1 (current)
2
# 5931 byBsanctuary@... on Nov. 14, 2004, 7:58 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
In Digest 1013 Msg #6, someone said:
should limit their progeny."
This reminds me of a TV spot I saw Many years
ago of a college student who said she was going
to do her part in dealing with overpopulation
by not having any children.
Is this irony or what...!
To solve it's problems the world needs More
intelligent people, not Less!
[Remember, intelligence and stupidity are not
necessarily antonymous. -I was delighted to see*,
in a publication by and for members of Mensa,
a section titled "Stupid things done by smart people"
[or words to that effect..]
* made me feel much relieved. ;-}
# 5932 bylongsteven@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 1:01 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"R. K. Hardman" wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a TV spot I saw Many years
> ago of a college student who said she was going
> to do her part in dealing with overpopulation
> by not having any children.
>
> Is this irony or what...!
>
> To solve it's problems the world needs More
> intelligent people, not Less!
>
written by Kornbluth in the 1950s. In the story, the "smart" people
held back their birth rates, but the average and sub-average did not
-- and the end result was that the few highly intelligent people were
trapped in the necessity of keeping the whole of society from
collapsing because the rest of society could barely manage dressing
and driving. Their compassion was such that they did it in secret to
prevent the moronic masses from discovering what was really going on.
Thinking about the story, it scares me to realize that what is
currently available as entertainment in this country is very like what
was depicted in "Morons."
Steve
# 5933 bytango_dancer@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 1:19 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Steve Long wrote:
> written by Kornbluth in the 1950s. In the story, the "smart" people
> held back their birth rates, but the average and sub-average did not
The concept you are describing is called Dysgenics.
TangoMan
# 5934 byoevega@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 1:22 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Steve, friends:
because I am not a U.S. citizen. I am a Chilean, that
is like to say I am a Martian. So I have some ideas
that may sound very backwards to you people.
But I do tell you one thing. The most important value
in a society is the concept of family. Family and not
the individual should be the center of the society.
And should be recognized as the source of the greatest
wealth: normal and valuable human beings.
When family values are lost, the whole building of
society starts slowly to collapse. I hope that does
not happens in your country. And if the process has
already started you react and can revert it in time.
Romans and a lot of other old civilization collapsed
because family values were lost. The point is, the
individual is finite, it lives for only one day.
Family is the way to project humanity into the future.
That's my personal feeling and I hope I have not
offend anyone expressing it.
And about intelligent people, I have always though
that Earth is full of hundred of millions of
intelligent people. You can see them everywhere, in
every ethnic group, and in every corner of the world.
The problem is that just a few have the opportunity,
and the money, to show how brilliant they are.
Regards,
Omar Vega
--- Steve Long wrote:
# 5935 bycapcartoonist@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 3:41 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
omar vega wrote:
Anything but.
the individual should be the center of the society.>
Damn straight. Amercians often tend to forget this. Even the Individualist
Icon Daniel Boone ("When you can see your neighbor's chimney smoke, it's
time to move to a less crowded neighborhood.") had a large family that he
cared about.
nd should be recognized as the source of the greatest
wealth: normal and valuable human beings.>
It's been said of Japan that they have only two resources: Fish and People.
The reason that Japan did so well in the 1980s (before they succumbed to
Stock Market Fever), was that they spent decades improving the quality (ie-
education and skills) of their People.
not happens in your country. And if the process has
already started you react and can revert it in time.>
A lot of politicians base their campaigns around "family values" that they
claim their opponents lack. When has any politician ever come out AGAINST
family values?
Always has been. Always will be. Unless we start uploading our minds into
immortal machines.
nd about intelligent people, I have always though
that Earth is full of hundred of millions of
intelligent people. You can see them everywhere, in
every ethnic group, and in every corner of the world.
The problem is that just a few have the opportunity,
and the money, to show how brilliant they are.>
It's nice to see a positive attitude once in a while. Gracias.
# 5936 bysraj@... on May 20, 2006, 3:35 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
terrierkeeper wrote:
time." ....
To say that there is no problem of overpopulation is to collectively stick
our heads in the sand. For your information the most over-populated country
in the world today is USA. With a population of just 300 million, Americans
use up 25% of the world's oil and, it is said, directly or indirectly
Americans consume 40% of the world's natural resources (I am not clear how
this figure is calculated). USA is having problems dealing with migrants
from Mexico. The total population of Mexico is just 106 million, a number
which, if indeed there is no problem of population growth, could easily be
integrated in the USA economy.
Making matters worse, the American stranglehold over world media and the
world economic system ensures that this unsustainable American lifestyle is
exported around the world.
The so called developed countries like USA and EU, have hardly any wildlife
left. To see wildlife you will have to go to the underdeveloped countries.
The proper population for our planet would be around 2 billion, the number
100 years back. Max 3 billion. The current world population of 6, 617,481107
and counting, which could peak at 12 billion (since all the smart guys in
town believe there is no population problem), does not recognize the rights
of other animals to exist.
Selvaraj
P.S. But then, who am I to talk of people having their heads in the sand.
You type 'Population China' in Google Search you get an unambiguous figure
of 1,306,313,812. Pakistan - 162,419,946. Bangladesh 144,319,628. India - no
such figure pops up. It used to about six months back. No doubt our
politicians and bureaucrats do not wish to cause unnecessary heart attacks!
: - ) or should it be : - (
# 5937 bydehammer@... on May 20, 2006, 5:35 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> terrierkeeper wrote:
>
> "Overpopulation is not deemed an excuse for moving into space at
this
> time." ....
>
> To say that there is no problem of overpopulation is to
collectively stick
> our heads in the sand. For your information the most over-populated
country
> in the world today is USA. With a population of just 300 million,
Americans
> use up 25% of the world's oil and, it is said, directly or
indirectly
> Americans consume 40% of the world's natural resources (I am not
clear how
> this figure is calculated).
per square mile. china has a population of over 136 people per square
mile, almost three times as many. mexico is a little worse with 139
per square mile. France is almost as crowded at 110 per square mile.
Bangladesh comes in at a whooping 1000 ppl per square mile. i will
not argue the point (as it likely correct) that we Americans are
using more resources than we should, but we are not the ones that are
facing a problem with overpopulation. we just dont want to have one
either.
USA is having problems dealing with migrants
> from Mexico. The total population of Mexico is just 106 million, a
number
> which, if indeed there is no problem of population growth, could
easily be
> integrated in the USA economy.
the problem is not the numbers, its the fact that many come expecting
to have a better world and take jobs that Americans should be
getting. many of them are taking jobs at lower wage than Americans
thus keeping the wages down. they also don't pay taxes, yet take up
much of the medical, school, and others things given to the poor for
free. they also overwhelm the burocacy that is intended to keep out
ppl that would be highly detrimental to our society.
>
> Making matters worse, the American stranglehold over world media
and the
> world economic system ensures that this unsustainable American
lifestyle is
> exported around the world.
>
> The so called developed countries like USA and EU, have hardly any
wildlife
> left. To see wildlife you will have to go to the underdeveloped
countries.
obviously you are not an American, not live here. Ive seen many forms
of wildlife around the country, everything from pheasants on farms to
bears, wolves, and American buffoles in Yellowstone national park, a
place ppl come from around the world, including many of the
underdeveloped countries, to see these same wildlife.
>
> The proper population for our planet would be around 2 billion, the
number
> 100 years back. Max 3 billion. The current world population of 6,
617,481107
> and counting, which could peak at 12 billion (since all the smart
guys in
> town believe there is no population problem), does not recognize
the rights
> of other animals to exist.
considering that there are lots of places in the us set aside for
many of these creatures to live in without the intrusion of man, that
is not just America doing, actually less Americans doing that other
places. considering that china strives to increase its population,
and many countries that are more influenced by the catholic church
have no way of limiting their population. many of the underdevoloped
nations are having faster population increases than america, because
a large part of it, strives to keep the population growth down.
>
> Selvaraj
>
> P.S. But then, who am I to talk of people having their heads in the
sand.
> You type 'Population China' in Google Search you get an unambiguous
figure
> of 1,306,313,812. Pakistan - 162,419,946. Bangladesh 144,319,628.
India - no
> such figure pops up. It used to about six months back. No doubt our
> politicians and bureaucrats do not wish to cause unnecessary heart
attacks!
> : - ) or should it be : - (
>
when i typed in population of us, i had no trouble comeing up with
295,734,134, yet when i did china i got a much less figure of 1.306
billion. the biggest problem with getting an accurate figure for the
us is all the illegal migrants not reporting themselfs, for fear they
will be sent back to the places that they came from.
# 5938 bypanamabob@... on May 20, 2006, 6:19 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
over population based on what? The land mass of the Earth? The total volume of the land to sustain? Oceans taken into account?
I recall a British newspaper article claiming that England has met the peak of food production and no more populationcould be fed, written before the turn of the last century... The British did not starve off. Yet.
Over population seems to mean that the creation of resources just has not been developed yet, due to lack of brainpower or enlightenment or other wise.
Sustainable food production, through better utilization and application of resources, seems to be achievable. Some of the most productive agricultural land in the USA is found in Brooklyn and San Francisco among the neighborhood coops and container gardening found there...
Resource depletion seems ludicrous considering the depth of the useable mantle and the volume of material of the Earth...and this without considering even the potential for "space" mining of nearby non terrestrial objects.
MORE people are required, not less, since it seems that from volume of people we get the larger potential for "brain" types with flashes of insights needed to carry the rest of us.
From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:34 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Overpopulation
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> terrierkeeper wrote:
>
> "Overpopulation is not deemed an excuse for moving into space at
this
> time." ....
>
> To say that there is no problem of overpopulation is to
collectively stick
> our heads in the sand. For your information the most over-populated
country
> in the world today is USA. With a population of just 300 million,
Americans
> use up 25% of the world's oil and, it is said, directly or
indirectly
> Americans consume 40% of the world's natural resources (I am not
clear how
> this figure is calculated).
i think you need to get your definition straight. the USA has 50 ppl
per square mile. china has a population of over 136 people per square
mile, almost three times as many. mexico is a little worse with 139
per square mile. France is almost as crowded at 110 per square mile.
Bangladesh comes in at a whooping 1000 ppl per square mile. i will
not argue the point (as it likely correct) that we Americans are
using more resources than we should, but we are not the ones that are
facing a problem with overpopulation. we just dont want to have one
either.
USA is having problems dealing with migrants
> from Mexico. The total population of Mexico is just 106 million, a
number
> which, if indeed there is no problem of population growth, could
easily be
> integrated in the USA economy.
the problem is not the numbers, its the fact that many come expecting
to have a better world and take jobs that Americans should be
getting. many of them are taking jobs at lower wage than Americans
thus keeping the wages down. they also don't pay taxes, yet take up
much of the medical, school, and others things given to the poor for
free. they also overwhelm the burocacy that is intended to keep out
ppl that would be highly detrimental to our society.
>
> Making matters worse, the American stranglehold over world media
and the
> world economic system ensures that this unsustainable American
lifestyle is
> exported around the world.
>
> The so called developed countries like USA and EU, have hardly any
wildlife
> left. To see wildlife you will have to go to the underdeveloped
countries.
obviously you are not an American, not live here. Ive seen many forms
of wildlife around the country, everything from pheasants on farms to
bears, wolves, and American buffoles in Yellowstone national park, a
place ppl come from around the world, including many of the
underdeveloped countries, to see these same wildlife.
>
> The proper population for our planet would be around 2 billion, the
number
> 100 years back. Max 3 billion. The current world population of 6,
617,481107
> and counting, which could peak at 12 billion (since all the smart
guys in
> town believe there is no population problem), does not recognize
the rights
> of other animals to exist.
considering that there are lots of places in the us set aside for
many of these creatures to live in without the intrusion of man, that
is not just America doing, actually less Americans doing that other
places. considering that china strives to increase its population,
and many countries that are more influenced by the catholic church
have no way of limiting their population. many of the underdevoloped
nations are having faster population increases than america, because
a large part of it, strives to keep the population growth down.
>
> Selvaraj
>
> P.S. But then, who am I to talk of people having their heads in the
sand.
> You type 'Population China' in Google Search you get an unambiguous
figure
> of 1,306,313,812. Pakistan - 162,419,946. Bangladesh 144,319,628.
India - no
> such figure pops up. It used to about six months back. No doubt our
> politicians and bureaucrats do not wish to cause unnecessary heart
attacks!
> : - ) or should it be : - (
>
when i typed in population of us, i had no trouble comeing up with
295,734,134, yet when i did china i got a much less figure of 1.306
billion. the biggest problem with getting an accurate figure for the
us is all the illegal migrants not reporting themselfs, for fear they
will be sent back to the places that they came from.
# 5939 byspider_boris@... on May 20, 2006, 7:48 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- panamabob@... wrote:
> that from volume of people we get the larger
> potential for "brain" types with flashes of insights
> needed to carry the rest of us.
Yeah, particularly people like Norman Borlaug.
Ed
# 5940 bydondavis@... on May 20, 2006, 9:03 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> over population based on what? The land mass of the Earth? The
total volume of the land to sustain?
> -snip-
It is probably doable to barely sustain a trillion people, in
conditions like Calcutts spread across the entire habitable surface,
allowing for food production. Minor fluctuations in crops would result
in more deaths from starvation than those who died in 20th century wars.
It is important to have open spaces for people to get away from it
all. There should always be places, for instance, where you can shoot
a pistol into the air and not worry about someone getting hurt when it
reached the ground.
>
> MORE people are required, not less, since it seems that from volume
of people we get the larger potential for "brain" types with flashes
of insights needed to carry the rest of us.
Alas, the more people there are the more likely the 'toxic
component' of the population can lash out at the system as a whole. As
religous movements grow in members, for instance, a faction in many
such groups agitate for crusades or jihads against those outside their
belief standards. As such simmering pools of malcontent grow larger
the odds increase that technological means to pack immense destructive
power will fall into the hands of dedicated individuals fired up to do
terrible things.
Incidently, overpopulation cannot be realistically addressed by
space colonization. Someone approached Paul Erlich with such a
statement and he laughed him off and for months thereafter rediculed
the idea. It took several intelligent people he regarded as peers to
illuminate the true appeal of the O'Neills vision, and he then had
constructive opinions to offer which are still valid today.
Don Davis
# 5941 bysraj@... on May 20, 2006, 9:43 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: "Robert"
> wildlife
>> left. To see wildlife you will have to go to the underdeveloped
> countries.
>
> obviously you are not an American, not live here. Ive seen many forms
> of wildlife around the country, everything from pheasants on farms to
> bears, wolves, and American buffoles in Yellowstone national park, a
> place ppl come from around the world, including many of the
> underdeveloped countries, to see these same wildlife.
A complete ecosystem will have grazing animals and also predators and these
two will maintain a balance without human intervention. Most sanctuaries are
too boxed in allow a proper balance to exist. What about mountain lions, are
they still found in USA? How many are left alive?
Selvaraj
# 5942 bydinmont2@... on May 20, 2006, 1:06 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Really am glad this conversatin is taking place.
for movement throughout all human history.
I do believe that this is the solution to overpopulation. Make more
land and resources available. Space is endless.
Of course, I am a realist, Space Colonies won't be viable for
overpopulation until Island Twos (One Hundred twenty thousand plus
population units) are being produced, perhaps not until Island Threes.
Problem is, and I have been arguing this for years, is the elite in
Washington and society in general think the best solution to
overpopulaton in the US and throughout the world is making
contraception and access to abortion freely available. Their
solution to overpopulation is by making infertile activities
acceptable. They want to give ten year olds condoms. They want to let
little girls go off and get contraceptives without permission of
their parents or even tell them. This is not the words of some Right
Wing extremist who has read the 'rantings' of the so called Religeus
Right. I have actually argued with some of these people. (Calling
them narrow minded is over rating their intelligence).
One of my ideas for a space colony novel is preventing the so
called 'Sexual Revolution' from happening. It didn't fly in the face
of the 'Birth Control for Ten year olds' set. Even though mankind
would be better off. We would be having this conversation from L5 or
L4. Families would have on average five or more kids. It would look a
bit like what we were a hundred years ago except more technologicly
advanced. Problem is I find most Americans (and I suspect the same
can be said for Europeans, Canadians and various others) just are not
ready to open their minds to this possible future.
This is my main reason for putting that novel aside and going to work
on my current project set during the French and Indian war when
Americans were pretty much a thriving large family oriented society.
Perhaps when I have established myself the space colony novel will be
viable.
# 5943 byoevega@... on May 20, 2006, 1:40 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi,
for the overpopulation of certain areas of this world. The ticket of
1 million dollars for a two days trip to space is too expensive. And
when space colonization stars the cost of sending people to space
will remain out of reach for all, except the "chosen ones". Space
colonization will be a low scale enterprise, for at least some
centuries ahead.
Now, let's be very clear on this. The world does not have a problem
of overpopulation, but only certain countries and regions. The fact
is, in the Americas there is a lot of space for people to live, and
the population explosion is already controlled. The Americas have
less density that Europe, Asia and many other parts of the old
world, so we don't need to be overcrowded at all.
The problems of overpopulation are located in some regions of the
old world, particularly in China, in India and in the Subsaharian
Africa. In there, people don't realize the very fact they have
children in mass is producing the collapse of their world. Even in
places were people live of charity, and were hunger strike hard,
they insist in having large numbers of children. There is a lack of
responsability fueled by the belief that as much descendents they
have the better. Those regions will have to control their own growth
by themselves if they want to have a decent future. Every new kid
born in there makes those nations poored and the quality of life
goes down.
Back to the Americas, even in Mexico the problem is not really the
population explosion but the presence of a neighbourgh that is too
rich by comparison, and that attracts poor people like if it were a
magnet. Actually, if Mexico does not stop its migration it will come
the day, pretty soon, when it discovers it is getting depopulated.
This happened once in my own country, Chile, when 10% of the
population migrated because of the dictatorship that existed in
place in here. After that the country's population started to grow
very slow and we are afraid in the future we will have a demographic
colapse.
In short. Overpopulation is a problem of China, India and Africa,
not of Europe or the Americas. The world should realize the best for
those countries is helping them to stop those huge rates of growth.
Children are nice, when they can be feed and educated in the proper
manner.
Finally, nations are not in the mood of accepting masses of poors
from far away regions. And thinking that the land of other peoples
is the solution for our problems is just the recipe for future
conflicts.
Regards,
Omar Vega
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
>
> Really am glad this conversatin is taking place.
>
> This is the main justification for moving into space as it has
been
> for movement throughout all human history.
>
> I do believe that this is the solution to overpopulation. Make
more
> land and resources available. Space is endless.
>
> Of course, I am a realist, Space Colonies won't be viable for
> overpopulation until Island Twos (One Hundred twenty thousand plus
> population units) are being produced, perhaps not until Island
Threes.
>
> Problem is, and I have been arguing this for years, is the elite
in
> Washington and society in general think the best solution to
> overpopulaton in the US and throughout the world is making
> contraception and access to abortion freely available. Their
> solution to overpopulation is by making infertile activities
> acceptable. They want to give ten year olds condoms. They want to
let
> little girls go off and get contraceptives without permission of
> their parents or even tell them. This is not the words of some
Right
> Wing extremist who has read the 'rantings' of the so called
Religeus
> Right. I have actually argued with some of these people. (Calling
> them narrow minded is over rating their intelligence).
>
> One of my ideas for a space colony novel is preventing the so
> called 'Sexual Revolution' from happening. It didn't fly in the
face
> of the 'Birth Control for Ten year olds' set. Even though mankind
> would be better off. We would be having this conversation from L5
or
> L4. Families would have on average five or more kids. It would
look a
> bit like what we were a hundred years ago except more
technologicly
> advanced. Problem is I find most Americans (and I suspect the same
> can be said for Europeans, Canadians and various others) just are
not
> ready to open their minds to this possible future.
>
> This is my main reason for putting that novel aside and going to
work
> on my current project set during the French and Indian war when
> Americans were pretty much a thriving large family oriented
society.
> Perhaps when I have established myself the space colony novel will
be
# 5944 bysraj@... on May 20, 2006, 4:05 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"Space colonization will be a low scale enterprise, for at least some
centuries ahead."
more or less all the technologies we need. Problem with getting off planet
Earth, yes, but we can solve it if we set our minds to it. If you have seen
ants at work, you will realize that they can virtually move mountains - by
teamwork, well coordinated movements and tireless working. (What scares me
most is the radiation out there, that is something we will have to really
work on).
What we need to do is to get someone to rewrite the current economic
theories - which do not make much sense. Instead of spreading happiness,
which seems to be the purpose of our current industrial economy, we need to
focus on improving quality of human life in a real sense (not the fiction
spread on TV) and get involved in something less narcissistic, like
protecting our environment and CONQUEST OF SPACE.
Regards
Selvaraj
From: "Omar E. Vega"
# 5945 byoevega@... on May 20, 2006, 5:09 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi Selvaraj,
way to transport hundred of thousands of tons from the ground to
space. Yes, I agree that the building of settlements will be made
mainly with asteroidal materials, but still lots of weight in
machinery and materials will have to be sent to space from the
ground. Perhaps the equivalent of sending hundreds of oil ships to
the space.
Another problem is financial. Who and why people would expend the
equivant of hundred of times the global GDP in an adventure that
won't have a return in less than hundred of years?
I am certain the basic techniques to build the settlements in space
are available today, but the infrastructure and the necessity to go
there could take centuries to develop.
Look at the case of contemporary hydrogen and fuel cells. They have
existed for more than a century, and 40 years ago fuel cells were
used in the Apollo program. However, it will take perhaps 40 years
more for the fuel cells and the hydrogen have the chance to replace
the oil industry and today's car engines.
And look how long it has taken for this relatively simple projects
(in comparison of course) to develop: flying cars, fusion power,
supersonic jets, holographic tv, maiden robots, etc.
Certain changes take long to be implemented. Putting millions to
work in a goal won't accelerate anything if technology is still
immature, and there is not a profit to be made. Let me show you an
example. You can put ten millions Babilionians to make a stair to
reach the heavens, but without rockets they won't reach it. That's
for sure.
Regards,
Omar Vega
>
> "Space colonization will be a low scale enterprise, for at least
some
> centuries ahead."
>
> It need not necessarily be so. As a mechanical engineer, I feel,
we have
> more or less all the technologies we need. Problem with getting
off planet
> Earth, yes, but we can solve it if we set our minds to it. If you
have seen
> ants at work, you will realize that they can virtually move
mountains - by
> teamwork, well coordinated movements and tireless working. (What
scares me
> most is the radiation out there, that is something we will have to
really
> work on).
>
> What we need to do is to get someone to rewrite the current
economic
> theories - which do not make much sense. Instead of spreading
happiness,
> which seems to be the purpose of our current industrial economy,
we need to
> focus on improving quality of human life in a real sense (not the
fiction
> spread on TV) and get involved in something less narcissistic,
like
> protecting our environment and CONQUEST OF SPACE.
>
> Regards
> Selvaraj
>
> From: "Omar E. Vega"
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I believe it is naive to think space colonization is the solution
> > for the overpopulation of certain areas of this world. The
ticket of
> > 1 million dollars for a two days trip to space is too expensive.
And
> > when space colonization stars the cost of sending people to space
> > will remain out of reach for all, except the "chosen ones". Space
> > colonization will be a low scale enterprise, for at least some
> > centuries ahead.
> >
> > Now, let's be very clear on this. The world does not have a
problem
> > of overpopulation, but only certain countries and regions. The
fact
> > is, in the Americas there is a lot of space for people to live,
and
> > the population explosion is already controlled. The Americas have
> > less density that Europe, Asia and many other parts of the old
> > world, so we don't need to be overcrowded at all.
> >
> > The problems of overpopulation are located in some regions of the
> > old world, particularly in China, in India and in the Subsaharian
> > Africa. In there, people don't realize the very fact they have
> > children in mass is producing the collapse of their world. Even
in
> > places were people live of charity, and were hunger strike hard,
> > they insist in having large numbers of children. There is a lack
of
> > responsability fueled by the belief that as much descendents they
> > have the better. Those regions will have to control their own
growth
> > by themselves if they want to have a decent future. Every new kid
> > born in there makes those nations poored and the quality of life
> > goes down.
> >
> > Back to the Americas, even in Mexico the problem is not really
the
> > population explosion but the presence of a neighbourgh that is
too
> > rich by comparison, and that attracts poor people like if it
were a
> > magnet. Actually, if Mexico does not stop its migration it will
come
> > the day, pretty soon, when it discovers it is getting
depopulated.
> >
> > This happened once in my own country, Chile, when 10% of the
> > population migrated because of the dictatorship that existed in
> > place in here. After that the country's population started to
grow
> > very slow and we are afraid in the future we will have a
demographic
> > colapse.
> >
> > In short. Overpopulation is a problem of China, India and Africa,
> > not of Europe or the Americas. The world should realize the best
for
> > those countries is helping them to stop those huge rates of
growth.
> >
> > Children are nice, when they can be feed and educated in the
proper
> > manner.
> >
> > Finally, nations are not in the mood of accepting masses of poors
> > from far away regions. And thinking that the land of other
peoples
> > is the solution for our problems is just the recipe for future
> > conflicts.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Omar Vega
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Really am glad this conversatin is taking place.
> >>
> >> This is the main justification for moving into space as it has
> > been
> >> for movement throughout all human history.
> >>
> >> I do believe that this is the solution to overpopulation. Make
> > more
> >> land and resources available. Space is endless.
> >>
> >> Of course, I am a realist, Space Colonies won't be viable for
> >> overpopulation until Island Twos (One Hundred twenty thousand
plus
> >> population units) are being produced, perhaps not until Island
> > Threes.
> >>
> >> Problem is, and I have been arguing this for years, is the elite
> > in
> >> Washington and society in general think the best solution to
> >> overpopulaton in the US and throughout the world is making
> >> contraception and access to abortion freely available. Their
> >> solution to overpopulation is by making infertile activities
> >> acceptable. They want to give ten year olds condoms. They want
to
> > let
> >> little girls go off and get contraceptives without permission of
> >> their parents or even tell them. This is not the words of some
> > Right
> >> Wing extremist who has read the 'rantings' of the so called
> > Religeus
> >> Right. I have actually argued with some of these people.
(Calling
> >> them narrow minded is over rating their intelligence).
> >>
> >> One of my ideas for a space colony novel is preventing the so
> >> called 'Sexual Revolution' from happening. It didn't fly in the
> > face
> >> of the 'Birth Control for Ten year olds' set. Even though
mankind
> >> would be better off. We would be having this conversation from
L5
> > or
> >> L4. Families would have on average five or more kids. It would
> > look a
> >> bit like what we were a hundred years ago except more
> > technologicly
> >> advanced. Problem is I find most Americans (and I suspect the
same
> >> can be said for Europeans, Canadians and various others) just
are
> > not
> >> ready to open their minds to this possible future.
> >>
> >> This is my main reason for putting that novel aside and going to
> > work
> >> on my current project set during the French and Indian war when
> >> Americans were pretty much a thriving large family oriented
> > society.
> >> Perhaps when I have established myself the space colony novel
will
# 5946 bydehammer@... on May 20, 2006, 10:07 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> Hi Selvaraj,
>
> Well, there is still big technical problems to be solved, like the
> way to transport hundred of thousands of tons from the ground to
> space. Yes, I agree that the building of settlements will be made
> mainly with asteroidal materials, but still lots of weight in
> machinery and materials will have to be sent to space from the
> ground. Perhaps the equivalent of sending hundreds of oil ships to
> the space.
launchers. the problem with them is that they need to be near the
equator to take advantage of the earth rotation, and the places
there don't really want other countries building things like that in
their back yard, and don't have the capacity to do it themselves.
>
> Another problem is financial. Who and why people would expend the
> equivalent of hundred of times the global GDP in an adventure that
> won't have a return in less than hundred of years?
it actually could be done considerably cheaper than that, if you
could get ppl out of the mindset that it had to be done with chemical
rockets. the technology is here, but getting it built is political,
at least the way it is now. if business could get in control of it,
it would have a payback time in the manner of 2 to 3 decades, max. on
top of that would be all the advances that would come out of the
research, much like what came out of the apollo project. much of our
much sought after standard of living owes its roots to the apollo
project.
>
> I am certain the basic techniques to build the settlements in space
> are available today, but the infrastructure and the necessity to go
> there could take centuries to develop.
not if business has any thing to say about it. business would
develope its own infrastructure, and the necessity to go would come
from profits. if you look at all the great migreations of the past,
few were actually caused by over crowding. much of the push was
caused by political problems, others were for religious reasons, but
by far the biggest was for ppl to find a better life somewhere else.
indications are much of it started in the far east, and ppl began to
move westward (yes i know the evidence indicates an earlier one that
went east out of africa first) and has had a steady push to the west
ever since. the decendance of those that did not travel seem to
perfer to stay where they are for the most part, until population
presure pushes them on wards. but those at the forefront seem to move
sooner and more often. that is why washington is behind the times on
the push to leave the planet. eventually they will find they are
holding the door wondering where everyone went.
>
> Look at the case of contemporary hydrogen and fuel cells. They have
> existed for more than a century, and 40 years ago fuel cells were
> used in the Apollo program. However, it will take perhaps 40 years
> more for the fuel cells and the hydrogen have the chance to replace
> the oil industry and today's car engines.
>
in a time of cheap (or compariatively cheap oil) there was no need
for it. since youve likely not heard, there is a much larger push now
for things like these than there was a mere year ago. 40 years might
have been true a year ago, but its a bit unrealistic now, and every
dime the price of gas increase, cuts that time even farther.
> And look how long it has taken for this relatively simple projects
> (in comparison of course) to develop: flying cars, fusion power,
> supersonic jets, holographic tv, maiden robots, etc.
none of these are any where close to simple. infact flying cars
might be as complicated as building a space station. fusion power
(safely) is even more complicated. maiden robots, i have not even a
clue. holographic tv is something that requires things that are
appearantly not related to it to be done, and likely ppl will be
surprised when the hurdle is surpassed. super sonic jets are well
understood, but the politics are another matter.
>
> Certain changes take long to be implemented. Putting millions to
> work in a goal won't accelerate anything if technology is still
> immature, and there is not a profit to be made. Let me show you an
> example. You can put ten millions Babilionians to make a stair to
> reach the heavens, but without rockets they won't reach it. That's
> for sure.
>
> Regards,
>
> Omar Vega
>
actually that stair way could be made, IF you made it from space down
and IF you use materials that are not QUITE ready yet. it could be
done, but not likely. the point is, we already know what we need to,
in order to get it built, but politics as usual will not allow it to
be done.
# 5947 byoevega@... on May 21, 2006, 3:58 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi Robert,
> actually this has already been solved, with electromagnetic
> launchers. the problem with them is that they need to be near the
> equator to take advantage of the earth rotation, and the places
> there don't really want other countries building things like that
>in
> their back yard, and don't have the capacity to do it themselves.
Yes. A problem can be solved "in theory" but taking them to practice
is another matter. I have hear that not only electromagnetic
launchers but also cannons "Verne's style" could be used to send
mass loads to space. However, how much would it cost? Who is going
to finance it? And what are the risks if one load get out of control
and hits a big city, for example?
I am not saying it won't be done some day. It is just that I doubt
these advances will come that fast.
> it actually could be done considerably cheaper than that, if you
> could get ppl out of the mindset that it had to be done with
> chemical
> rockets.
I believe is not here as yet. Look at the shuttles for example. The
way for that kind of ships to work is by using scramjets. However,
scramjets are just in the phase of basic research now. More is need
to be done to make things practical. A lot more.
> not if business has any thing to say about it. business would
> develope its own infrastructure, and the necessity to go would
>come
> from profits. if you look at all the great migreations of the
>past,
> few were actually caused by over crowding. much of the push was
> caused by political problems, others were for religious reasons,
Well, business is doing its job in colonizing the space. The effort
is already been done with the works of Rutan and others. But the
advance will be in slow motion for a while.
>but
> by far the biggest was for ppl to find a better life somewhere
>else.
> indications are much of it started in the far east, and ppl began
>to
> move westward (yes i know the evidence indicates an earlier one
>that
> went east out of africa first) and has had a steady push to the
>west
> ever since. the decendance of those that did not travel seem to
> perfer to stay where they are for the most part, until population
> presure pushes them on wards. but those at the forefront seem to
>move
> sooner and more often. that is why washington is behind the times
>on
> the push to leave the planet. eventually they will find they are
> holding the door wondering where everyone went.
Immigrations starts once the technology is in place.
The Vikings reached the Americas because they had the more advanced
ships of their times, with iron reinforcements. The Spaniards
conquered the Americas because they have even better ships, besides
astrolabs, magnetic compasses and the knowledge of the Portuguese
school of sailing founded by Henry the Navigator. Those things were
not casual. Once you got the tech you do it.
I am just saying we don't have the tech ... as yet. In other words,
we can't conquest the space with the equivalent of river canoes. We
need caravels to do that.
>
> in a time of cheap (or compariatively cheap oil) there was no need
> for it. since youve likely not heard, there is a much larger push
>now
> for things like these than there was a mere year ago. 40 years
>might
> have been true a year ago, but its a bit unrealistic now, and
>every
> dime the price of gas increase, cuts that time even farther.
>
Well, I know development is in place, but to mount the large
infrastructure of hydrogen the world needs, it will take decades.
Actually, 40 years is my conservative guess. A lot has to be done in
the fields of hydrogen production and storage as yet, and the prices
have to get down to the point that fuel is cheaper than oil.
It will come soon, but not immediately.
>
> none of these are any where close to simple. infact flying cars
> might be as complicated as building a space station. fusion power
> (safely) is even more complicated. maiden robots, i have not even
>a
> clue. holographic tv is something that requires things that are
> appearantly not related to it to be done, and likely ppl will be
> surprised when the hurdle is surpassed. super sonic jets are well
> understood, but the politics are another matter.
Well, those are examples of projects that were predicted for our
times fifty years ago, and that have not come as yet. My point is
technological advances are not as fast as we usually think.
> actually that stair way could be made, IF you made it from space
>down
> and IF you use materials that are not QUITE ready yet. it could be
>> done, but not likely. the point is, we already know what we need
>to,
> in order to get it built, but politics as usual will not allow it
>to
> be done.
For the Babilonians to reach heavens they would have need to build a
100 kilometers mud brick tower. I doubt this could be done even
today with all our people and resources, just by piling bricks from
the ground up.
Yes, the idea of the space elevator could perhaps one day become a
reality, but I don't think Babilonias have that in mind. lol :)
Regards,
Omar Vega
# 5948 bydehammer@... on May 21, 2006, 7:23 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Yes. A problem can be solved "in theory" but taking them to
practice
> is another matter. I have hear that not only electromagnetic
> launchers but also cannons "Verne's style" could be used to send
> mass loads to space. However, how much would it cost? Who is going
> to finance it? And what are the risks if one load get out of
control
> and hits a big city, for example?
>
> I am not saying it won't be done some day. It is just that I doubt
> these advances will come that fast.
>
i know of few ppl that beleive a "Verne's sytle" of cannon could
possible by used. too big and too slow. the technical problems with
the eletrolaunchers have already been solved. but no one wants to
build one, since there is no need for that kind of material to be
sent and no commetment to send any. why would anyone want to spend
the 10 billion dollars to build one, if there is no use for it.
companies that are building rockets dont want it built. they would
lose most of their customers if it were. once it was built, the only
rockets to be built (other than military) would be the control
rockets and things needed for docking. as far as the risk are
concerned its the same as if one of the shuttles got out of control
and hit england for example. since it would be launched from the
equator from very high altitudes, most of those places are not west
of cities. most are west of oceans. while some are, they would likely
not be used.
>
> I believe is not here as yet. Look at the shuttles for example. The
> way for that kind of ships to work is by using scramjets. However,
> scramjets are just in the phase of basic research now. More is need
> to be done to make things practical. A lot more.
>
once again here is an example of wanting to use chemical rockets. Yes
scramjets are more likely to use less fuel, but its still a chemical
rocket.
>
> Well, business is doing its job in colonizing the space. The effort
> is already been done with the works of Rutan and others. But the
> advance will be in slow motion for a while.
>
yes they are, when they can get either the financing or the red tape
out of the way. rarely can they get both. Dick Rutan and co were
lucky to have a contest that was being pushed by NASA.
>
> Immigrations starts once the technology is in place.
>
> The Vikings reached the Americas because they had the more advanced
> ships of their times, with iron reinforcements. The Spaniards
> conquered the Americas because they have even better ships, besides
> astrolabs, magnetic compasses and the knowledge of the Portuguese
> school of sailing founded by Henry the Navigator. Those things were
> not casual. Once you got the tech you do it.
>
> I am just saying we don't have the tech ... as yet. In other words,
> we can't conquest the space with the equivalent of river canoes. We
> need caravels to do that.
>
those that settled hawaii had little more than river conoes and
definately did not have anything like caravels. granted they were
likely to be lucky, but you have to expect it, or it will never be
there.
>
> Well, I know development is in place, but to mount the large
> infrastructure of hydrogen the world needs, it will take decades.
> Actually, 40 years is my conservative guess. A lot has to be done
in
> the fields of hydrogen production and storage as yet, and the
prices
> have to get down to the point that fuel is cheaper than oil.
> It will come soon, but not immediately.
>
or the oil is more expensive than the fuel. It could be done in a
matter of a couple of years, IF (and that is a majorly big IF) you
could get politicians and big business ppl that did not have a
vested interest in keeping oil number one.
>
> Well, those are examples of projects that were predicted for our
> times fifty years ago, and that have not come as yet. My point is
> technological advances are not as fast as we usually think.
>
yes those were predicted, but many other things that were not
predicted did come about. advances dont always come the way you
expect them to. the reality is the space plane has been invented, but
the goverment does not want anyone to know about it. the scramjet has
already been surpassed, but we cant use it because its military.
>
> For the Babilonians to reach heavens they would have need to build
a
> 100 kilometers mud brick tower. I doubt this could be done even
> today with all our people and resources, just by piling bricks from
> the ground up.
>
> Yes, the idea of the space elevator could perhaps one day become a
> reality, but I don't think Babilonias have that in mind. lol :)
>
true they could have made bricks as high as they wanted, but it
would never have reach heaven, even if they had reached space. that
was what they were aiming for. perhaps, some of us are reaching for
our version of Babilonian heaven, and will find space instead.
# 5949 byoevega@... on May 21, 2006, 8:07 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi,
> possible by used. too big and too slow. the technical problems
with
> the eletrolaunchers have already been solved. but no one wants to
> build one, since there is no need for that kind of material to be
> sent and no commetment to send any. why would anyone want to spend
> the 10 billion dollars to build one, if there is no use for it.
> companies that are building rockets dont want it built.
What about solar power satelites? Perhaps that dream can be made
practical if such a launcher could be put in place. After all cheap
and clean production of electricity is something the world needs
right now.
>they would
> lose most of their customers if it were. once it was built, the
>only
> rockets to be built (other than military) would be the control
> rockets and things needed for docking.
Well, people can't be launch alive from an electrolauncher, so
rockets (or scramjets or whatever) will be needed in the future, at
least somebody build the space elevator.
> once again here is an example of wanting to use chemical rockets.
>Yes
> scramjets are more likely to use less fuel, but its still a
>chemical
> rocket.
People and cargo has to go. What alternative exist to chemical
rockets for doing the trip from surface to spece, at least at the
current level of technological development?
> yes they are, when they can get either the financing or the red
>tape
> out of the way. rarely can they get both. Dick Rutan and co were
> lucky to have a contest that was being pushed by NASA.
The progress will continue, anyways. Slow but without stopping.
Perhaps we should get used to the idea changes are going to be slow.
> those that settled hawaii had little more than river conoes and
> definately did not have anything like caravels. granted they were
> likely to be lucky, but you have to expect it, or it will never be
> there.
Well, Polynesians were the more advanced sailors of the prehistoric
peoples of Asia-Pacific. They used catamarans, and not just river
canoes. They also knew a lot about sailing by stars, following sea
currents, and other extra clues. All this practical knowledge took
thousands of years to be develop. It is not strange that, from all
the peoples of the ancient world, only the Polynesians, and their
relatives the Indonesians, stand like the most outstanding pre-
western sailors. They had the tech for the task.
> or the oil is more expensive than the fuel. It could be done in a
> matter of a couple of years, IF (and that is a majorly big IF) you
> could get politicians and big business ppl that did not have a
> vested interest in keeping oil number one.
Market drives more of the developments of mankind, not the states.
Actually, even the most important changes of the time of
the "discoveries" were done by private enterprises rather than by
states. During the industrial revolutions the same happened. Today
nothing has changed. States can't finance "Manhatan" or "Apollo
programs" forever. Private enterprise have to do what is supposed to
do. Let's convince Bill Gates to investing on it.
>the reality is the space plane has been invented, >but the
>goverment does not want anyone to know about it. the >scramjet has
> already been surpassed, but we cant use it because its military.
Wow! That is an incredible new. Actually, I did not have a clue
about it.
> true they could have made bricks as high as they wanted, but it
> would never have reach heaven, even if they had reached space.
>that
> was what they were aiming for. perhaps, some of us are reaching
>for
> our version of Babilonian heaven, and will find space instead.
>
Nice methaphor! Yes, perhaps we are thinking in building our
own "city of God" in space. Perhaps the future won't be so brilliant
and, once there, we'll find things are business as usual.
Regards,
Omar Vega
# 5950 bydinmont2@... on May 21, 2006, 12:35 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Perhaps we could start by going through our existing systems and
simplifying them to reduce costs.
the Soviet System rather than the way they're assembled verticly at
Cape Canaveral and then taken out to the launch pad.
Perhaps Solar satalites could be used to power distillers that could
take the sea water and first convert it to potable water and then break
that down to Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Perhaps there are other ways to simplify things and reduce costs.
And of course increasing volume of launches does spread fixed costs.
# 5951 bydehammer@... on May 22, 2006, 8:42 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> Hi,
>
greetings.
>
> What about solar power satelites? Perhaps that dream can be made
> practical if such a launcher could be put in place. After all cheap
> and clean production of electricity is something the world needs
> right now.
>
yes, there are a lot of dreams that could be realised if man could
get away from using chemical rockets to launch hardened (to multi-g
launches) items.
>
> Well, people can't be launch alive from an electrolauncher, so
> rockets (or scramjets or whatever) will be needed in the future, at
> least somebody build the space elevator.
>
> People and cargo has to go. What alternative exist to chemical
> rockets for doing the trip from surface to spece, at least at the
> current level of technological development?
>
not true. imagine a "race track" accelerator with a circumference of
125 miles. at a acceleration of 2 g it would take 495 seconds to get
to 6 miles per second. as the speed built up it would in crease the g
force to the outside of the track to 4 g but that would only occur
towards the end of the 11 laps. also a part of the track would be a
curve upwards towards a launch at a 45 degree up angle to the ground
(if the track is on an angle it would require less of a change). the
ppl inside would have less than a 5 resultant g. the shuttle launches
with higher. other variations of this could be made that would
require less g. there are ranches that are bigger than this. it could
even be powered by space power sats.
>
> The progress will continue, anyways. Slow but without stopping.
> Perhaps we should get used to the idea changes are going to be slow.
>
thats not something that ppl raised in a era of instant gratification
would be interested in lol
>
> Well, Polynesians were the more advanced sailors of the prehistoric
> peoples of Asia-Pacific. They used catamarans, and not just river
> canoes. They also knew a lot about sailing by stars, following sea
> currents, and other extra clues. All this practical knowledge took
> thousands of years to be develop. It is not strange that, from all
> the peoples of the ancient world, only the Polynesians, and their
> relatives the Indonesians, stand like the most outstanding pre-
> western sailors. They had the tech for the task.
>
granted they were good at it, but those were hardly more than the
river boats, which is what might have to be done with the early
colonization of space. small groups saying they are going to do it
reguardless of the risk.
>
> Market drives more of the developments of mankind, not the states.
> Actually, even the most important changes of the time of
> the "discoveries" were done by private enterprises rather than by
> states. During the industrial revolutions the same happened. Today
> nothing has changed. States can't finance "Manhatan" or "Apollo
> programs" forever. Private enterprise have to do what is supposed
to
> do. Let's convince Bill Gates to investing on it.
>
thats why there was a slow down of new inventions and things that
came out after apollo. ppl started having to learn what the new stuff
could do then they started coming up with more stuff.
>
> Wow! That is an incredible new. Actually, I did not have a clue
> about it.
>
ppl are suppose to know about. things i know could get me into
serious trouble. its called arroura (sp) and its a couple of decades
old. hydrogen fusion propulsion. stickly hush hush. the military
still does not acknoledge any question concerning it. perhaps you
have seen its trail. a loud high flying aircraft. by the time you
hear the noise all that is left is the 'string of pearls" vapor trail
it leaves behind.
>
> Nice methaphor! Yes, perhaps we are thinking in building our
> own "city of God" in space. Perhaps the future won't be so
brilliant
> and, once there, we'll find things are business as usual.
>
humans are human. to paraphrase a dj "where ever humans go, there
humans are."
# 5952 byoevega@... on May 22, 2006, 4:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi Robert,
>of
> 125 miles. at a acceleration of 2 g it would take 495 seconds to
>get
> to 6 miles per second. as the speed built up it would in crease
>the g
> force to the outside of the track to 4 g but that would only occur
> towards the end of the 11 laps. also a part of the track would be
>a
> curve upwards towards a launch at a 45 degree up angle to the
>ground
> (if the track is on an angle it would require less of a change).
>the
> ppl inside would have less than a 5 resultant g. the shuttle
>launches
> with higher. other variations of this could be made that would
> require less g. there are ranches that are bigger than this. it
>could
> even be powered by space power sats.
Hi Robert,
Good idea !!
I wonder how long the tracks should be to reach just Mach 2. Why?
Perhaps it could be possible to accelerate a ship to that speed,
from which an hypersonic engine would start to push the plane up to
Mach 25. That way could be very easy and cheap to reach space in 10
minutes.
And the infrastructure needed should be a lot smaller.
Regards,
Omar Vega
# 5953 bypanamabob@... on May 22, 2006, 4:23 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
what is friction from air ?
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:13 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: OVERPOPULATION
Hi Robert,
> not true. imagine a "race track" accelerator with a circumference
>of
> 125 miles. at a acceleration of 2 g it would take 495 seconds to
>get
> to 6 miles per second. as the speed built up it would in crease
>the g
> force to the outside of the track to 4 g but that would only occur
> towards the end of the 11 laps. also a part of the track would be
>a
> curve upwards towards a launch at a 45 degree up angle to the
>ground
> (if the track is on an angle it would require less of a change).
>the
> ppl inside would have less than a 5 resultant g. the shuttle
>launches
> with higher. other variations of this could be made that would
> require less g. there are ranches that are bigger than this. it
>could
> even be powered by space power sats.
Hi Robert,
Good idea !!
I wonder how long the tracks should be to reach just Mach 2. Why?
Perhaps it could be possible to accelerate a ship to that speed,
from which an hypersonic engine would start to push the plane up to
Mach 25. That way could be very easy and cheap to reach space in 10
minutes.
And the infrastructure needed should be a lot smaller.
Regards,
Omar Vega
# 5954 bylucioc@... on May 22, 2006, 5:05 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 5/22/06, panamabob@...
wrote:
> what is friction from air ?
(...)
the same of aerodynamic friction. The kind of force that for instance
heat meteors and ships (re)entering atmosphere at hypersonic speeds...
# 5955 byoevega@... on May 22, 2006, 7 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
>
> On 5/22/06, panamabob@...
> wrote:
> > what is friction from air ?
> (...)
>
> Perhaps I am just giving another name and not helping much, but it is
> the same of aerodynamic friction. The kind of force that for instance
> heat meteors and ships (re)entering atmosphere at hypersonic
speeds...
>
Regards,
Omar Vega
1 (current)
2