of Mount Everest so we could use the peak of the mountain to mount the railgun and we could build an elevator in the mountain. 

On 1/31/2024 at 6:51 PM, swansont said:

And “significantly thinner” is still significant; it’s about a third of an atmosphere. 

And one third of the atmosphere would greatly reduce friction. 

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I vote "cutting back on other stuff". Have you seen some of the ridiculous pork included in the average spending bill? There are ways to make tax funding work for everyone.

I agree on cutting back, the problem is getting enough people to agree so that it's done. 

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Who?

Howard Wolowitz, this guy. 

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Have you not heard of Elon Musk’s Space X? 

Speaking of Elon Musk, I would like to point out that Howard Wolowitz got to meet him, lucky guy. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is really unlikely that spacecrafts are becoming commodities like cars.

In the distant future that could very well be a possibility. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But assuming there is going to be commercialized space travel, it likely would require at least a higher level of regulation than current air flights.

True, just like a higher level of regulation was required when automobiles replaced horses and carriages, and when airplanes replaced trains and ships at sea, but we've made such adjustments before so we can do it again. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Research in the hands of companies is usually narrowly focused, and a really bad vehicle to gain insights (rather than profits). Companies rarely do any kind of explorative research as the cost/benefit ratio is not in their favour. Also, academic researchers have to demonstrate feasibility of their projects and whereas companies only need to sell the idea to investors.

From what I've seen in terms of technological advancements it appears companies do lots of research with the advancements they make. You see it with cars, computers, you name it. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

NASA would have not been able to burn through so many failed rockets as SpaceX which has implications on how to do things (for better or for worse). This becomes really problematic when it can impact things like environmental or human health, for example.

Burning through failed rockets,  provided they're unmanned, is how you learn from mistakes so you can make better rockets. Granted you shouldn't burn through rockets carelessly but every rocket launched, whether its failed or not, is an opportunity to learn and so the more such rockets you have to burn through the better. Otherwise you have disasters such as Challenger and Columbia, Columbia which happened twenty one years ago today. Imagine if such a disaster happened with SpaceX where people were killed, imagine how it would hurt SpaceX, as such SpaceX would be smart to avoid such stuff at all costs. Let's say there's a car company that produces cars with faulty breaks and it leads to people being killed. Would you buy a car from that company? I sure wouldn't. I've seen it happen with other companies, where their products have turned out to be dangerous, how its hurt the companies. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But perhaps more importantly, I would rather have a public fight regarding what to fund or not, rather than having a few ultra-rich folks determine it.

That's why I would want multiple companies not just a few. I would much prefer a monopolistic competition over an oligopoly. Perfect competition would be ideal but that's a pipe dream. 

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Another option available is neither private nor public. We could make this type of research state funded, based on a percentage of GDP, the direction of which is decided by a council focused on the science rather than the profit. Such a system wouldn't change depending on whoever is in office.

State funded still means it's funded by tax dollars so to get more funding that would mean cutting back on other stuff or raising taxes. 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I really object to this statement. I think it's narrow in vision, cherry-picks a few incidents while ignoring overall protocols, and also ignores all the redundant systems crafted and the success ratio in the harshest environment known. I think this statement sadly fails.

You do know that both Challenger and Columbia were avoidable, don't you? Especially Challenger. But in both cases NASA knew of the danger and ignored it. 

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If it does not generate profit, they won't do it. If it generates profit, then it will take precedence over insights. As such, companies are really not suited for explorative research, but they do well in the applied field. The insights will take a back seat every time (also addressing potential harms, because they want to the public to pay for that).

But in the past explorative research has been done by companies or by private individuals, the expansion of the USA for instance. 

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What about Starlink, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

 

But I’m now confused as to what you are arguing for. It’s clear that private enterprise can do a good job of research when there is an identifiable commercial goal. But it is equally clear that other, more fundamental,  types of research are also needed for science to progress. Governments have always realised this, which is why state-funded research programmes continue to be supported.

None of this is new.

Im arguing for stuff such as space research and dinosaur research to be not just government funded but also for companies to get involved with such stuff. Im not saying government funding should cease altogether but it does have its limitations that I've mentioned before. 

Maybe even space research and dinosaur research can be combined somehow, they could do science experiments on fossils in space. 

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

SpaceX is funding AstroForge, which is interested in asteroid mining. The plan is to buy the company up if it proves successful. Blue Origin is doing the same with Honeybee Robotics. I'm not linking to any of these companies since I think it's very dangerous having anyone out there who doesn't have our planet's overall best interests at heart. 

It's also important to have the astronauts best interests at heart, something NASA has sadly failed at in the past. 

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There are many efforts at trying to come up with protocols for working in space so we don't fuck it up like so many things we've commercialized, but it's difficult enough working with countries without having private groups throwing their need for more money into the mix.

But we are going in that direction, of having space commercialized just like it always happens when new avenues of exploration open up to us. It happened with sea travel and exploration of the new world, at first it was just explorers such as Columbus and Cortez that would go on long ocean voyages to explore, and then after the Americas were discovered and settled by the white man, sea travel became very much commercialized with so many people wanting to travel over there. No doubt that will happen with space as well. 

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

Have you not heard of Elon Musk’s Space X? https://www.spacex.com

Yes and there's also Blue Origin by Jeff Bezos. Both Space X and Blue Origin mainly provides spacecraft to NASA though, which means its tax dollars that pay for their spacecraft. I've yet to hear about Space X or Blue Origin doing any space exploration of their own. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Here's the thing about private ownership: it's all profit driven, and that's rarely the best basis for doing anything. Scientists can focus on the science involving paleontology and all the things it teaches us about ourselves, other animals, and how the world used to be. Private companies need that profit, and might well ignore certain avenues of research simply because they don't show profit potential (but might be incredibly useful as knowledge).

Right now in the US, the "powers that be (?)" seem to want us all afraid and frustrated because we consume more when we're stressed out. What would those folks want to do with information like Jane Goodall discovered, that the true signs of civilization in early humans was a healed femur, demonstrating that early humans cared enough for each other to take care of someone and feed them long enough for a bone to heal? I sincerely doubt information like this would be imparted by a private company dedicated to keeping us isolated, fearful, and desperate.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that space exploration "works best if it's done by private companies". The farce that is our outer space policy is going to end up making all the most horrible movie scenarios come true. Allowing private concerns to "compete" for all the resources available offplanet is cultural suicide imo, especially when we can't regulate even terrestrial greed with any degree of certainty. Why on Earth should we feel good about letting greed loose in NEO so it can trap some asteroids to first mine for metals and then send the debris streaking down upon our heads? Anyone who can develop successful manufacturing offplanet is going to write their own rules for humanity unless we write them first. Personally, I think we've let Musk and other private concerns do too much without enough oversight and compliance. At teh very least, we risk letting them paint their mistakes in our atmosphere to orbit with the debris for generations to come.

Greed might be a motivator but being greedy will work against you in the long run and a smart company will know that. Greed always ends up with you having less and we even have children's stories that teach that lesson. We also see that throughout history, just look at the automobile industry. Many people nowadays including myself prefer Japanese and German cars over American cars because they're made to last, unlike many American cars which are always breaking down and I speak from my own experience. In the late 90s I drove a Ford and it was complete junk. The problem is American car companies got greedy and just wanted to produce and sell as many cars as they could regardless of the quality. That's why I wouldn't a Ford today with a ten foot pole, and Im talking about a Ford made in this day and age not one made in the old days, 1970s and earlier, when Ford did make good vehicles. 

And like it or not space exploration is going in the direction of being privately funded. We've got companies such as Space X and Blue Origin. In the future going into space might be as simple as getting on a plane, or getting on a bus, or even getting in a car. In a future where spacecraft are as common and as readily available as automobiles I couldn't imagine the space industry not being run by private companies. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Is that the question? I'm in my mid 60s, and I've seen capitalism ruin most of the best things in my life. I was lucky enough to prosper in a system that removed most of the public support along the way, but young people now have very little chance at that kind of prosperity, mostly because of this mentality of first figuring out how to make the most profit from something before assessing its real value to our society. 

And I think there is a huge contingent of Christian Nationalists who want archeology and paleontology to be a questionable practice. They don't believe in evolution, much less the theory behind it, and so they want to disparage the sciences at every opportunity. One of the best ways to discredit something is to point to the monetary motivations.

If people want to stop archaeology or paleontology or any kind of study because of religious reasons than that's an even stronger case for such studies to be taken on by private companies because if such studies are paid for entirely by government funding then those who are against such stuff will vote against it. And if you're concerned about monetary motivations well let's face it, researching costs money and that money has got to come from somewhere. If such research is entirely government funded and you want more funding you've got one of two options, either cut back on other stuff or raise taxes, take your pick. 

If you want to do the kind of research that the fictional John Hammond did, where are you going to get the funding?

Twenty one years ago today the space shuttle Columbia burned up upon reentry of the Earth's atmosphere due to failure of the heat shield because of damage to a wing from foam breaking loose during launch. All seven astronauts on board were tragically killed. RIP Columbia Crew. 

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

A good dinosaur fossil can be a very valuable commercial property.

Plus palaeostratigraphy (the dating of rock samples by eg their fossil assemblage) is big business in mineral extraction etc. Maybe it's graptolites and conodonts rather than dinosaurs in that case, but the economy still needs a good reserve of trained paleontologists to identify them.

Well by the same token I think a good moon rock or mars rock would be a very valuable commercial property yet we don't see much if any commercial demand for the space program. NASA is entirely government funded and we don't have any private space companies that go into space. If we can create a demand for paleontology with fossils perhaps we can create a demand for the space industry. The problem with something being government funded is that if we are to increase funding the only ways we can do that is if we were to cut back on other stuff that's government funded or by raising taxes, neither of those are popular choices. 

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Private funding is only interested in researching areas of known investment returns, simply because it's too big a risk for the payoff in many cases, at least to the number crunchers. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's not much demand, only that the returns on their investments aren't big enough for the risks.

The government is exactly who funds mundane and obscure research. Museums are often publicly owned, and they fund the majority of "dinosaur research". The National Science Foundation is big in this area. Public funding is needed since we can't force private companies to do something that's not profitable, and this research has proven to be extremely necessary. If we didn't have places like the National Institute of Health to do obscure research, we'd only have the research big pharmaceutical companies wanted to do. 

It's like investments in space exploration. Lots of folks think it's a waste of money, but we learn startling things almost every time we attempt it. Paleontology is the same way. We fill the gaps in our knowledge a piece at a time, and not always to make a profit.

 

But we make tons of progress in terms of bettering our lives with space exploration. All sorts of experiments are done in space and all sorts of really useful discoveries are being made, everything from medicine to communications to defense to transportation, you name it. With paleontology though it could be argued that there's not much we could learn from it since dinosaurs are extinct and have been for a long time, unless you want to argue in favor of just increasing our general knowledge in everything including dinosaurs but you still probably wouldn't get much government funding for it. You will most likely always get less government funding for paleontology than you will for NASA and NASA doesn't get a whole lot of funding as it is so I'm thinking that just like with space exploration, the study of dinosaurs works best if its done by private companies that make their profit from consumers. 

The question is, what can you get out of dinosaur research that you can provide to consumers that would have enough of a demand that they would pay good money for it? Museums come to mind, but you only make so much from running a museum. The only way I see to make a really good profit for paleontology is if we were to have something such as Jurassic Park where we have live dinosaurs, but as we know the Jurassic Park franchise is just movies and is pure fiction, as disappointing as that is. 

On 1/30/2024 at 9:54 AM, TheVat said:

Just a reminder - rockets would usually go to an orbital position rather than directly leaving Earth.  Velocity for LEO is around 7.8 km/sec, or 17000 mph.  This would be somewhat easier to implement with the railgun.  And, as you mentioned, having the barrel end at high altitude would help with the frictional challenges.  A tall mountain (especially near the equator, where aiming east would add the maximum earth's rotational velocity) would be a useful support, perhaps.  

Good point. To send supplies to the ISS you would only need to reach a velocity of 17000, perhaps less if you're firing from a high altitude, so friction would be less of a problem than if you were firing at escape velocity. The atmosphere is significantly thinner at the peak of Mount Everest than it is at sea level so at such an altitude friction is less of a problem. 

On 1/30/2024 at 11:43 AM, Moontanman said:

Yes, very large meteors manage to land via stripping off speed via burning off much of their material due to "friction" most objects simply burn up before they hit the ground. Spacecraft get by with using the atmosphere to slow down by not plunging uncontrolled into the atmosphere and by taking a path that allows the frictional heat to be bleed off slowly via a shallow angle not by an immediate steep plunge into the atmosphere.  

 

Cooling systems? A cooling system that can handle 100s of gs? Yes the heat shielding will have to be quite special I am sure. 

You might not need to subject your craft to such extreme Gs if you have a railgun with a very long barrel so that acceleration is much more gradual but that it still reaches the desired velocity by the time it leaves the muzzle. Also as TheVat pointed out, you wouldn't need your craft to reach escape velocity as orbital velocity is much lower. 

On 1/30/2024 at 11:43 AM, Moontanman said:

Yes, I am sure it could be done, but at what cost? 

Yes very good cooling systems, if there any chance you could elaborate on these special/good systems you keep mentioning? 

That would be an engineering project to design such systems but we're not talking about launching people. A good mechanical system should be able to withstand more Gs than a person. And as I mentioned above, you might not need to subject the system to such extreme Gs. 

On 1/30/2024 at 11:43 AM, Moontanman said:

You do realize the gun's breach would still be at ground level and the barrel would still be full of air that the projectile would have to move out of the way, think friction, you would get no benefit from raising the muzzle above the thickest part of the air since this would not change the problem of the package having to fight through the air in the barrel. 

The railgun could be designed so that there's a vacuum in the barrel. The muzzle could be closed, opening only when the craft exits it. 

On 1/30/2024 at 11:43 AM, Moontanman said:

in fact the rail guns I have seen illustrations of didn't even have barrels, do they have barrels/muzzles? 

The railgun I've seen pictures of have barrels. 

On 1/30/2024 at 11:43 AM, Moontanman said:

How high would the gun have to be to take advantage of this lower escape velocity? How much difference in escape velocity would you get by launching from an altitude of five miles? 

So you would just have to lug a rail gun to high altitude and all the fuel it takes to lug the rail gun up to high altitude? 

You could have the railgun permanently stationed at a higher altitude, it could be built on top of a platform or as TheVat said you might be able to use a mountain for support. Crafts containing supplies to be sent into space could be brought up to the railgun by elevator. 

I don't see any folder on this forum for paleontology so I thought this would be the best place on this forum to post this. Dinosaurs are fascinating but Im wondering how paleontologists get the funding to do their research. I don't really see much of a demand for such research so most research would not be consumer funded I take it, and to the best of my knowledge the government does not fund such research so Im wondering where the funding comes from. 

If you ask me we should've done this a long time ago but here is a video on a plan to bring back samples from Mars. 

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 Starting out at faster than orbital speed at ground level means you get lit up by friction immediately. Much like a meteor hitting the atmosphere at 25,000 mph, the gs aren't the worst of it. Being heated to beyond the melting point of nearly every material almost instantly would be a big hurdle to get past.   

Some meteors do manage to land without burning up, they're called meteorites, so that goes to show it is possible for an object to pass through the earth's atmosphere at such incredible speeds without burning up. A spacecraft launched by a railgun could have special heat shielding as well as cooling systems. The heat shielding might have to be better than the shielding used now but it could be done. That plus good cooling systems might be adequate to protect against the heat and friction. Also, the spacecraft doesn't have to be launched at ground level. It could be launched from on top of a tall structure or you could even have a railgun with a long enough barrel that by the time it exits the muzzle its well above ground level. A longer railgun could also allow for a more gradual acceleration which would be desirable. 

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Very true but just how many gs and how fast would a rail gun package have to accelerate to before leaving the gun, the muzzle velocity of this gun would have to be outrageous! Would that acceleration interfere with the electronic and mechanical parts of the package? The rail gun thing is very cool but can you really accelerate a reasonable sized package to orbit, remember you would have to start out quite a bit faster than orbital velocity to get to orbit from the Earth's surface due to friction. 

The escape velocity on Earth is 24923 MPH so it's about the same speed as meteors hitting the earth's atmosphere that you mentioned. The problems of friction and heat could be solved by what I mentioned above. And also if you launch from a higher altitude the escape velocity is lower so that is another advantage of doing that. The idea of using railguns is to cut fuel costs and the spacecraft being sent by such means would weigh far less because they wouldn't have to lug around all that fuel that would otherwise be used if you were to try to get to orbit the old fashioned way. 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You must be assigning some kind of special importance to firearms here. As tools, the police need of a different version than a hunter does, or than a soldier does. 

I use tools too, but I sure wouldn't expect the experts to give up their dynamite or tunnel-borers just because they won't give me access to them. That's just crazy.

Im not sure about the legality of dynamite but I believe anybody with the money can get a tunnel-borer. But regardless, the 2A does not cover such stuff, just like it doesn't cover drugs. Certain drugs you can have access to only if you're a licensed doctor but that otherwise are banned and that's fine because the 2A does not identify any right to access such stuff. The 2A identifies the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear other stuff such as dynamite and tunnel-borers and certain dangerous drugs. 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Why do you think a citizen should have access to military/police grade guns?

Because they had access to them when the Constitution, including the 2A was ratified. When the 2A which identifies the right to keep and bear arms, and that's exactly what it does as it doesn't grant the right it identifies it, muskets were the military/police grade guns back then and citizens had full access to them. Today it's semi automatic guns and in some cases full automatic guns that the police and military use so that's what citizens should have access to as those are the arms of today. The arms that are mentioned in the 2A are in reference to whatever the arms of today are. Back when the Constitution was ratified it was muskets, today it's the more advanced guns that I mentioned. Our country's founders weren't dumb, they knew weapons would get more advanced in the future. So if you want to restrict citizens to muskets as some people say the right to keep and bear arms identified by the 2A only applies to muskets, then its only proper to restrict the police and military to muskets and the kinds of guns that were used back then as well. To allow the military access to more advanced guns and not citizens is a double standard. 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Are you thinking they need them to protect themselves from the police and the military?

That's exactly what they're needed for, or to put it more precisely, to protect themselves from the government should the government become oppressive. In the USA it's the citizens that are supposed to control the government, not the other way around. The USA was created for the people by the people. We've got many checks and balances in place but the right to keep and bear arms, as identified by the 2A, is a final check and balance. If all else fails the people can revolt against the government should the government become oppressive. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Any ones that don't require new physics?

None that I can think of, but the point is that just because the lightspeed barrier can't be broken by conventional means doesn't mean it can't be broken period. 

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

IMHO the main problem of using rail guns to send objects to space would be the enormous friction with the earth's atmosphere. Any object so accelerated would become white hot and evaporate much like a meteor does when it enters the Earth's atmosphere.  Then you would have to include engines to allow the object or package to maneuver to the space station.

You have that same problem with friction and the heat it generates with any sort of spacecraft that reaches escape velocity. Conventional spacecraft are made to withstand the friction and heat with special heat shielding. A spacecraft sent into space by a railgun could have that same sort of shielding, and it could have cooling systems too. Yes it would need some engines and fuel to maneuver to the station as you point out but not the tremendous fuel that you need to reach escape velocity the way conventional spacecraft do as the railgun would take care of that. 

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This would be much easier to do if you were launching package from an airless body like the moon.    

But we don't send supplies from the moon to the ISS, we send it from Earth to the ISS. I suppose we could set up a moon base and start mining the moon and producing supplies on the moon that way, but that's a long way off. 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Which supplies can withstand human-squashing forces?

Lots of supplies. Water for instance. And food that you don't mind having squashed. Food remains edible when it's squashed.