On 6/8/2026 at 1:41 AM, TheVat said:

Or the actual money available.

I think there is no decoupling the costs of such goals from the economics of the greater economy that is trying to do them.

Economics is about how resources are managed and marshaled to do the things we want from available resources. And absence of positive economics of the intended goal seems as likely to lead to failure as resource shortfalls (I suppose it is a resource shortfall) and technological inadequacies.

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Thanks, see what you mean, but wouldn't the efficiency of the engine at least cut down on reaction mass required to reach a certain speed

Yes but it seems very likely to add significantly to the dry mass/dead weight that has to be carried and accelerated.

I had thought ion engines - the most efficient in terms of impulse for reaction mass ejected - would be used a lot more but the mass of hardware needed undercuts the gains.I doubt one of the favoured reaction mass types - Xenon - is going to be easily obtainable, so what gets used may be less than ideal. Such rockets must also include an energy source. Chemical rocket hardware can be low mass and disposable. I doubt nuclear will be like that.

Do the "Orion" types (the "Orion Shall Rise" type) - riding on top of nuclear detonations - rely on the gradual vaporisation of the blast plate between the ship and the blasts to provide some of the thrust? I think that plate (whatever it is named) would be consumed one way or another.

Apart from anything else long term self reliant survival within a closed system - something we can study experimentally here on Earth - has not been demonstrated. The slower the journey the longer that closed system must last.

Sending robotic miners and factories ahead to make supplies and boost them to reach the main ship sounds hypothetically possible - with imaginary technologies much more advanced than we have. Then you would have to carry such equipment - more payload - and have big velocity differences for those supply tenders to overcome, over and over. It all starts sounding harder the more I think about it.

Edited Wednesday at 05:07 AM5 days by Ken Fabian

16 hours ago, Moontanman said:

IMHO, ignoring the possibility of "Clark Tech" the only scenario that I can think of is that aliens colonize the debri of stars like our kuiper belt or oort cloud, taking advantage of the resources available to create their civilization. They could have specialists who study planets with life, much like we have specialists who study remote tribes here on earth but for the most part I would think they would ignore us.

And we're back to the orbiting teapot, the title of the topic is "Could aliens ever visit earth?" and even you seem to be admitting it's highly, verging on the impossible, unlikely; so what's the point?

6 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Do the "Orion" types (the "Orion Shall Rise" type) - riding on top of nuclear detonations - rely on the gradual vaporisation of the blast plate between the ship and the blasts to provide some of the thrust? I think that plate (whatever it is named) would be consumed one way or another.

Indeed and the ship had to be 70,000 tons, to balance the forces IIRC.

On 6/10/2026 at 7:12 AM, dimreepr said:

And we're back to the orbiting teapot, the title of the topic is "Could aliens ever visit earth?" and even you seem to be admitting it's highly, verging on the impossible, unlikely; so what's the point?

Indeed and the ship had to be 70,000 tons, to balance the forces IIRC.

@dimreepr I honestly do not understand how you are getting this from my post.

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

@dimreepr I honestly do not understand how you are getting this from my post.

It's kinda religious, but without the grounding of a wise decision...

A third batch about unidentified videos, images, documents, things released today 12June2026 by the war department.

Remember the word unidentified. The identified are not revealed. 🤔

1 hour ago, Externet said:

A third batch about unidentified videos, images, documents, things released today 12June2026 by the war department.

Remember the word unidentified. The identified are not revealed. 🤔

A link would be good.

As wished, ---> https://www.war.gov/UFO/

4 hours ago, Externet said:

A third batch about unidentified videos, images, documents, things released today 12June2026 by the war department.

Yeah.
The Injustice Department released a batch of files also, and they contained references to multiple UCP.
( Unidentified Criminal Perpetrators )
And some of these UCPs may be DJTs.

Is there no end to the lengths he'll go to in order to distract from his criminal activities ?

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is there no end to the lengths he'll go to in order to distract from his criminal activities ?

Negative

I think this whole "UAP/UFO disclosure" is complete BS!

If they had anything to disclose why not show the evidence to scientists? Why display what amounts to "lights in the sky" on TV for all to see with no real explanation or context?

This is nothing but an attempt to distract from the Trump régime's crimes against the American people.

If it was a serious attempt to disclose actual evidence it should be given to the scientific community... all of it, no redactions and if what they are showing is the best they have then I for one am not impressed, UFO magazines of the 60's and 70's had better photos and much better background information. This is so obviously just another jet stream of BS coming out of our government... yes I am angry!

It's sad to see our Nation reduced to such flimflammery to prevent a pedophile from getting his just deserts.

The whole UAP disclosure seems to suffer from fuzzy blob syndrome. IOW, nothing beyond the grainy indistinct oddities we've been seeing for decades. Along with the usual parade of unsupported witness reports vaguely hinting at...something. As @Moontanman says, it's another pathetic distraction ploy.

The only decent footage seems to be found in Spielberg fables.

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

The whole UAP disclosure seems to suffer from fuzzy blob syndrome. IOW, nothing beyond the grainy indistinct oddities we've been seeing for decades. Along with the usual parade of unsupported witness reports vaguely hinting at...something. As @Moontanman says, it's another pathetic distraction ploy.

The only decent footage seems to be found in Spielberg fables.

I've seen much better stuff from back in the Blue Book days, but more importantly the reason for the release is insulting.

The fuzzy grainy and redacted contents is what qualifies the disclosure as for unidentified to keep you scratching heads in the dark. The absent files that you 'want to know' are the hidden, and not a qualified 'need to know'.

When hidden identified files become released, then you may be pleased. If ever happens. 😒

Transparency is about the unidentified and unresolved, not about the hidden for decades.

Fuzzy and grainy is probably why these are unidentified, because better information makes it more likely you can make an identification.

It might be instructive to view reports for sightings that were later identified to see why/how that happened and compare to reports that remain unidentified