Want to go to Mars? You’ll have to fly there on a monster. Fortunately, this monster is being designed to carry and care for humans, not eat them!
A Space Launch System, or SLS, is actually not a new idea, nor is sending humans to Mars. But the potential for it to be a reality, well, that’s pretty new! An SLS is a giant rocket that is capable of hauling an enormous amount of material through space.
Operational Specs for a Beast
- 70-ton initial payload capability
- 130-ton final payload capability
- 4 RS-25 engines per rocket
- 211-foot core stage
- 730,000-gallon (2.76 million liters) fuel storage
NASA’s SLS has all of this, with numerous alterations available depending on the mission requirements.
Colossal Budget
The first proposed budget for the SLS was a hefty $3 billion, with an initial five-year investment into research and development. However, thanks to political maneuverings, those five years of research went out the window, and Congress decided that NASA should begin construction on the rocket right away. Whether this is a good or bad thing remains to be seen.
However, that slash of R&D wasn’t the worst thing that could’ve come from Congress. Because NASA is a government organization, its budget relies solely on what Congress and the President can dole out. In this case, Congress kept the original budget.
However, that $5 billion is only related to the actual building of the spacecraft. The entire project, including multiple launches, new technologies, and different configurations may bring the whole budget up to $35 billion. Honestly, though, can you really complain when we’re trying to achieve interplanetary space travel?
Altering the R&D timeline had a few consequences, but one thing it did appear to save was jobs. The sudden crunch forced NASA to use an older design β an SLS similar to Magnum. This design has been tested for over 50 years, which makes it sturdy, well-studied and as safe as any kind of space travel can be.
Monstrous Goals
The first official flight of the SLS will be to fly out to a stable orbit beyond the moon and return safely to Earth. This first flight will be unmanned, to minimize potential risk.
The second flight, which should happen sometimeΒ between 2021 and 2023, will carry astronauts to the same area of space. This will be deeper into space than any astronaut has traveled before and should give NASA a good idea of how capable the SLS is. Then there will be several deep-space missions, mostly manned; that should help scientists figure out how we’re going to get to Mars.
Of course, to do this, the craft must be able to keep people on it and keep them alive, for much longer than the average rocket. For this, it has a habitat module. This would be bare-bones, but enough to keep a crew of four alive and collecting data. It could involve an air compressor for heating and air circulation, a lab, utility tunnel and, of course, living quarters.
From there, the long-term goals kick in, of which there are currently two. The first one is to put astronauts on an asteroid, which would be the first time humans have ever landed on any space object besides the moon. The second, and the really big one is to successfully land humans on Mars, and then bring them home. But there’s a lot to be done before we get there!
Risks to the Monster
Of course, the SLS is not without precedent. However, the former models for this idea never made it off the drawing board. There are any number of things that could shut it down that have nothing to do with space travel. We’re talking mundane concerns like politics and finances.
Of course, once these hurdles are passed, there are the things that can actually go wrong with the SLS. Space travel is incredibly dangerous, and humans are poorly equipped to handle it. Since we have never been this far into space, it’s impossible to tell what dangers we face. Radiation, long-term weightlessness, cosmic rays, space debris and plain old boredom are all serious factors for a long-term mission.
Of course, one of the best parts of the SLS is that it’s designed to be altered. Parts can be disassembled and updated as technology changes, or for different mission requirements. This is a beast that’s being made to stand the test of time. Let’s hope it can stand the test of politics as well, and make interplanetary space travel a reality!
@PaulTomBlog @sciam it makes sense, it makes more sense though if we began with Mars
.@saxopolis @sciam Yes! That’s why I have this article about Mars pinned: https://t.co/einnDnFZqS
@PaulTomBlog @sciam @CosmoBC I agree with you about this π
Retweeted Granny Moon (@GrannyMooninVA):
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS?… https://t.co/XCSuMvQ2hm
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/PrS7VFi8dv @TheAstroBlog
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/CmSTdCvJaA by #datsyuklover via @c0nvey
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/ZzByI14nAQ β¦ RT @PaulTomBlog #Mars #space #rockets
π½Earthlings: Stay the hell away from my planet. https://t.co/MWwryjprYN
@PaulTomBlog hey sir! I just wanted to say that I loved the article on the #SLS. Keep up the great work!!
@hank_8th Thank you! Glad you liked it! π
@PaulTomBlog the election has divided the country but we all love space exploration.
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars https://t.co/D2CVorH3j8
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/RQliWhqtqb by #Ballooonknots via @c0nvey
Of course! As Feynman said, there’s plenty of room at the bottom. https://t.co/mHTudregOm
.@denlusk13 So the nanobots would build everything upon reaching destination, but how do you bring people there?
I believe, in modern times, the USA has repealed & ignored more treaties than any other country. https://t.co/qMcXcdTShB
.@denlusk13 Haha that may be true! Easy to do when you’re the world’s leading superpower and there’s no one to enforce those treaties on you
If it is to a mutual advantage no problem. https://t.co/3OewolLVtN
.@denlusk13 Of course. But in this case it seems that the treaties would impede progress for all parties…
Yes, but a single launch would provide all the tools.
Who has capability to build?
USA, Russia, China, Japan, EU. https://t.co/2KTJ4WPGjT
.@denlusk13 So you’re saying that a single launch is all it would take to get these factories started?
If packaged correctly no worries.
Reliable boosters would give a trajectory over Pacific. https://t.co/FFnFf11GbV
.@denlusk13 Then we still have miles to go (pun intended :P) as far as reliability is concerned for a payload of nukes…
@mattgduggan @PaulTomBlog IMHO, Mars is a waste of time & money takes months to get there.
Humanity must get off th⦠https://t.co/eJVY8wq20x
@mattgduggan @PaulTomBlog Just so you know, there have been people living in space for years & not a gram of lead to be found.
No, only imagination, education and political power.
LBJ was a gangster but he got the USA to the Moon.
To bad it e⦠https://t.co/J6ZunOfwBF
Use super Orion https://t.co/1gN8RDPO9l
or gas cannon & rail gun & many launches. https://t.co/Os7YzAgZfW
Again IMHO, Mars is waste of time & money.
Stars?
Go small: Fleet with craft size of pencils
Go big: 16x16km arcolo⦠https://t.co/x5agW8MuxP
.@denlusk13 For #interstellar travel, you are suggesting #nanotech in those pencil-sized crafts?
Make new treaties.
Once Obomba (Sorry for the politics.) is out of office we can stand down on war preparations in⦠https://t.co/I2jVl48j03
.@denlusk13 The problem with international treaties is that they are multilateral… So change in one country won’t be enough…
.@denlusk13 But perhaps if a country as big & powerful as the US repeals this treaty, other countries might follow suit, thus voiding it.
@denlusk13 @PaulTomBlog not if Hillary is in…same geo-hegemony group pulling her strings.
Reliable solid fuel rockets to 16km up.
Could inexpensively & safely carry entire prefabricated factories to the Mo⦠https://t.co/dJUGy0qJry
.@denlusk13 Yes and the more of those factories are built from materials found on the Moon the cheaper the whole enterprise would be.
It’s a wonderful way to get rid of nasty Uranium & convert reactors to cheap clean Thorium.
Boosters will take 16km⦠https://t.co/fr3jf8C811
.@denlusk13 Yes, but what would happen if we get a Challenger-type catastrophe… with NUKES on board!?!
$10K to LEO & $10K to the Moon.
Return cheaper, all downhill.
Easy to save $20K, plus folks get home mortgages 10 t⦠https://t.co/EUaQ0qOZI6
.@denlusk13 Ah yes, you’re right. The return trip would indeed be much cheaper.
True, but think of immigrants to the New World in the 19 / 20th Century.
The streets of Shackleton City are paved w⦠https://t.co/Oo1DroF3qf
Easily!
Freight by gas cannons or cheap thorium powered rail gun boosters.
People only by aircraft rocket launcher;β¦ https://t.co/K9PlsP62fE
Same here!
Please look at my book: I’ve covered many of these concepts: https://t.co/NPf8u1JfAy
Would enjoy an hone⦠https://t.co/MLvlzKCVPJ
Agreed, but there has to be a reason & wealth available to build something that expensive.
Industry & cities on the⦠https://t.co/ZPw97TG4aC
.@denlusk13 True, but you also need a cheap way to get people into space (in the millions) to have industry and mega-cities on the Moon…
.@denlusk13 So we’re having a “chicken or the egg” (which came first) kind of dilemma… π
We had the capability to launch 10K tons to the Moon in the 1950’s.
Now, can use shuttle boosters to get up 16km.β¦ https://t.co/FL2PtTSbJe
.@denlusk13 #ProjectOrion would be a very bad idea to use as a space launch method… We are talking about live nukes here after all!!
.@denlusk13 Even if we use conventional means to get craft into orbit &then use nukes to get further,how do you safely get nukes into space?
.@denlusk13 Also wouldn’t it violate international treaties aka space law?
.@denlusk13 Still… such a craft could get us to Mars & beyond (maybe even to the stars) if we can work out the kinks…
Why worry about the distant future. We need cities on the Moon, NOW. https://t.co/ldl2yG0RMj
Cost of a VG launch will be $10K per person.
Elevator will cost many trillions & no reason to build one until ther⦠https://t.co/sWIgVpgbOt
.@denlusk13 Are you sure Virgin Galactic can lower the costs to 10K from the initial 200K per person?
.@denlusk13 And even 10K is still a little bit high for space travel to become common place like plane travel is today…
.@denlusk13 Not to mention that Virgin Galactic only gets you to the edge of space and not into orbit… So costs should be even higher…
That is what aircraft launched rockets & space planes would be used for. https://t.co/BCkbtfjOHJ
We can build parks on the surface for folks wanting that experience.
Kilometer high caverns & water parks would be⦠https://t.co/JbEmDkO8pt
.@denlusk13 Water parks on the Moon! I like that idea! π
.@denlusk13 I’d pay for that (if I could afford it) π It’d be a really cool experience in 1/6 G!!
The Moon will give humanity the Solar System in our hands.
Stop building weapons & build a future!
There has to be⦠https://t.co/QcXVxL4HOC
Bingo! Aircraft launchers or more expensive space planes would take humans cheaply into space to meet with the frei⦠https://t.co/WNGE3iiMvj
It would use ballistics to get it to about 16km, then fire the rocket to take it to LEO.
Much cheaper & more freque⦠https://t.co/f15kP6fJz5
First need a reason for the expense of an elevator.
Can’t happen until Shackleton city / Moon has a population in tβ¦ https://t.co/H9TcgyvkEd
.@denlusk13 Yes, but the problem is getting that many people up there (even assuming that a certain % of them would be born there).
@PaulTomBlog @denlusk13 Elevator is probably not doable…probably would be a “Boondoggle” and set Space Industry back decades.
.@Patrickm55P @denlusk13 Right now (and in the near future) it probably would be. But in the more distant future, who knows?
@PaulTomBlog @denlusk13 I don’t think about “The distant future” I don’t see us surviving that long…
.@Patrickm55P @denlusk13 Well… I’m (still) an optimist (with a few moments of cynicism, but overall I still have hope for humanity)
.@Patrickm55P @denlusk13 Also didn’t they say the same thing about planes 120 years ago? π
@PaulTomBlog @denlusk13 Wind?
.@Patrickm55P @denlusk13 You mean that wind would interfere with a space elevator? Unlikely. The centripetal force is too strong for that.
@PaulTomBlog @denlusk13 First you have to be able to “Build” up there..We don’t even know how to do that yet….Remember how hard surface is
.@Patrickm55P @denlusk13 We can send robots first to get things started and then send people to finish things up and settle there.
Then you know how much better imagers are than eyes.
IR, UV, X-ray whatever you want. https://t.co/8GGxDEaxe4
.@denlusk13 Very true, but it’s still nice to look at the dark sky with the naked eye or with a telescope π
Mercury cheaper & easier than mining asteroids.
But, cities on the Moon first.
Imagine Shackleton city with a popul⦠https://t.co/MDi9dIIzv5
.@denlusk13 A city that big on the Moon would be absolutely amazing! π Nearly limitless space to colonise & no overpopulation!
Such a big project, not possible without worldwide dictatorship.
Hydrogen guns for freight & space planes for peopl⦠https://t.co/KAwNkJ8dZ7
.@denlusk13 It’s all about finding a material strong enough yet cheap to produce. Also a large enough counterweight would shorten the length
.@denlusk13 I think a space elevator would be practical in the long term, but for now we need other methods that are actually available now.
@PaulTomBlog Why bother with the expense? Aircraft launchers for people & natural gas/rail guns for freight.
Any mo⦠https://t.co/rVUTkevOC2
.@denlusk13 I get that rail guns for freight could probably be cheaper than a space elevator, but that can’t be used for people.
.@denlusk13 What do you mean by aircraft launchers? Virgin Galactic type plane & spaceship? How would that be cheaper than a space elevator?
.@denlusk13 I doubt a hydrogen gun could launch something by itself, but at least it could reduce considerably the amount of fuel required.
.@denlusk13 After all, most of a spacecraft’s mass is fuel (very little is actual payload) so any reduction in fuel would save lots of money
Why do you want to look at a black sky with an expensive construct when we already have dirt cheap HD cameras & LED⦠https://t.co/hBRy8M6rGi
.@denlusk13 Actually as an amateur astronomer, I love black skies! π Haha!
Abundant solar power makes a linear induction launch practical.
Space elevators are an expensive myth.
Bigger issue⦠https://t.co/CsbdY1Spqt
.@denlusk13 On Mercury with no atmosphere, 1/3 G & as you said lots of solar power would make linear induction launch practical.
.@denlusk13 But what about the Earth? Wouldn’t a space elevator be cheaper in the long run than linear induction?
Cosmic rays & solar wind make that a bad idea.
Put about 300 meters of rock between people & the surface.
LED panel⦠https://t.co/av2hCWoM4w
.@denlusk13 Actually I remember reading somewhere that 2 meters of water would be enough shielding.
.@denlusk13 So make the dome double and fit 2m of water in between layers. Or make that 3m just to be safe. Still transparent & safe.
@PaulTomBlog @denlusk13 yes, it would have to be circulating and filtering, but that is the best shielding humanity can build.
Same here. https://t.co/WTjVif9dDh
They would be cheap to build by the 1000’s in Mercury orbit.
Arcology habitat & spacecraft.
Humanity would become v⦠https://t.co/qbsNkBaUOZ
.@denlusk13 My only issue is how to get the materials into orbit cheaply… Mercury’s slow rotation makes a space elevator impractical…
Yes. Cylinder face, sunside to darkside:
1km Solar power
2km city 150 levels
10km open space 10 levels
2km city 150β¦ https://t.co/Tg2mFGdUZg
@denlusk13 @PaulTomBlog but the intensity of the environment would heavier shielding necessary. Also lack of atmosphere makes landing hard.
16x16km cylinder would be a great place for about 15 to 100 million people to live.
In orbit between Mercury & Venu⦠https://t.co/eZXFHuxKCF
.@denlusk13 More like a Dyson swarm, but yeah. That would be really cool! π
.@denlusk13 One thing though. Mercury has a gravity well (similar to that of Mars). Wouldn’t asteroids be easier to mine?
Planets are dangerous places. Use steel from Mercury to build multilevel cylindrical arcologies. I did the math for⦠https://t.co/FdqadEHRPh
@denlusk13 @PaulTomBlog it’s actually a lot harder to get to mercury (fuel wise) than it is mars. https://t.co/XKagTBJq7q
@denlusk13 @PaulTomBlog idk if either of you are the computer gaming type but you may like this (my favorite) https://t.co/rSBDOuWhWo
.@MKsThoughts @denlusk13 Yes! I’ve heard of that game! I wish I had time to try it out… Too much work lately…
@PaulTomBlog @denlusk13 make time man, you’ll be glad you did. What can you enjoy if not the little things like a videogame.
.@denlusk13 You mean concentrically nested O’Neil cylinders?
There will be a long wait, several billion years. One would hope we would have evolved or developed technology to a⦠https://t.co/EcWsF2xzbb
@denlusk13 @PaulTomBlog absolutely right of course π
Mercury has 15 times the solar energy of Mars and is made of heavy metals.
https://t.co/Gg7Fd8tbSW https://t.co/aCBHPKUfkT
.@denlusk13 True, but the surface area that can be colonized is much smaller than Mars. But of course in the short term it’s not an issue.
.@denlusk13 I suppose building mobile cities (Terminator) as proposed by #KimStanleyRobinson in Mars trilogy could increase that somewhat.
@PaulTomBlog
Actually. surface area would be irrelevant as any airless world would be colonized by building huge caverns & tunnels.
.@denlusk13 That’s a fair point. Same thing could be done on the Moon. Although domed craters would be really cool! https://t.co/dvpuRmHhw2
IMHO, we humans should have started cities & observatories on the Moon 50 years ago. https://t.co/G6vW8NXzVn
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NA… https://t.co/XnebgW5hjo via @CosmoBC
IMHO, the Moon should be colonized by humanity before any planetary landing.
Mercury would be better for the future⦠https://t.co/qpjMsd2lAo
.@denlusk13 I agree about the Moon.After all it’s closest to us. But why suggest Mercury? Only polar regions in shadow of craters are usable
.@denlusk13 Also in the long run I think Mars is going to be the largest colony because the planet could be terraformed (after a long time)
@PaulTomBlog @denlusk13 and even longer: #Mercury would be swallowed first by our bloated #sun π
Inside the Monster Rocket to #Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/ZzByI14nAQ RT @PaulTomBlog #space #planets #nature
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/QmrEcDOUqk
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/einnDnFZqS
@PaulTomBlog I love the goal and would voluntarily contribute, if only NASA asked. Funding with forced “contributions” is just wrong!
@PaulTomBlog It’s hard to see funding forcibly taken from millions as an “investment”. Surely NASA could self-fund, and ditch the politics.
.@FreeSmart But would they be able to raise enough money? I mean #NASA’s annual budget is 19.3 billion…
@PaulTomBlog There’s NEVER enough money. Ask any fundraiser. Let’s not think that somehow makes taking from others ethical. It doesn’t.
.@FreeSmart True, but as someone that has fundraised before for a few organisations I’m a member of, it is very hard to raise enough money.
.@FreeSmart I can’t begin to imagine how NASA could possibly fundraise even 1 billion, which is only 5% of their current budget…
@PaulTomBlog There are folks being forced to fund Mars trip plans who struggle to fund their own lives and families. How obscene.
.@FreeSmart On that we both agree!
@PaulTomBlog NASA would raise enough money for their most persuasively realistic projects. The rest would await more persuasion or realism.
.@FreeSmart Even the most persuasive and realistic projects would most likely fail to receive enough funding in that manner.
.@FreeSmart I have given this some thought and I believe that fundraising can only be an addition to the budget, but not it’s core.
.@FreeSmart So my solution would be to create revenue streams like a business would: licensing, advertising, etc.
.@FreeSmart So that + fundraising, might be enough to get some of the projects done. The rest could be picked up by private companies.
.@FreeSmart In fact lately private corps like #SpaceX, #VirginGalactic, etc. have been doing things that NASA has been doing so far…
@PaulTomBlog I’ve heard that Elon Musk’s #SpaceX has been given about $5B from the federal cookie jar.
.@FreeSmart If you’re referring to the contracts involving rocket launches to the ISS (International Space Station) then yes it’s true.
.@FreeSmart But then again if NASA did it themselves it would probably cost them double or triple that.
.@FreeSmart Private corporations tend to be less bureaucratised & more efficient.
@PaulTomBlog Precisely because they are the *real owners* of what they trade, they tend to mange it more carefully, lest they become poorer.
@PaulTomBlog Every voluntary trade makes all participants wealthier.
@PaulTomBlog Not to spoil the positive mood, but of course the opposite is also true. Every involuntary trade makes all participants poorer.
@PaulTomBlog Both are true, EVEN IF outside observers judge otherwise. (Sounds Einsteinian, doesn’t it? ;0)
.@FreeSmart Yes! As a businessman I can say that this makes perfect sense to me. If I accept a deal, it’s because it benefits me. 1/2
.@FreeSmart The other party wouldn’t be making that deal if it didn’t also benefit them.So it’s always win-win otherwise there’s no deal 2/2
.@FreeSmart But if you need to be forced to accept a deal, then it most certainly doesn’t benefit you.
.@FreeSmart If such a deal was beneficial to me, I would accept it without coercion.
@PaulTomBlog But of course all of this is true *only if* each is trading *their own* property and judging with *their own* values.
@PaulTomBlog For me, that’s reason enough to be skeptical of even the most apparently benign govt agency. Usurping real owners changes all.
@PaulTomBlog I heard it was a govt “investment” a little like Solyndra. Do you know if that’s true?
@FreeSmart Haven’t heard about Solyndra so can’t really comment on that.
@PaulTomBlog https://t.co/RFEpYd9xkl
.@FreeSmart Thanks for the info. Another example of government #interventionism that fails miserably and taxpayers have to pay for it…
@PaulTomBlog If it’s not true, then it wasn’t given, but traded. Entirely different. Value for value as Ayn Rand used to say.
@PaulTomBlog Yes. Fee for service at market prices. Etc.
@PaulTomBlog Yes. Fundraising is too narrow. Voluntary trade was what I really meant.
@PaulTomBlog The #voluntarySector does it with persuasive realism. The #coerciveSector does it with force. The former is more humane.
.@FreeSmart Since I believe in #SmallGovernment & #LowTaxes, I agree with you that the #CoerciveSector needs to be reduced.
.@FreeSmart But I am not an anarchist so I do realise that some coercion needs to remain, otherwise we will have chaos…
.@FreeSmart Imagine what would happen if respecting the law was optional & there were no ways of enforcing it with coercion…
@PaulTomBlog Imagine how free we’d all be if the law’s only job were to deal with those who don’t keep their hands to themselves.
@PaulTomBlog Nor am I. Meeting force with force is justified. That’s the basis of collective internal/external defense.
@PaulTomBlog Govt going beyond the defensive application of force doesn’t reduce chaos, but increases it.
@FreeSmart @PaulTomBlog These comments are gibberish, not realism. Our system of democratic appropriation and taxation is not force.
.@GuitarSunCat @FreeSmart Then try to not pay your taxes and see what happens… And tell me then that it is not force…
@PaulTomBlog Actually, I’m referring to the comments by @FreeSmart. Our system is based on representation and redress. It is voluntary.
.@GuitarSunCat @FreeSmart For something to be truly voluntary, there needs to be an option to simply opt-out without repressions…
@PaulTomBlog @FreeSmart You are not exempt from the law. That is not force.
@GuitarSunCat Government does not persuade, it forces. Force is practically the only tool it has. Uses one tool on everything!
@PaulTomBlog
.@FreeSmart @GuitarSunCat True, although for example the British monarchy persuades (maybe because it can’t force, but still).
.@FreeSmart @GuitarSunCat So just to interject that governments CAN persuade & SHOULD instead of using force.Follow Her Majesty’s example π
@PaulTomBlog But what if folks don’t LISTEN??? Having the legal force option corrupts mere mortals and would tempt the angels.
@GuitarSunCat
.@FreeSmart I assure you our Queen doesn’t have such powers so there’s nothing to worry about. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make
@PaulTomBlog Understood, but figurehead, no longer government w/legal force.
.@FreeSmart The Romans made a distinction between authority and power.
.@FreeSmart Authority is when you can tell people what to do & power is when you can force them to do so.
.@FreeSmart For ex. a doctor can tell you what you should do to get better, but he can’t force you to do it. He has authority but no power.
.@FreeSmart Hence the British Monarchy is a part of the government which has authority but no power.
@PaulTomBlog Mortals amply equipped with hammers naturally regard others as nails.
@GuitarSunCat
@PaulTomBlog Can you provide examples of government persuasion that aren’t just force in costume?
@GuitarSunCat
@PaulTomBlog Not trying to corner you my friend, but can you? ;0)
@GuitarSunCat
@FreeSmart @GuitarSunCat Of course. Pretty much anything a constitutional monarch does would be such an example.
@FreeSmart @GuitarSunCat Or for ex. during earthquake & tsunami in #NewZealand the government advised the ppl to evacuate but didn’t force.
@PaulTomBlog Folks listen/respect monarchy due to tradition, not legal force.
@GuitarSunCat
.@FreeSmart Exactly. Isn’t that a good thing? Don’t you think?
@PaulTomBlog Yes. Strictly speaking, figurehead monarch isn’t govt, cannot legally force, hence was off-topic. ;0)
@GuitarSunCat An institution with force as it’s only tool is dangerous. It can bully millions into dysfunctional solutions.
@PaulTomBlog
@GuitarSunCat Example: It’s #minimumWage condemns low-skilled folks to a #zeroWage, then taxes all to “fix” it w/”safety net”.
@PaulTomBlog
@GuitarSunCat It’s “defense” department minds other country’s business, then moves in permanently to “fix” the resulting mess.
@PaulTomBlog
@GuitarSunCat It’s #Medicare & #Medicaid forcibly divert billion$ into healthcare, then it tries to “fix” the rising prices.
@PaulTomBlog
@GuitarSunCat Dittos for free-and-easy govt loans for education, then skyrocketing prices, leading millions into lives of debt.
@PaulTomBlog
@GuitarSunCat A Jedi uses the force only for defense, and government should too. Anything more is using people like objects.
@PaulTomBlog
.@FreeSmart @GuitarSunCat Haha! Love the #StarWars refence! π
@PaulTomBlog ;0) “Object” references are also popular these days: https://t.co/zxUAc7s9Rr
@GuitarSunCat
@PaulTomBlog Of course the full Jedi quote is “A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack”.
@GuitarSunCat
@PaulTomBlog I don’t buy the “knowledge” part, but maybe that’s how big science justifies living on forced contributions.
@GuitarSunCat
@PaulTomBlog I much prefer to think that most folks simply haven’t examined this important subject carefully enough.
@GuitarSunCat
@PaulTomBlog What’s most disturbing is that, when challenged, most unthinkingly defend the status quo. You didn’t. Refreshing!
@GuitarSunCat
.@FreeSmart Thank you π I believe that questioning the status quo is the first step in making the world a better place!
@PaulTomBlog What you’re referring to is a rational fallacy which ignores a variety of realities in order to arrive at desired conclusions
@GuitarSunCat https://t.co/77XBBygsl9
@PaulTomBlog
@GuitarSunCat https://t.co/8hXKHauzJ5
@PaulTomBlog
@PaulTomBlog great stuff thanks for follow & look forward to hearing more soon
@crankyallAnimal Thank you! π
@PaulTomBlog π
@PaulTomBlog @CosmoBC And why isn’t half of Hollywood on that trip?
.@LoriNeedham2 @CosmoBC You mean instead of making bad movies about Mars like this one? https://t.co/H1Un8G3KJM
@PaulTomBlog @CosmoBC No. Because a lot of them said they were leaving if Trump became President
@LoriNeedham2 @CosmoBC Haha of course I know what you meant xD Just couldn’t help make a joke about bad Mars movies!
@PaulTomBlog @CosmoBC ok then. πππ
@PaulTomBlog @LoriNeedham2 @CosmoBC “…mission goes terribly awry” maybe “Mars needs Guitars”?
https://t.co/qJzLnJsQ5C!
@TheLamarckian @PaulTomBlog @CosmoBC πππ
Inside the Monster Rocket to Mars: How Did NASA Build and Fund the SLS? https://t.co/g18YC7i7XL