NationStates Jolt Archive

The Revival of the Space Programs

REAFFIRMING that is time to revive the Space program and make it the most funded program on Earth and in space;

REALIZING that there are other things that are important but it is time for humanity to realize its full potential in space;

CALLS UPON that all nations will help with endevour as it is a unifying effort. We are not only one nation or one person but we are one species and one race;

REQUESTING
1. That all nations must have a space program if they don't have one already;
2. There will be a new agency called U.E.S.A. (United Earth Space Agency).It will coencide with all rules stated by U.N.S.C.( United Nations Space Consortium).
3. UESA shall have Ten Men and Ten Woman on a planet similar to Earth in Forty Years.
4. The colonization on Mars and the Moon will be happening within the next fifthteen years.
5. Finally a headquarters will be built for the UESA and will be the tallest building in world with a statue of man reaching for the sky.

SEEKING new things, new planets and civilizations is what we are. When it boils down to it we are a adventurous and exploratory race. It is in our blood to be curious about things we have never heard of or seen. It is time we finally go where no one has gone before.

Same objections as last time.

Well it is nice to know I can always count on you to be my opposition.

Well it is nice to know I can always count on you to be my opposition.

ROTFL!
Interesting point.

Well it is nice to know I can always count on you to be my opposition.

Well, it would help if you had at least attempted to address my complaints in this.

Well give me some real ones.

Real ones? In what way? All of the ones I gave you last time are based on actual RPs and other pieces of information on here.

This is not for a RP. I do these proposals for myself and others. Not to RolePlay.

Then what's the point of them? Without the RP aspect, they're worthless.

Ten WomanWoman is singular. If there are ten, it should be women.

I oppose 1 for two reasons:

a) The UN should be very sparing in its mandates on individual countries. It should govern the interactions of countries, not our internal behavior.

b) It's an innefficient way of doing this. Space travel is very expensive. It makes more sense to have a few large facilities than to have many small ones.

I oppose 3 and 4 because they do not explain how to accomplish these goals. UN Resolutions are not magic. You can't simply vote them in and have them occur. To explore space, there would need to be additional research, etc.

What does the new agency do? Other than comply with the rules.

What is a "space program?" It's mandated but not explained. What would we be mandating?

Basically, this UN Resolution would just build a tall building and a statue. Everything else is left unfunded and unplanned.

Well what do you think of The Global Library?

Woman is singular. If there are ten, it should be women.

That's why it's a draft.

I oppose 1 for two reasons:

It's "one" for this case. If you're going to correct word usage, make sure you're not guilty of getting it wrong yourself.

a) The UN should be very sparing in its mandates on individual countries. It should govern the interactions of countries, not our internal behavior.

:Adds another name to the lists of people who did not read the FAQs, stickies, or passed resolutions:

The UN has dictated otherwise.

b) It's an innefficient way of doing this. Space travel is very expensive. It makes more sense to have a few large facilities than to have many small ones.

Depends on where the small facilities are. If they are in space, then large facilities are very dangerous and likely to get destroyed easily by incomming meteors, asteroids, and anything else your imagination can come up with. If they're in orbit, that can be very deadly for whatever is below them. Small ones have a better chance of surviving those problems and burning up in orbit if they happen to fall out of the sky.

I oppose 3 and 4 because they do not explain how to accomplish these goals. UN Resolutions are not magic. You can't simply vote them in and have them occur. To explore space, there would need to be additional research, etc.

Actually, they are, in a way. You have no choice but to obey them unless they give you a choice. Part of the fun of UN membership.

What does the new agency do? Other than comply with the rules.

Good challenge there.

What is a "space program?" It's mandated but not explained. What would we be mandating?

Look it up. Unless said otherwise, it assumes you'll use real life information to fill in the blanks.

Basically, this UN Resolution would just build a tall building and a statue. Everything else is left unfunded and unplanned.

Try reading the passed resolutions. You'll see a pattern.

Thanks DLE you defended me for once. Oh yea you made a spelling mistake "Small ones have a better change of surviving " it is chance not change. I thought I would point that out because you don't make them.

Thanks DLE you defended me for once. Oh yea you made a spelling mistake "Small ones have a better change of surviving " it is chance not change. I thought I would point that out because you don't make them.

Never said I don't make them. That's why you don't see me correcting spelling besides the case above.

Dosen't that make you mad when people correct your spelling when they them self make mistakes?

Actually, he made a grammar mistake, not a spelling mistake. But similar enough for my purposes.

While we're nitpicking spelling.

2. There will be a new agency called U.E.S.A. (United Earth Space Agency).It will coencide with all rules stated by U.N.S.C.( United Nations Space Consortium).It should say coincide not coenicde.

4. The colonization on Mars and the Moon will be happening within the next fifthteen years.Fifteen not fifthteen.

And finally a question,
5. Finally a headquarters will be built for the UESA and will be the tallest building in world with a statue of man reaching for the sky.

What happens if after this building is built some nation comes along and builds one that is taller, does the UESA have to then build another even taller building?

My question is, what FT nation is he going to have build it? I'm currently drawing up plans for one so tall the roof will be supporting an orbital platform.

That's why it's a draft.Uhm...your point? I pointed out a spelling mistake (which existed in prior versions and was previously mentioned (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7813852&postcount=5) but not corrected, so I posted more information). Isn't that the point of publishing drafts? To find problems now rather than later? No, this wasn't important criticism. However, it is easily fixable now.

It's "one" for this case. If you're going to correct word usage, make sure you're not guilty of getting it wrong yourself.It is more important to be consistent than correct. Since the original proposal used "1," I used "1" to match (so people could easily see to what I was referring). If the original proposal had used a more formal declaration (like "one" or "first"), then I would have matched it. Anyway, the actual "correct" usage would be something more like "your first point" or "clause one," as long as we are being pedantic. I really wasn't feeling that formal about it. I could quote your words back to you, but I'm really not interested in a flame war over something so silly.

The UN has dictated otherwise.The UN has dictated that I cannot lobby against a resolution because I feel that it is overly intrusive? I must have missed that resolution.

Depends on where the small facilities are. If they are in space,I was talking about the ground based facilities, since those are what I would see as a space program. At least that is how I fill in the blanks with my real life information. Again, it is a matter of definition, what does space program mean. Does it mean having a launch facility? A person in space? A facility in space? All three? Two of three? Something else?

Obviously, the resolution *can* say whatever it wants (within the guidelines). However, I would not vote for a resolution like this (no, I'm not a delegate, so I can't vote directly; however, my region's delegate will put up a poll to determine how I and my neighbors would like the delegate to vote). I might vote for another resolution with the same goals.

Uhm...your point? I pointed out a spelling mistake (which existed in prior versions and was previously mentioned (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7813852&postcount=5) but not corrected, so I posted more information). Isn't that the point of publishing drafts? To find problems now rather than later? No, this wasn't important criticism. However, it is easily fixable now.

Read the passed resolutions. This one's more legible and has far more thought put into it than some. The way you typed it up, it looked as though the spelling errors were a reason why you were not supporting it.

It is more important to be consistent than correct. Since the original proposal used "1," I used "1" to match (so people could easily see to what I was referring). If the original proposal had used a more formal declaration (like "one" or "first"), then I would have matched it. Anyway, the actual "correct" usage would be something more like "your first point" or "clause one," as long as we are being pedantic. I really wasn't feeling that formal about it. I could quote your words back to you, but I'm really not interested in a flame war over something so silly.

Not always. There is the understood meaning you must take into consideration as well. If it is understood you are refering to something, such as the first clause by calling it "one," then you can use the correct way of typing the number without adding in the extra parts of phrasing that you are implying. That's one of the reasons English is such of a difficult language to learn.

The UN has dictated that I cannot lobby against a resolution because I feel that it is overly intrusive? I must have missed that resolution.

No, it has dictated it has the right to do such. We have people lobby against things for any reason they feel like, but what the UN has dictated as its views are what you must contend with.

I was talking about the ground based facilities, since those are what I would see as a space program. At least that is how I fill in the blanks with my real life information. Again, it is a matter of definition, what does space program mean. Does it mean having a launch facility? A person in space? A facility in space? All three? Two of three? Something else?

It depends. There are so many classifications using just modern tech. You have no idea how much it expands when you get into future tech.

Obviously, the resolution *can* say whatever it wants (within the guidelines). However, I would not vote for a resolution like this (no, I'm not a delegate, so I can't vote directly; however, my region's delegate will put up a poll to determine how I and my neighbors would like the delegate to vote). I might vote for another resolution with the same goals.

Actually, you can vote directly. You don't need to be a regional delegate or even have endorsements.

Bump

We support the exploration of space. We also support the development of technologies that will facilitate human habitation in space and on other worlds. However, the goals set forth in this proposal are dangerous and far too expensive for my nation and most nations in the UN to undertake at this time. This resolution is overly-ambitious, foolish, and unrealistic. We will have no part of it.

3. UESA shall have Ten Men and Ten Woman on a planet similar to Earth in Forty Years.


Given that such a planet isn't even known to exist, is this really something that should be included in the resolution?


5. Finally a headquarters will be built for the UESA and will be the tallest building in world with a statue of man reaching for the sky.


Now that's just arrogant.

Now that's just arrogant.

The whole thing is laughable.

Given that such a planet isn't even known to exist, is this really something that should be included in the resolution?

In NS, they are actually quite common. I own three. Terran, my nation's homeworld, naturally has an oxygen atmosphere but was terraformed to be able to support life (unfortunately, the job was on in one part of the planet due to the terraformers destroying each other in war). Terrator is around the size of Mars and is pretty much just like Earth, except it is only 60% water. Terrasot is only 5% smaller than Earth and is basically Earth, only without a moon with a much warmer climate and different shapes for the continents.

Of the above, only Terrasot has an ozone layer and none of them have moons.

Now that's just arrogant.

Nah. Arrogant is my idea I came up with in reply.

REAFFIRMING that is time to revive the Space program and make it the most funded program on Earth and in space;

REALIZING that there are other things that are important but it is time for humanity to realize its full potential in space;


But what's the justification for all of that? I can think of A LOT of other things more important than space exploration. Like fixing the problems of poverty and disease down here on earth before we blow billions sending up an expensive tin can into space.

1. That all nations must have a space program if they don't have one already;

What about nations that are too poor to even feed its people? How are they supposed to have a space program when they can't even provide basic domestic needs?
And what abou the many nations who just don't think space exploration is that important or promising? (at least for the relative costs)

2. There will be a new agency called U.E.S.A. (United Earth Space Agency).It will coencide with all rules stated by U.N.S.C.( United Nations Space Consortium).
3. UESA shall have Ten Men and Ten Woman on a planet similar to Earth in Forty Years.
...
5. Finally a headquarters will be built for the UESA and will be the tallest building in world with a statue of man reaching for the sky.


First of all, what is the purpose of the proposed UESA? Just that singular goal of putting 20 people on another planet? What are its duties, what does it do? You haven't explained any of that.
As was said before... Where's the research showing that earth-like planets exist? And how do we get them there (You've got light years to travel, buddy) And what do they do when they get there?
#5 is just stupid. Do you actually take your proposals seriously or do you just like attracting attention to yourself?

4. The colonization on Mars and the Moon will be happening within the next fifthteen years.

First, what's the rational for doing this? Seeing as humans can't even get 2 people living for 6 months in ORBIT right, what makes you think that they're competent enough to live on an off-earth satellite PERMANENTLY. 15 years is not realistic in the slightest.

SEEKING new things, new planets and civilizations is what we are. When it boils down to it we are a adventurous and exploratory race. It is in our blood to be curious about things we have never heard of or seen. It is time we finally go where no one has gone before.

That's all from your point of view. If you want to build an extensive space program, more power to you. There's NOTHING stopping you from doing so. So what's the point of mandating the rest of us to do the same thing?

Hmm, imaginary nations with imaginary planets. Ridiculous.

Hmm, imaginary nations with imaginary planets. Ridiculous.

Now I have been taking your shit for a while. That was the last post.

So Fuc* you man. I want to see you do better. I know you can't because you got your ego so far shoved up your ass you can't think clearly.

Hmm, imaginary nations with imaginary planets. Ridiculous.

If you can't contribute anything of any worth to the conversation, then don't bother posting.

Now I have been taking your shit for a while. That was the last post.

So Fuc* you man. I want to see you do better. I know you can't because you got your ego so far shoved up your ass you can't think clearly.


Again, I wish the nations who supported your proposal could see what you're all about. I wish they could see this post. Unfortunately, the only glimpse they have of your pre-hominid mental capacity is through your proposals. They don't get to see the truly clever stuff you spout here in the forum.

I would advise against flaming me.

Again, I wish the nations who supported your proposal could see what you're all about. I wish they could see this post. Unfortunately, the only glimpse they have of your pre-hominid mental capacity is through your proposals. They don't get to see the truly clever stuff you spout here in the forum.

I would advise against flaming me.


Well I wouldn't be talking since your IQ is as high as your Post number.

Agnostica, quick question: How were you planning on building such a building as you call for?

Agnostica, quick question: How were you planning on building such a building as you call for?

As I am writting this post I am rewritting the Proposal.

Agnostica, quick question: How were you planning on building such a building as you call for?

Pixie dust, it would seem.

Here is my rewritten version:


REAFFIRMING that is time to revive the Space programs of Earth and make them the most funded programs on Earth and in space;

REALIZING that there are other things that are important as well like defeating diseases and starvation but it is time we explore the universe;

CALLS UPON that all of the United Nations members to help with this endeavor as it must be a united effort. We are not only one nation or one person but we are one species and one race;

REQUESTING
1. That all wealthy and/or economically promising nations must have a space program if they do not have one already;

2. There will be a new agency called E.S.A. (Earth Space Agency). The duties of E.S.A. are as followed:
2A.The E.S.A. will head all operations in Space.
2B.Shall have a recording of all spacecraft.
2C.E.S.A. will plan missions to different bodies in space.
2D.Finally he E.S.A. shall be the headquarters for all Astronomical and Space Engineering research.
3. One of the E.S.A’s first missions will be to search for a habitable planet close to the Earth. Once they have found a planet they will then proceed to get ten men and ten women on that planet alive within Forty Years of when E.S.A has found a habitable planet. The reason for this mission is to study other planets like Earth and to see if it has life in any way. Also this will be an alpha site for humanity incase anything happens to Earth.

4. The mission will be the colonization of Mars which will be happening within the next thirty years. We will be doing this to study what happened to Mars and to answer questions. Like how can there be water and no life today? Why has the water frozen? Finally if there was life on Mars did it some how come here to earth?

5. Finally a headquarters will be built for the E.S.A. To head all E.S.A.’s operations. It will also include a research facility, engineering facility, and launching facility.

SEEKING is what we do. We are explorers. It is who we are. It is time humanity reach for the stars. We have been on this planet long enough. Space gives numerous potentials for humanity. We must take advantage of them.

I'm not sure about the timescales, but so far pretty good.

Peaonusahl, Great Agnostica - both of you need to knock off the flaming and bickering. Consider this an informal warning.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Consider me quite. But tell him to act like an adult and maybe we wouldn't have problem.

I was asked to be quite, I will be. I will not be baited.

I'm all for the exploration of space but I see a few problems with your proposal. First off, finding other inhabitable planets seems like a stretch in a 40 year time span. There are no inhabitable planets in our solar system and being that the closest solar system to us, even traveling at the speed of light, would take longer then a human lifetime to reach, it seems unrealistic to think that we would be able to find other inhabitable worlds. Unless we were able to manipulate both time and space, which we are currently unable to accomplish, there is no way to set a time scale on our reaching other worlds. Further, because so much money would be invested in such a program, wouldn't it make sense for the agency to focus on endeavors such as mining astroids for precious metals and other useful resources. We know this is feasible and that astroids and other nearby planets contain many resources that would make the space program profitable for countries. I think that this more realistic and practical approach to a space program would pay off more for everyone in the long run then a blind leap into finding other suitible planets to live on when we have no way of even getting there.

I'm all for the exploration of space but I see a few problems with your proposal. First off, finding other inhabitable planets seems like a stretch in a 40 year time span. There are no inhabitable planets in our solar system and being that the closest solar system to us, even traveling at the speed of light, would take longer then a human lifetime to reach, it seems unrealistic to think that we would be able to find other inhabitable worlds. Unless we were able to manipulate both time and space, which we are currently unable to accomplish, there is no way to set a time scale on our reaching other worlds. Further, because so much money would be invested in such a program, wouldn't it make sense for the agency to focus on endeavors such as mining astroids for precious metals and other useful resources. We know this is feasible and that astroids and other nearby planets contain many resources that would make the space program profitable for countries. I think that this more realistic and practical approach to a space program would pay off more for everyone in the long run then a blind leap into finding other suitible planets to live on when we have no way of even getting there.

I agree.

I agree with that statement to. I will be rewritting it right now.

This is the rewrite:
3. One of the E.S.A’s first missions will be to start researching new engines. There are two types of research that will go into deep depth. One is creating an engine that can manipulate time and space. The second will be creating an engine that can go the speed of light and manipulate time.

According to current scientific realities, it is impossible to travel at or beyond the speed of light. The technology to create an engine which can violate the laws of space and time is light years away, no pun intended. Pursuing research of this kind at this time is unrealistic, though I share your curiosity.

According to current scientific realities, it is impossible to travel at or beyond the speed of light. The technology to create an engine which can violate the laws of space and time is light years away, no pun intended. Pursuing research of this kind at this time is unrealistic, though I share your curiosity.

You are right but there is no need not to try.

According to current scientific realities, it is impossible to travel at or beyond the speed of light. The technology to create an engine which can violate the laws of space and time is light years away, no pun intended. Pursuing research of this kind at this time is unrealistic, though I share your curiosity.

Actually, there's no evidence of it being impossible. Just evidence that we can't do it yet. The graviton drive idea my nation uses ICly is based around an idea that may actually work for FTL travel in reality. It uses physics to its advantage.

It's not unrealistic in the least.

DLE is there such a thing a anti gravity particles?

I should say, it is unrealistic in the modern realm of physics, not impossible. I don't recognize any nation's claim to have developed a magical technology that will allow them to travel at the speed of light or to manipulate time. This technology is many, many, many years away.

DLE is there such a thing a anti gravity particles?

Antigravitons? I think it's the same way you generate antimatter. You just reverse the charge or whatever.

It is unrealistic in the modern realm of physics, not impossible. I didn't say it was impossible. Highly improbable, YES!

Which means this can focus on developing tech more advanced than what the modern world has.

I don't recognize any nation's claim to have developed a magical technology that will allow them to travel at the speed of light or to manipulate time. This technology is many, many, many years away.

Considering my nation built its tech on the surviving work of previous nations that to its history spent thousands of years building massive spacial empires before destroying each other, combined with it buying tech from other nations that have spent hundreds or thousands of years according to their history developping such tech that is far above modern, I would say the claim I make is valid. And I've been researching my tech advancements ever since the last purchase. There is a link to my nation's history and the thread where I advance my tech in my signature, and you can look up Siesatia's store to see where I bought some of the basis. My tech is designed with the idea it is based on the work of nations that spent thousands of years building theirs. It's not something that I built and developed within 40 years.

But, I believe the above illustrates an important problem with the timeline of this. We're not looking at a short-scale timeline. My nation requires thousands of years of history to justify its tech level. We're looking at a program that may take hundreds of years to get to the first Earth-like planet, and I believe we should set this proposal up to allow for that.

Will all member nations have a chance to send their own countrymen ito space and explore?

Yes

Antigravitons? I think it's the same way you generate antimatter. You just reverse the charge or whatever.

Well what if we get a ship and got to the nearest blackhole. A distance where we wouldn't get suck in. Then we shoot antgravitons. Wouldn't that shoot the ship in to a directions like when you try to put the oppisite of magnets?

Quote:
I oppose 3 and 4 because they do not explain how to accomplish these goals. UN Resolutions are not magic. You can't simply vote them in and have them occur. To explore space, there would need to be additional research, etc.
/quote

Actually, they are, in a way. You have no choice but to obey them unless they give you a choice. Part of the fun of UN membership.

methinks you misunderstood. for us humans in present time, there are still a bunch of unknown issues that might get it the way.

it's only an attainable technical project if the unknowns are all bounded and workarounds exist. that's not the case with colonizing mars or whatever.

Act:
1. That all nations must have a space program if they don't have one already;
2. There will be a new agency called U.E.S.A. (United Earth Space Agency).It will coencide with all rules stated by U.N.S.C.( United Nations Space Consortium).
3. UESA shall have Ten Men and Ten Woman on a planet similar to Earth in Forty Years.
4. The colonization on Mars and the Moon will be happening within the next fifthteen years.
5. Finally a headquarters will be built for the UESA and will be the tallest building in world with a statue of man reaching for the sky.

Questions:
1. and 2. If we have one and if all must have one what do we need the U.E.S.A. for?
3. 10 men and 10 woman why? and from what country or countrys should they be from?
4. How? Why? and why those two planets?
5. Where? Why the tallest building in the world? and why have a statue of a man reaching for the sky? (I get the idea with the statue but what must we have it?).

I think that, while interstellar travel is an interesting idea, we should concentrate on expanding man's reach within our own solar system.

I think the main priorities of this E.S.A. should be:

*Regulating and tracking private space efforts
*Creating a truly permanent, self-sufficient orbital facility as a platform for further research, and spaceship construction with support for an initial crew of up to a dozen members, and a modular, standardized structure that supports the addition of a nearly unlimited number of add-on modules.
*Establishing permanent colonies on the moon
*Researching new forms of propulsion besides faster-than-light engines, as FTL technology, even if it is possible, has no immediate, practical value. We need to find a faster way to travel within our own system first, before colonies on Mars and the gas giants' moons can be achieved.

methinks you misunderstood. for us humans in present time, there are still a bunch of unknown issues that might get it the way.

it's only an attainable technical project if the unknowns are all bounded and workarounds exist. that's not the case with colonizing mars or whatever.

Nor was it such when the idea of going to the Moon was first come up with. Despite that, we got there. Sometimes, all science needs is a goal and ambition.

I think going to the moon is a good idea as it'd be easier to construct a ship at a lunar base since the moon's gravity is much weaker, so less fuel would have to be carried and used to reach escape velocity. There may also be mineral deposits on the moon that can and should be taken advantage of.

Antigravitons? I think it's the same way you generate antimatter. You just reverse the charge or whatever.

How can you BEGIN to speculate on the theoretical OPPOSITE of a particle that is theoretical itself? "You just reverse the charge or whatever"?

Gravity doesn't have "charges". Only electromagnetic forces (such as those that exist with protons and electrons) have charges. There's no such thing as "positive" gravity and "negative" gravity. Also, by definiton, gravity (and gravitons) only have attractive forces. Gravity does not, and CAN NOT "push." Thus, even to pull a spaceship at lightspeed+ with a theoretical graviton beam would require you to be at a certain point past it in the first place, which raises the question of how you could get your graviton beam-equipped ship through conventional means to a distance of X million light years in the first place.

It's basic physics. Does anyone have any grasp of that in this forum?


Well what if we get a ship and got to the nearest blackhole. A distance where we wouldn't get suck in. Then we shoot antgravitons. Wouldn't that shoot the ship in to a directions like when you try to put the oppisite of magnets?

As gravitons are MASSLESS particles, firing them in a vaccum would have no effect. You would need to conserve momentum, yes, but since the momentum of the graviton would be mass*velocity = mc = 0*(300,000 m/s) = 0, you have NO momentum in the other direction.

You're also ignoring the fact that gravitons aren't proven to exist, and the technology to control them most assuredly doesn't. How do you propose to have this technology within 40 years in time to implement on a vast fleet of spaceships?

Also, the speed of light CANNOT be exceeded. I'm not buying this blackhole/wormhole crap, and even if it actually brought you to another location/time in space, how do you propose to CONTROL THIS so that you can get to X location?

Agnostica, though I believe the rest of your proposal is ridiculous, I'll give you credit for the concept of a space oversight comittee to monitor (and maybe even direct) all space-related activities. However, I believe you're beeing a little too strict in your specifics (dictating the exact number of people, exact number of years), and shouldn't the aims and purposes of the space programs be left up to the experts that will run the thing, not national leaders with no comprehension whatsoever of physics?

How can you BEGIN to speculate on the theoretical OPPOSITE of a particle that is theoretical itself? "You just reverse the charge or whatever"?

Considering it's been speculated about since before I started to speculate on it? Easily. All you do is switch the frequency to be the opposite frequency of the graviton. That's pretty much all you're doing with matter to make antimatter anyway.

Gravity doesn't have "charges". Only electromagnetic forces (such as those that exist with protons and electrons) have charges. There's no such thing as "positive" gravity and "negative" gravity. Also, by definiton, gravity (and gravitons) only have attractive forces. Gravity does not, and CAN NOT "push."[quote]

See above about the charges part. Antigravitons are one of the Holy Grails of science fiction. much like Dyson Spheres. I used the word "charge" because it is easier to grasp when dealing with particles than the idea of frequency.

Actually, gravity can push if you know what you are doing. You generate an unstable massive graviton field behind a ship and force stability using whatever method you are most comfortable with. Then, you release the forced stability. What do you think happens when that graviton field gives out? The gravitons are going to scatter. You get enough of a field behind a ship, you can push it using this.

The energy required to push it along is rather massive and you face a little disintegration problem. Rather than generating black hole-sized unstable graviton fields, you surround a ship with a secondary graviton field tuned to a frequency to allow it to warp space in a way that allows for the ship to travel without as much danger of disintegrating. Then, when the field in the above paragraph scatters, you can use the resulting momentum, if of sufficient quantity, to generate FTL travel, all the while bypassing Einstein's problem with light-speed travel through a warping of the fabric of space and time.

[quote]Thus, even to pull a spaceship at lightspeed+ with a theoretical graviton beam would require you to be at a certain point past it in the first place, which raises the question of how you could get your graviton beam-equipped ship through conventional means to a distance of X million light years in the first place.

The fastest one using a graviton jump drive I have designed for any of my puppets only goes 2000 parsecs per jump. That's not even 10,000 lightyears. To cover millions of lightyears, we're talking about thousands of jumps.

It's basic physics. Does anyone have any grasp of that in this forum?

Basic physics isn't what we're talking here. We're talking a more advanced form of physics that deals with finding the holes in Einstein's equation, which has problems recently with being applied to particles that are known to exist.

As gravitons are MASSLESS particles, firing them in a vaccum would have no effect. You would need to conserve momentum, yes, but since the momentum of the graviton would be mass*velocity = mc = 0*(300,000 m/s) = 0, you have NO momentum in the other direction.

If it's a particle, it has some form of mass to it, even if the mass is tiny enough they call it massless for simplification's sake. If it's massless, it's energy. Since gravitons are a theoretical particle, they have mass. Even photons have a form of mass, though they are an unusual example for this.

You're also ignoring the fact that gravitons aren't proven to exist, and the technology to control them most assuredly doesn't. How do you propose to have this technology within 40 years in time to implement on a vast fleet of spaceships?

Who's talking 40 years for this? DLE and it's predecessors required thousands. In this case, while it is a neat idea to try that with a black hole, the technology won't exist on the nations this affects anytime in the near future.

Also, the speed of light CANNOT be exceeded. I'm not buying this blackhole/wormhole crap, and even if it actually brought you to another location/time in space, how do you propose to CONTROL THIS so that you can get to X location?

1) Actually, it can. Theoretically, you cannot travel at the speed of light, but theoretically you can travel faster or slower. The only problem with trying to travel fast is you must, at some point, travel at the speed of light. Thus, you have to find a way around it, which involves finding a way to bend space/time.

2) DLE tech looks at how black holes warp space and time to get around some of the technical problems of attempting FTL travel. The black holes are excellent examples of stable graviton fields that are easily detectable.

3) Graviton tech can't be used for time travel. You can only bend the fabric of the universe so far. You can make it appear time has nearly stopped, but you can't use it to travel backwards in time.

4) The control of it is simple. Point in the direction you want to go, fire up the engines, and hope you don't hit anything. Stellar maps are a big help in this.

However, while this is fun to talk about, the majority of why this has been brought up relates to specific problems with space travel and how they might be solved many centuries down the line in reality. But it is to bring up another problem that is unique to NS, which I talked about on the previous thread for this.

How can you BEGIN to speculate on the theoretical OPPOSITE of a particle that is theoretical itself? "You just reverse the charge or whatever"?

Gravity doesn't have "charges". Only electromagnetic forces (such as those that exist with protons and electrons) have charges. There's no such thing as "positive" gravity and "negative" gravity. Also, by definiton, gravity (and gravitons) only have attractive forces. Gravity does not, and CAN NOT "push." Thus, even to pull a spaceship at lightspeed+ with a theoretical graviton beam would require you to be at a certain point past it in the first place, which raises the question of how you could get your graviton beam-equipped ship through conventional means to a distance of X million light years in the first place.

It's basic physics. Does anyone have any grasp of that in this forum?



As gravitons are MASSLESS particles, firing them in a vaccum would have no effect. You would need to conserve momentum, yes, but since the momentum of the graviton would be mass*velocity = mc = 0*(300,000 m/s) = 0, you have NO momentum in the other direction.

You're also ignoring the fact that gravitons aren't proven to exist, and the technology to control them most assuredly doesn't. How do you propose to have this technology within 40 years in time to implement on a vast fleet of spaceships?

Also, the speed of light CANNOT be exceeded. I'm not buying this blackhole/wormhole crap, and even if it actually brought you to another location/time in space, how do you propose to CONTROL THIS so that you can get to X location?

Agnostica, though I believe the rest of your proposal is ridiculous, I'll give you credit for the concept of a space oversight comittee to monitor (and maybe even direct) all space-related activities. However, I believe you're beeing a little too strict in your specifics (dictating the exact number of people, exact number of years), and shouldn't the aims and purposes of the space programs be left up to the experts that will run the thing, not national leaders with no comprehension whatsoever of physics?


Well excuse me. I choose to ask questions about a field in which I am trying to learn about. It is a good question.

I've made a little proposal, wich could be useful to favor the great agnostica's one
WHEREAS
The U.N. already invested in an international space program and in an international moon colony
IT'S DEMANDED,
to all the U.N. members, to devolve the 1% of their annual income to the U.N.S.C. for a 10 year period, to boost the development of economically favourable space activities like mining, energy production(solar or nuclear), industries and space tourism.

what is the name of the proposal?

Well excuse me. I choose to ask questions about a field in which I am trying to learn about. It is a good question.

I'm still trying to get the answer, but so far the best I can give is to say "very big boom, massive deaths."

Here is my rewritten version:
2. There will be a new agency called E.S.A. (Earth Space Agency). The duties of E.S.A. are as followed:
...
2B.Shall have a recording of all spacecraft.
...


Could you clarify what this means?

which part?

Has any agency, whether it be affiliated with the UN or some NGO, assessed the current level of technology and developmental progress in aerospace science and technology available in all nations?

Has any agency, whether it be affiliated with the UN or some NGO, assessed the current level of technology and developmental progress in aerospace science and technology available in all nations?

They can't. In some cases, we're talking millions of lightyears between Earth and the nation they're trying to evaluate. Of the UN nations, we have technology ranges from primitive spears to temporal weapons. And that's not including the Magic Nations or the ones too strange to classify.

Well, I would think one needs to be able to describe a system before toying with it. For all we know, some nations could already be masters of the universe and there would be no need for space exploration.

So we can't explore space until we know what is out there but we can't know what is out there unless we explore space?

Not exactly. The system under study I am referring to is not space itself but aerospace science/technology/magic. For example, we can set up a bureau (forum), allow UN member nations to submit a dossier (based on a standardized questionnaire) outlining their current level of aerospace science/technology and their nation's knowledge about space and space exploration. This way we can enumerate the type of technologies available to the member nations.

This may sound tyrannical but we also need some way of adjudicating/deciding what sort of technology is realistically/theoretically possible for the current role play. Afterall, we can't have Darth Vader running around zapping helpless space shuttles if the role playing era is set at near future times (as Max Berry envisioned in his book).

The problem with attempting to do that is it is attempting to go far beyond what a resolution can do and messes in an area that is off limits to proposals.

Well then I guess the original draft on UN Space Program should be shot down, unless we do want Darth Vader shooting down helpless space stations and satellites. :mp5:

This resolution is still not looking at the practical implications of exploring space. For a nation to be willing to pump a lot of money into such a program it would make sence to expect at least something to come out. Sure the cold war moon shot might have not turned out much of a profit but then again that didn't cost nearly as much as sending a man to mars, or develot some sort of time space warp engin that we still don't even have physics for. Any resolution that would go up should first focus on ventures that generate some sort of revenue, such as mining astroids and other planets. Such programs as the shoemaker spacecraft mission Muses-C space probe should be the type of missions that the agency should first endorse. We already know of many sources very close to us that contain a wealth of prescoius minerals. This would also help our planet by aliviating some of the stress from ever intrusive mining efforts. Only once we can figure out how to work in space profitable and efficiently should we try to colonize another planet, such as Mars. Also the revenue generated from such mining missions would help pay for more ambitions projects such as the development of new types of engins and reaserch into phesibple ways, if the exist, of intersteler travel.

Palm Tree, don't forget that such proposal is based on the assumption that other nations are operating on the here-and-now or the near-future scenario. What about those nations who have warp capabilities (because they are role-playing at a different era) or those who are stuck in the medieval age?

I was under the impression that nation states occured in hte same tinme period as the novel written by Max Berry. Other nations which exist in diffrent times shouldn't be in the same UN because that would be ubsurd, no?

The website where nation states is located clearly states, inspired by the novel Jennifer Government, written by Max Barry.

That was my impression too (that everyone operates on Max Berry timeline) but DemonLordEnigma stated otherwise. See quote from DemonLordEnigma attached below. Perhaps DemonLordEnigma can elighten us on this apparent discrepancy? That was why I came up with the UN space technology standarisation/adjudication board to make sure nothing absurd is produced but DemonLordEnigma indicated that this would be ultra vires of the UN's jurisdiction.

They can't. In some cases, we're talking millions of lightyears between Earth and the nation they're trying to evaluate. Of the UN nations, we have technology ranges from primitive spears to temporal weapons. And that's not including the Magic Nations or the ones too strange to classify.

I was under the impression that nation states occured in hte same tinme period as the novel written by Max Berry. Other nations which exist in diffrent times shouldn't be in the same UN because that would be ubsurd, no?

Yes, but there are a number of nations that are either ultra-future tech or extremely low-tech. It's annoying because it muddles the discussion of the REAL issues in the proposal through God-modding of futuristic technology.

I'm starting to think it may be a good idea to seperate the past-tech, modern-tech, and future-tech into seperate UN. It just confuses things on proposals dealing with technology pursuits.

Also if you notice, all of the issues presented to us deal in modern day proublems. I have never had a question to the effect of, "the bubanic plaigue is ravagin the town, should thou despense the knigs knights to dispose of the plaigued" or "Little green men from Alpha Prime wish to become citizens in your nation, what sort of immigration polocies do you have toward extra-terrestrials." Which further leads me to beleive that Max Barry intended that this take place in the present/ near future.

Unfortunatly you can not submit a proposition to the UN that changes the way the game is played, and creating diffrent UN's for diffrent time period would change the way the game is played so maybe a UN resolution should be passed as to the time period in which the game is played and all nations who want to exist in diffrent ages should go out and buy age of empires or some other game that tailers to their needs, or have their own private UN forums in their own private regions which tailor to these time periods

I was under the impression that nation states occured in hte same tinme period as the novel written by Max Berry. Other nations which exist in diffrent times shouldn't be in the same UN because that would be ubsurd, no?

Not all of the nations existing in the same era as the current one use the same level of technology. Timeline-wise, I'm modern. Technology-wise, I'm a mixture of postmodern and future. Technology levels are compared to modern RL Earth for determining the classification.

Max Barry has made no ruling on nations of different technology levels and chronological eras being in the UN. If anything, he has basically given it a mandate to go ahead by not addressing the issue. That's why we have such discrepencies in technology levels, cultures, and even species from nation to nation. If you can imagine it and others are willing to accept it, you can basically do what you want for how your nation is set up.

My comment about the UN being unable to make such a database is a technological one, not a jurisdiction one. Even with the FT nations helping, we're still talking large portions of the universe that are difficult to get to that might contain new species and cultures or old ones hiding out from their past.

My question to fellow UN members is then as follows:

With the preamble being that the mandate of the UN Space Technology Standarisation Board is to determine and ascertain the types of aerospace science, technology and knowledge in existence for each member nation within the timeframe of Max Berry's novel,

That such said board will be comprised of members with real credentials in physics, organic and inorganic chemistry, biology, and/or medicine

That a fair and open discussion will be carried out to determine the types of aerospace science, technology and knowledge in existence

1. is the mandate of the UN space technology standarisation board ultra vires of the current UN jurisdiction?

Yes, but there are a number of nations that are either ultra-future tech or extremely low-tech. It's annoying because it muddles the discussion of the REAL issues in the proposal through God-modding of futuristic technology.

If you can back up your claim of godmodding, post it. If not, don't make it. Let's not forget the amount of godmodding employed by MT and PT nations as well.

My question to fellow UN members is then as follows:

With the preamble being that the mandate of the UN Space Technology Standarisation Board is to determine and ascertain the types of aerospace science, technology and knowledge in existence for each member nation within the timeframe of Max Berry's novel,

Potentially illegal and intended as a way for a minority of members to get out of dealing with something that is legitimate in the confines of NS.

That such said board will be comprised of members with real credentials in physics, organic and inorganic chemistry, biology, and/or medicine

Impossible to determine due to the nature of the internet. Also possibly going far beyond the way the game is intended by bringing the real world too far into it.

That a fair and open discussion will be carried out to determine the types of aerospace science, technology and knowledge in existence

See my reply to the first part.

1. is the mandate of the UN space technology standarisation board ultra vires of the current UN jurisdiction?

It is far beyond UN jurisdiction and, in attempts to control RP, may not even be legal. If you want to control what technology you deal with, go to II and RP with the modern nations.

I second the creation of such a board, I myself am a Bio-chem major and thus have a background in inorganic, organic, bio, and physics. This will help standardize somethings because if you think about it, a united nations can't exist if everyone has diffrent levels of technology and such not. A proposition to end world hunger is obsolete if one nation gets all their nutrition from cheep inexpensive pills while another nation had just discoverd the plow. Furthermore it would be impsotible to implement UN decisions in the game is the issues are far outside the issues that are actually debated in the game.

I second the creation of such a board, I myself am a Bio-chem major and thus have a background in inorganic, organic, bio, and physics.

With no ability to prove it beyond a statement. Identities are easy to fake.

This will help standardize somethings because if you think about it, a united nations can't exist if everyone has diffrent levels of technology and such not.

Why not? Not even in reality is technology equal between nations.

A proposition to end world hunger is obsolete if one nation gets all their nutrition from cheep inexpensive pills while another nation had just discoverd the plow.

How many pills can that nation create? How many can it afford to effectively give away? More importantly, are the nutritional requirements of the nation that has the pills the same as the nation that just discovered the plow? Even more importantly, does the nation with the pills care?

There are more factors than whether or not a nation has the technology to do something that come into question with most of these, and most the resolutions do not require certain levels of technology to do.

Furthermore it would be impsotible to implement UN decisions in the game is the issues are far outside the issues that are actually debated in the game.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572

There's an entire thread that proves that wrong. Those are actual issues discussed in the game and that manage to include FT nations.

I second the creation of such a board, I myself am a Bio-chem major and thus have a background in inorganic, organic, bio, and physics. This will help standardize somethings because if you think about it, a united nations can't exist if everyone has diffrent levels of technology and such not. A proposition to end world hunger is obsolete if one nation gets all their nutrition from cheep inexpensive pills while another nation had just discoverd the plow. Furthermore it would be impsotible to implement UN decisions in the game is the issues are far outside the issues that are actually debated in the game.

The UN has a huge array of differing technologies. Deal with it.

You can standardize measurements, but attempting to standardize technology is purely insane.

As to your last part - the UN Gnomes impliment the resolutions, no matter what.

UN Gnome: "You need to clean up your port facilities."
Bureaucrat: "I'm in the middle of the desert?!?"
UN Gnome: "*writes* Yes, but you now have laws about keeping your port facilities clean."

I really wish new players would watch for about a month before telling those of us who have been here for much longer what can and can't be done, but alas, a resolution can't be made about that because resolutions cannot restrict RP. So that would be illegal.

So would this proposal.

The UN has a huge array of differing technologies. Deal with it.

You can standardize measurements, but attempting to standardize technology is purely insane.

As to your last part - the UN Gnomes impliment the resolutions, no matter what.

UN Gnome: "You need to clean up your port facilities."
Bureaucrat: "I'm in the middle of the desert?!?"
UN Gnome: "*writes* Yes, but you now have laws about keeping your port facilities clean."

I really wish new players would watch for about a month before telling those of us who have been here for much longer what can and can't be done, but alas, a resolution can't be made about that because resolutions cannot restrict RP. So that would be illegal.

So would this proposal.

I believe the spirit of this game is to partially mimic the modern real world and to debate issues that parallel the modern real world. We can't hope, nor fully intend, for this to be totally realitic. People can play whatever game they want to play. It's silly to me to be playing in a futuristic setting while deciding issues that truly belong in the here and now.

Peaonusahl has put on an imaginary photonic shield that is able absorb and covert into metrionic particles any response or attack from Vastiva. The metrionic particles will convert Vastiva's ramblings into a tasty loaf of bread; very delicious with jam and tea.

Please if you have any further statements about this proposal please click here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386375) and reply. Thank You

I believe the spirit of this game is to partially mimic the modern real world and to debate issues that parallel the modern real world.

Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

Where does it say the spirit of this game is to be MT?

We can't hope, nor fully intend, for this to be totally realitic. People can play whatever game they want to play. It's silly to me to be playing in a futuristic setting while deciding issues that truly belong in the here and now.

Tell me: Is equality of sexes only a hear/now scenario? Gay marriage? The environment? Many of these issues are ones you can face at any technology level. So, no, it's not a case of them being truly here/now.

Peaonusahl has put on an imaginary photonic shield that is able absorb and covert into metrionic particles any response or attack from Vastiva. The metrionic particles will convert Vastiva's ramblings into a tasty loaf of bread; very delicious with jam and tea.

Potential flamebait.

As if Peaonusahl hasn't been flame-baited already?

I believe the spirit of this game is to partially mimic the modern real world and to debate issues that parallel the modern real world. We can't hope, nor fully intend, for this to be totally realitic. People can play whatever game they want to play. It's silly to me to be playing in a futuristic setting while deciding issues that truly belong in the here and now.

Havent been here long, have you?



Peaonusahl has put on an imaginary photonic shield that is able absorb and covert into metrionic particles any response or attack from Vastiva. The metrionic particles will convert Vastiva's ramblings into a tasty loaf of bread; very delicious with jam and tea.

*watches over glasses, then informs several dozen delegates of the childishness of Peaonusahl, with a notation to vote against any proposal by the individual on this basis*

Wait just a minitue!!!! Lets not get carried away here. Just calm down, take a deep breath, and stop flaming each other. We are not here to flame each other. We are here to flame me to change my proposal remember? So lets get back to it. :D

Flame who?

Your proposal was replied to on the other thread - and garners no support at all. Might actively campaign against it.

Havent been here long, have you?

Too long.




*watches over glasses, then informs several dozen delegates of the childishness of Peaonusahl, with a notation to vote against any proposal by the individual on this basis*

Mmm, dizzying intellect. Delicious bread and jam. Amazing tea.

Is equality of sexes only a hear/now scenario?

It was specifically written not to. It takes into account nations that recognise any number of sexes and that anyone could have been discriminated against.

Unlike the proposal that gave us the idea it didn't just protect women in patriarchies.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

what is the name of the proposal?
IMPROVEMENT OF UN SPACE PROGRAM
PLease vote for it! I want a chance to say something to the world!

AS the Foriegn Minister for the Republic of Bill Hughes, I must relate the Bill's statement that this inniative, if passed, will prove disasterous to the Economy of our republic. Over the pst few years, our Economy has slumped into a recession, and we must constantly beef up our defense budget to deal with rebels and insurgents in the Southern Provinces.

If this resolution ever comes to a vote, The Bill will order it voted against. I will then persuade the rest of GHPeria to vote along similar lines,

I am, and remain,
Your most humble and Obedient Servant,
Alfred Chamberlin, Foriegn Minister for the Republic of Bill Hughes