dragonstar57

what if you take the drive and scale it down? try to create a small ion drive to maneuver satellites etc such a derive would only have to generate enough to accelerate relatively small objects at creatively small rates for relatively small amounts of time.

doesn't the lower octane cause less complete combustion?

the idea of having to add more gas seems flawed as the normally unburned gas will 02 to react with and less gas could be used to remove heat problems

what if the fuel was launched in small amounts and the ship/power source constructed either in orbit or on the lunar surface? this way no shielding would required to protect against atmospheric distribution if the ship blows up in space no big deal, plenty of radiation in space already.

why not inject microscopic amounts of lox prior just prior to the fuel? the lox is a stronger oxidant and would allow for some wicked horse power

my thinking was it could become part of the existing air-conditioning system and that might increase mpg by perhaps as much as 5. it seems like it would make a pretty big difference

I used the side length as the base when locating the apothem so instead of [math] \frac{6*6*6\sqrt{3}}{2} [/math]. it should be [math] \frac{6*6*3\sqrt{3}}{2} [/math].

wouldn't this only increase efficiency if there was already gasoline not burning in the combustion?

what if you supercooled the air intake ports? that would allow increased density of 02 in the engine so wouldn't that increase efficiency?

totally off topic but this raises the question of why do schools still teach the orbit model at all if we know it is wrong?

explain the difference between area, surface area and volume

yeah i tried that i get 106 root 3

given both [math] \frac{asn}{2} [/math]. n=6 b/c it is a hexagon s=6: given a=6 √3 because it is a long leg of a 30,60,90 special triangle which means it is s√3

that is how i figured out the a was[math] 6\sqrt{3} [/math].

side length of 6 [math] \frac{6*6*6\sqrt{3}}{2} [/math]. what now? how do i do that? ps the answer is [math]54 \sqrt{3}[/math] I just don't know how to get there

ok how do i do roots?

sometimes i see people post in this weird font that lets them write math so you can tell what is going on how do you do that?

in a perfect world we could steer the traits of humanity so that future people are an intelligent well adjusted capable well-meaning fit and all around representing the best of all of us this at its uncorrupted heart is a noble sentiment. the problem is in the actualization of this ideal. a bad meme getting into humanity can be far more dangerous than any number of bad genes. I can't think of a way of influencing peoples mating decisions in any fair way without lending validity to the idea that some people are genetically superior to others (perhaps a group of some sort to suggest genetically strong matches might bypass this qualm) it is more than alarming if you take the position that these people are genetically that way. if people are genetically stupid taking in account the stupid and their reproduction and compare it to most of the intelligent I know who have sworn off having children this idea is truly terrifying. it is my firm belief that intelligence does not truly exist (I have limited anecdotal evidence) I think all people are born equal of the mind (assuming no damage to the brain) I think we will eventually learn that the rigid sheeple thinking is learned and can be unlearned. when I was younger. I was not so different the only problem facing this world is arrogance all our issues are nothing but varying faces of one thinking himself/herself better than someone else ergo this conversation is part of the problem. perhaps we can teach people how to use their mind and think objectively. sorry for this Naive optimism

it depends on what you view the odds of evolution producing human like life (as in bipedal mammal like etc) and the odds of the other having the correct bio markers to make them be attracted to one another. I doubt that a planet identical to earth undergoing the same conditions throughout its entire history (geologically speaking) would produce humanoid life. life is almost certain in the universe intelligent life is likely humanoid life if it exists is far less likely and would by the odds be much farther apart from one another

1. this is a devils advocate situation 2. there is no set change from child to adult and to pick an arbitrary line and then enforce it as if it had meaning would be hopelessly barbaric. that is in no way a straw man as it supports the assertion that laws require a reason to be law and the logical one is that things that cause unjust harm is ileagal and what harms no one significantly should be legal stop with the horse shit children/adults concept show me a reason for any particular age or bench mark to used to indicate when this maturity forms and you will have a valid argument.

I think it is an assumption to think that humanoid life exists anywhere else in the universe. there is very little reason to expect that other lifeforms would ever form into anything remotely similar in physiology to ourselves let alone be anything near compatible. nor be capable of being attracted to one another. after all we all can agree that star trek was unrealistic on many levels. in fact by current definitions Vulcan and humans were the same species (assuming that Spock was capable of having children)

I think the primary problem is the incentive It is hypothetically possible to a government to fund a large project such as this but you would first have to convince them that it is worth it. the secondary problem would be the economics of living there it would have to make economic sense for people to live there rather than conventional cities. as for convincing a government it is necessary perhaps I would think it would make an excellent testbed for what ever systems they want to use on the first colony on mars/the moon and second I would think it would make it might teach some important lessons about how to handle raising waters that threaten conventional cities (perhaps we could just dome them over. also such a location would be (imo) very secure from a nuclear strike should a rouge nation acquire icbm's because 1.they would most likely target conventional cities first 2. because they have a large amount of water to act as a shield but after all the problems brought up I have to agree 2b min and most likely more. ps. where would the drinking water come from? I suppose it could be desalinated but that adds a lot more $$$ to the cost

I was speaking relatively it would be complicated as hell but I doubt it would be mulch-billion dollar complicated. ( perhaps several hundred million complicated...? (ntm it might be possible for whoever builds this to con a government into footing the design costs if they can get them to commission something like that) either way 100 billion seems higher than it would cost. out of curiosity how feasible would it be do build it on the surface over the finial site floating and then sink it when completed. that would simplify some things a little

the manipulator is simple...all it has to do is pick things up and place them then weld them in place the camera is simple... the ballast system is relatively simple... propulsion simple.... finial patent: valuable hardest part sounds like finding a way to avoid using an AI program for the control because of the water blocking radio