Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Space exploration - The How and Why
where are those technolgical advances today? these scientists were not killed, most worked for nasa or a branch of america for years to come. where is germany today? a part of the EU mess but thankfully paving the way by setting the goal to be the first nation in europe to be nuclear power free, and heavy investing into green energy. i hope t see many advances in that feild within the net 5 years
from the "history channel" (even though they show things like anceint aliens, they still show historical facts from time to time) i have heard that the nazi's discovered mercury has strong magnetic feilds when introduced to absolute zero conditions and had developed balloons of sorts they planned to use to spy with, but lacked the ability to control or stabilize them.
Oh they had some interesting stuff.
Where USA made the nuke, germany made a reactor
They also designed a Space Shuttle (designed to bomb USA and Russia) but were unable to get past engineering issues.
They were decent in encryption
They were NOT first to have jet engines... just they were more effective with theirs.
The two missiles they rained on England were the first of their kind, and used pulse propulstion, which on accident was fairly advanced.
But anti gravity... heh
Moon base.. hahaha
UFO's is a joke
Even though some of their tanks were really decent... they were not more effective in production, nor the best out there.
Now if I was cruel and mean I would act like they made underwater bases to egg Bara on... but I am not that mean.
America had the first jet engine, but it was so unliked we did not produce it.
Bara is so silly.
of course, america, as any country will use a vehicle till it wont work any more, and heres something silly to throw your way, who is germany buying thier jets from? ill give you a hint, its the united states of a**-kicking
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/intros-off-topic/germany-acquire-f-35-luftwaffe-8946/
they are so advanced i just cant belive it
Any source about american jet engines?
From what i read the first patent on a turbine powering an airplane was 1921 by some french guy.
After that the brits seemed to have the leading innovations.. then came the germans.. can
twoisdeath
ROFL.. did you check the date of the article?
I would never believe any articles written on April 1st!!!!
Its aprils fools.. Germany will replace all the remaining tornados and phantoms with eurofighters.. not F35..
haha good eye, no i did no verification and i should be asleep right now i just like to research what i hear
dont freak out too much, i found an article on sir frank whittle being credited for the first jet engine, and here is a wiki of him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle
and it states he is british haha. so idk
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljjetenginehistory.htm
this one is interesting in giving americans credit for a steam powered plane, though this is far from a jet
Well crap... teaches me to watch the History Channel. All websites disagree with what I saw X(
Sorry guess I was wrong here.
Baratheon, that's wild speculation. Have fun with it. I don't care. It doesn't make or back up any point. 
They had some advanced ideas and brilliant minds. But you have no basis for claiming a century's advancement and you _grossly_ overstate the development of what were mostly only theories and plans.
Americans have gone leaps and bounds beyond anything any WWII German scientist ever envisioned in WWII. Maybe you're right; maybe they would have been as advanced as the US or much more. But you have absolutely no basis for that speculation.
"And further, Kemp, I am not your history teacher nor am I writing a publication or journal entry; research my claims on your own."
My point is that you're making up complete bull[spit] and I'm calling it what it is. You're fabricating facts. I can't disprove your fiction. That you have absolutely nothing to reference for any of your wild fiction supports my claim you're full of [it]. I challenge you to back up a single thing you've claimed. We both know you can't.
"Let's not forget that only the winner of a war gets to point the finger and go "Crime Against Humanity" and "War Crime"."
Thank you for referencing the millions of civilians which Americans murdered during WWII. It's a dark secret we tried to cover up. But nothing gets past you.
I think what Bara is trying to say is that the US had huge scientific benefits from those German scientists they captured during WW II.
One name would be Wernher von Braun, who was a, if not the, leading scientist on the US way to space. Without him and his knowledge its uncertain if the US would have reached the moon before the soviets and that had quiet some impact on the cold war.
Von Braun had huge benefits from an army of "slaves" during WWII. He could easily be conisdered a war criminal. But he was not brought to court like many others who had the same benefits because he and his knowledge was a benefit for the US.
Damn it... he knows Chicago was just a death camp, where we killed endless numbers of Donotexistians! How did this secret get out, we won after all, so we were able to write history!
Damn it now we need a new world war to cover it up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5737854/Russian-spacecraft-landed-on-moon-hours-before-Americans.html
and it was a close race at that. as there are aleph translators. schiepel, you have been charged with re-installing bara's post with intellect either that or you missed him explaining how germany had UFOs
Schniepel, if he wanted to say that the US benefited from scientists both fleeing Germany before and pardoned after WWII nobody would disagree. That's a fact. He's not saying that. He's saying a bunch of crazy bull[spit].
the third Reich was a very unstable regime. If they would have won the war, they would either become democratic - which is no difference from now-, or become like the USSR or NK.
For a long time it appeared to people that the USSR was on top off things (sputnik, first mane in space etc). Eisenhower knew that and lost elections over it. We now know the technology gap with the US was ever growing in favor of the us. Its always the same with these totalitarian regimes. The box looks good as long as you leave it closed.
Anywayz,
A lifeboat in space is much, much more costly as a lifeboat underground. A lifeboat underground is more difficult to destroy if build well. Yes ICBM's can reach the moon.
The effects of a nuclear winter far exceeds the 1-3 years of dust. Global climate and environment will be destabilized for decades or maybe centuries, dependent on what weapons used.
there are so many variables noone can predict what would happen.
- It all depends on what kind of nuclear weapon used and how many
- radiation depends on that too
- the extinction of many lifeforms is unpredictable
- the forming of large desserts
- the fierce storms
- the possible lack of an ozone layer
Its possible you have to maintain humanity underground and feed it for half a century before you can even start to rebuild a significant agriculture above. That is, if your shelter is not destroyed.
Just to add...you would need something around 1000 breeding pairs to maintain genetic variation. So whatever lifeboat needs to support that many people...making it THAT much harder to do in space.
Here's a thought:
If cloning/genetic manipulation technology were matured, would we not be able to artificially create genetic diversity by modifying the on/off switches on genes?
Heres a thought, if we can clone animals (and humans) then why can we not create the resources we need?
And why is it we cannot still create honey? (true honey)
Theoretically I suppose.
In the context of a lifeboat, the lifeboat needs to be large enough to house the lab and equipment. I can see how this could be much more efficient than housing 1000s of ppl tho.
Okay, maybe I should be more specific. Successful cloning may be much more difficult, as was found by animal testing. That being said, genetic modification has been occurring for years, though it's currently limited to animals and plants due to ethical concerns. In theory, if lack of genetic diversity triggers the genetic defects that would stymie population sustainability, manipulating the genes (like we can do with animals and plants) could, in theory, remove some of the monotony among genetic descendants.
Actually, though, I can retract that whole comment. There's a much simpler and less speculative way to maintain genetic diversity: keep sperm/egg samples in any lifeboat.
"Heres a thought, if we can clone animals (and humans) then why can we not create the resources we need?"
It's much easier to put a bull and cow in a pen and let nature happen. On the other hand, put 2 barrels of oil together and nothing happens.
"And why is it we cannot still create honey? (true honey)"
Why honey specifically? But to answer your question, I'd imagine it's hard to get the exact composition right. Even if we can get the exact composition right, we might not be able to reproduce all of it, at least cheaply. I'd imagine there are some bee proteins in there that fall in this category.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Space exploration - The How and Why
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.