DAST Chat

2011-01-27 11:21:32

#1076

13rin: Member; +977|6696

dayarath wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
dayarath wrote:
I just feel it's a very bad development to weaponize space before we even have a proper foothold there. Important sattelites could get shot down in the crossfire would the systems ever be used.
That's the point. Being able to take out the other guy's eyes in the sky among other things -Ever seen Real Geinus?
https://www.hotmoviesale.com/dvds/COL-D … Genius.jpg
sattelites do more than just being eyes in the sky.

What if someone accidentally hits Hubble? yeah.

Who give a shit about the hubble, when the james webb is going up next year. Also there have been huge advances to take the distortion out of the land based telescopes. so yeah. next?

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-01-27 11:46:39

#1077

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6216|...

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Who give a shit about the hubble, when the james webb is going up next year. Also there have been huge advances to take the distortion out of the land based telescopes. so yeah. next?

The same sentence can still be used if you replace 'hubble' with 'james webb'. There's a very large amount of sattelites in space, many of which are of value to researchers all around the globe. Getting star wars inbetween all of them would be a terrible move.

Besides, it would simply spark a new arms race. You get star wars up and every other nation starts trying to figure out ways on how to counter this new technology - it's not really a succesful deterrent if that is the case.

inane little opines

2011-01-27 11:55:01

#1078

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6347|North Tonawanda, NY

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Who give a shit about the hubble, when the james webb is going up next year. Also there have been huge advances to take the distortion out of the land based telescopes. so yeah. next?

Ideally, they'd keep Hubble in operation even with the new telescope up there. Regarding HST, do you have any clue just how hard it is to get time on that thing to collect data? If they send up another telescope, then more science can be done with the instruments available. Besides, the HST is infrared, visible, and UV spectrum...whereas the JWST is only infrared. Also, atmospheric distortions can only be corrected ... to a point. They won't ever be as clear as an equivilent sized telescope in space. That said, I'm sure that would not be my primary concern if a major war led to mass satellite destruction.

Besides, the James Webb won't be going up until 2014-2015. :p

2011-01-27 11:57:14

#1079

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6347|North Tonawanda, NY

dayarath wrote:
The same sentence can still be used if you replace 'hubble' with 'james webb'. There's a very large amount of sattelites in space, many of which are of value to researchers all around the globe. Getting star wars inbetween all of them would be a terrible move.

It is just one of many...and just think of all the debris that will be polluting available orbits around Earth. Satellites are frail, and hitting metal space junk is a pretty good way to destroy the ones that are working.

2011-01-28 06:42:42

#1080

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6714

https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7941/biden2.jpg

2011-01-28 07:04:11

#1081

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6369|what

https://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7525/vudwb.jpg

2011-01-28 07:16:08

#1082

13rin: Member; +977|6696

And the man studied constitutional law... sigh

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-02-01 23:38:42

#1083

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6817|132 and Bush

Bill O' really does make it easy sometimes. Grabbing a random quote from a commenter on a blog that has nothing to do with Nazi's... ?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-j … -analogies

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-02-02 00:52:51

#1084

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6369|what

This was better

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber … asse-tyson

more recent also

2011-02-02 01:11:21

#1085

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6817|132 and Bush

Are you sure about more recent?

.. not a fan of Colbert. He doesn't have nearly the wit of Stewart.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-02-02 01:22:30

#1086

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6369|what

Oh, not more recent sorry.

Agree that Stewart is funnier. Colbert seems more political than humourist.

2011-02-02 01:30:45

#1087

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6817|132 and Bush

SenorToenails wrote:
dayarath wrote:
The same sentence can still be used if you replace 'hubble' with 'james webb'. There's a very large amount of sattelites in space, many of which are of value to researchers all around the globe. Getting star wars inbetween all of them would be a terrible move.
It is just one of many...and just think of all the debris that will be polluting available orbits around Earth. Satellites are frail, and hitting metal space junk is a pretty good way to destroy the ones that are working.

.. not to mention do you know how much harder repair and service missions will be now? Actually, I wonder how that will even be possible without an orbiter that can go as high as the hubble . Hubble was serviced four times to extend it's life.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-02-02 12:19:00

#1088

13rin: Member; +977|6696

Kmar wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
dayarath wrote:
The same sentence can still be used if you replace 'hubble' with 'james webb'. There's a very large amount of sattelites in space, many of which are of value to researchers all around the globe. Getting star wars inbetween all of them would be a terrible move.
It is just one of many...and just think of all the debris that will be polluting available orbits around Earth. Satellites are frail, and hitting metal space junk is a pretty good way to destroy the ones that are working.
.. not to mention do you know how much harder repair and service missions will be now? Actually, I wonder how that will even be possible without an orbiter that can go as high as the hubble . Hubble was serviced four times to extend it's life.

This stemmed from the weaponization of space with they're against. I'm for it. There is technology out now that has figured out a way to remove the distortion. But hey these guys convinced me that this was a bad idea. Now I challenge them to go and convince russia and china.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-02-02 13:02:06

#1089

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6347|North Tonawanda, NY

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Kmar wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
It is just one of many...and just think of all the debris that will be polluting available orbits around Earth. Satellites are frail, and hitting metal space junk is a pretty good way to destroy the ones that are working.
.. not to mention do you know how much harder repair and service missions will be now? Actually, I wonder how that will even be possible without an orbiter that can go as high as the hubble . Hubble was serviced four times to extend it's life.
This stemmed from the weaponization of space with they're against. I'm for it. There is technology out now that has figured out a way to remove the distortion. But hey these guys convinced me that this was a bad idea. Now I challenge them to go and convince russia and china.

Adaptive optics can only go so far. That does not mean it is a 'bad idea'. Thinking that terrestrial telescopes can somehow be a replacement for space-based telescopes is a bad idea. I'm fairly certain that the HST images of the deep field would be impossible with ground-based observations.

Regardless, weaponization of space is inevitable. Large scale destruction of satellites during a war will cause all sorts of problems, but I'll bet that no one will be concerned with those consequences at the time.

2011-02-02 18:57:44

#1090

13rin: Member; +977|6696

Well, we may all ready have.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-02-02 19:18:03

#1091

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6347|North Tonawanda, NY

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Well, we may all ready have.

As in, we may have already weaponized space? Maybe, but that article is about terrestial anti-satellite weaponry.

2011-02-02 19:21:42

#1092

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6891|Canberra, AUS

I thought both the US and Russia have or had (inactive) ASAT programs?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-02-02 19:28:16

#1093

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6347|North Tonawanda, NY

Spark wrote:
I thought both the US and Russia have or had (inactive) ASAT programs?

Both did it in the 80's, but only one or two tests. That is, until PRC and USA did it a few years ago (once each). Russia's current ASAT ability is currently unknown, but their program was publicly resumed. India is also developing this capability as a long-term goal (apparently).

2011-02-02 21:55:35

#1094

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6817|132 and Bush

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Kmar wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
It is just one of many...and just think of all the debris that will be polluting available orbits around Earth. Satellites are frail, and hitting metal space junk is a pretty good way to destroy the ones that are working.
.. not to mention do you know how much harder repair and service missions will be now? Actually, I wonder how that will even be possible without an orbiter that can go as high as the hubble . Hubble was serviced four times to extend it's life.
This stemmed from the weaponization of space with they're against. I'm for it. There is technology out now that has figured out a way to remove the distortion. But hey these guys convinced me that this was a bad idea. Now I challenge them to go and convince russia and china.

Right, they shoot a laser on a fixed point above the atmosphere and measure/apply the compensation. Still, nothing beats being above the atmosphere. Russia and China aren't just in it for the weaponization of space. They are planning many science missions.

an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-02-03 03:44:16

#1095

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6817|132 and Bush

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Kmar wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:

It is just one of many...and just think of all the debris that will be polluting available orbits around Earth. Satellites are frail, and hitting metal space junk is a pretty good way to destroy the ones that are working.
.. not to mention do you know how much harder repair and service missions will be now? Actually, I wonder how that will even be possible without an orbiter that can go as high as the hubble . Hubble was serviced four times to extend it's life.
This stemmed from the weaponization of space with they're against. I'm for it. There is technology out now that has figured out a way to remove the distortion. But hey these guys convinced me that this was a bad idea. Now I challenge them to go and convince russia and china.

Hmmmm http://www.space.com/10740-national-spa … witterfeed

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-02-03 09:19:13

#1096

13rin: Member; +977|6696

SenorToenails wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
Well, we may all ready have.
As in, we may have already weaponized space? Maybe, but that article is about terrestial anti-satellite weaponry.

ah.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-02-04 08:50:32

#1097

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6714

burnzz wrote:
you try way too hard.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:
the sad part is I'm not trying.

yes, you are. you are trying to brow beat people with your talking points, you are trying to belittle people's opinion through some arcane sense of (humor?) and you are trying to wear through everyone's last nerve.

the one thing you are not trying, is running your posts through a spellchecker. kudos.

2011-02-04 15:00:49

#1098

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6322|eXtreme to the maX

None of lowings or H/Js arguments amount to much more than 'I r right, u r stoopid'.

Fuck Israel

2011-02-04 17:28:02

#1099

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6714

another reason why d&st should be nuked;

-Sh1fty- wrote:
"Hey Australia, I'm gona let you finish, but the US had the worst tropical storm of all time, OF ALL TIME!"

the stupidest posters can't spell for shit.

-Sh1fty- wrote:
so don't start bashing me you old geizer.

see what i mean?

Last edited by burnzz (2011-02-04 17:29:48)

2011-02-04 17:51:03

#1100

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6369|what

Dilbert_X wrote:
None of lowings or H/Js arguments amount to much more than 'I r right, u r stoopid'.

Source - FoxNews / Religion of Peace

BF2S Forums DAST Chat

dayarath wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

dayarath wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

dayarath wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Kmar wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

dayarath wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer