Retired US General Claims Revolutionary Transport Technology, Warns China Could Dominate Space (thedrive.com) 161
"Retired Lt. Gen. Steven L. Kwast says fantastic technology exists that could transport a human anywhere on earth within an hour," reports The Drive, in an article shared by schwit1:
As has been common as of late, Lt. Gen Kwast cites rapidly growing Chinese military and technological advances as the reason why the United States must invest heavily in new space-based technologies. "We can say today we are dominant in space but the trend lines are what you have to look at and they will pass us in the next few years if we do not do something. They will win this race and then they will put roadblocks up to space," Kwast argues, "because once you get the high ground, that strategic high ground, it's curtains for anybody trying to get to that high ground behind them." Kwast claims China is already building a "Navy in space" complete with the space-based equivalents of "battleships and destroyers" which are "able to maneuver and kill and communicate with dominance, and we [the United States] are not." Kwast's speech centers on the thesis that the United States needs a Space Force in order to counter Chinese advances and win the competition over the economy of the future and, as an extension, who sets the values of the future...
Around the 12:00 mark in the speech, Kwast makes the somewhat bizarre claim that the U.S. currently possesses revolutionary technologies that could render current aerospace capabilities obsolete... "[T]echnology can be built today with technology that is not developmental to deliver any human being from any place on planet Earth to any other place in less than an hour...."
Kwast's comment is only one of several curious comments made by military leadership lately and they do seem to claim that we could be on the precipice of a great leap in transportation technology. We also don't know exactly where he is coming from on all this as it is not necessarily the direct wheelhouse of someone who was running the Air Force's training portfolio, although it does have overlaps...
Is all this setting the stage for a new space race that will benefit mankind by furthering scientific and technological development, or is it ushering in the conditions for the first great space war?
Around the 12:00 mark in the speech, Kwast makes the somewhat bizarre claim that the U.S. currently possesses revolutionary technologies that could render current aerospace capabilities obsolete... "[T]echnology can be built today with technology that is not developmental to deliver any human being from any place on planet Earth to any other place in less than an hour...."
Kwast's comment is only one of several curious comments made by military leadership lately and they do seem to claim that we could be on the precipice of a great leap in transportation technology. We also don't know exactly where he is coming from on all this as it is not necessarily the direct wheelhouse of someone who was running the Air Force's training portfolio, although it does have overlaps...
Is all this setting the stage for a new space race that will benefit mankind by furthering scientific and technological development, or is it ushering in the conditions for the first great space war?
hmm... teleportation ? (Score:3)
beam me up scotty !!
Re:hmm... teleportation ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hmm... teleportation ? (Score:5, Informative)
circumference of Earth is 40 x 10^6 m, therefore, greatest distance to travel is half of that or 20 x 10^6 m and half of that is 10 x 10^6 m
s = 10 x 10^6 m
t = 30 minutes = 1800 seconds
s = 1/2 a t^2
a = 2 * s / (t^2)
a = 6 m/s^2 = 0.6 g
So, unless I've screwed up the calculations, it looks like the acceleration/deceleration wouldn't be a problem.
Re: hmm... teleportation ? (Score:3)
NASA has been doing that distance and speed for more than half a century. The problem is the same as it's always been, reliable safe arrival.
Re: hmm... teleportation ? (Score:2)
Even the reliability is pretty good. The Space Shuttle design which the Chinese and Russians have copied works pretty well, especially with modern materials.
The primary problem will always be cost. Getting something going at faster speeds requires exponentially more energy - it's what killed the Concorde and jet propelled trains.
Sure you can always build a faster plane but there is no reason today that physically present within 1h is necessary. With telecom and robotic telepresence, even the most skilled su
The biggest problem is air friction. (Score:3)
It's gonna light that nose right up.
That is why you take a bit of a detour to space as early and from space as late as possible, leading to a longer trajectory.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that a sub-orbital flight doesn't greatly increase the distance needed to travel to reach another spot on Earth and half the distance and time to accelerate and the other half to decelerate:
circumference of Earth is 40 x 10^6 m, therefore, greatest distance to travel is half of that or 20 x 10^6 m and half of that is 10 x 10^6 m
s = 10 x 10^6 m
t = 30 minutes = 1800 seconds
s = 1/2 a t^2
a = 2 * s / (t^2)
a = 6 m/s^2 = 0.6 g
So, unless I've screwed up the calculations, it looks like the acceleration/deceleration wouldn't be a problem.
g is about 9.81 m/s^2
therefore a is about 0.63g
So I think your calculations are accurate enough for this discussion - except that the take off acceleration will be 1.6 g (assumes rocket is initially climbing vertically), as the calculated acceleration needs to be added to the Earth's gravity!
Though in practice, the take off acceleration will be a lot higher, as most of the journey will probably be coasting, and then there will be deacceleration at the other end (assuming human a safe landing is required!).
Re: (Score:2)
If the entire flight is powered, then the maximum acceleration will be at least 4 times greater (before you allow for the Earth's gravity!).
Can you explain this? It sounds like his calculation was that you would need a net acceleration of 0.6g for half the flight and then a net deceleration of -0.6g for the other half the flight. Now, of course, this is incorrect for the trajectories involved around a sphere, but I don't see how you get up to four times that before figuring in gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an easy way to do it, no rocket required. A plasma cannon, will quite readily do it. Place your capsule in long tube hold it in place by electromagnetic suspension. Create a charged field from the capsule to the tunnel walls (this is important) and have the same charge as the plasma particles you will feed into the tube behind your capsule. The charged field keeps those particles trapped between the tube walls and the back of the capsule. The tube should be in a state of vacuum and well, off the ca
Well, technically ... (Score:3)
... all you need is to turn the rocket around in the middle of the flight, and do the exact opposite of what you did to launch.
Being *exact* is where the magic happens. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Schuler tunnel; 42 minutes. Just a small infrastructure problem...
Re: (Score:3)
Kwast's speech centers on the thesis that the United States needs a Space Force
Lucky for him, Trump announced one a few days ago.
I wonder how it went:
a) This guy's getting senile and he was supposed to deliver this speech before Trump.
b) Trump is such an impatient brat that he couldn't wait until after this guy's speech to do his bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump put in National Space Directive 4 for the Defense Department to work with Congress on establishing a Space Force. And he's been talking about it for longer than that. And the House and Senate have been working on what it looks like in the National Defense Authorization Act for months. It's not a surprise.
https://www.space.com/43161-wh... [space.com]
Re: (Score:2)
beam me up scotty !!
Amazon is working on this as a part of their new ultra-premium Quantum Prime membership, which guarantees one hour delivery.
Amazon will even be able to put the delivery service in reverse, so that they can beam the thief stealing the package from your front porch directly into the prison section of the Amazon warehouse.
Presidential portal? (Score:2)
Anyone else thinking of the President's portal from Rick and Morty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: hmm... teleportation ? (Score:2)
Totally believable (Score:3, Informative)
Much simpler explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
When Kwast says things like, "The technology is on the engineering benches today. But most Americans and most members of Congress have not had time to really look deeply at what is going on here. But I've had the benefit of 33 years of studying and becoming friends with these scientists. This technology can be built today with technology that is not developmental to deliver any human being from any place on planet Earth to any other place in less than an hour," the only thing he can be talking about that has a connection to reality is something like what SpaceX proposes with Starship:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zq... [youtube.com]
Re:Much simpler explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
the only thing he can be talking about that has a connection to reality is something like what SpaceX proposes with Starship:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zq... [youtube.com]
Oh come on, an even simpler explanation for existing tech is the Aurora [wikipedia.org]. They keep denying its existence, so it must exist! /s
Re: (Score:2)
1969 Concorde tech could get you anywhere in 3-4 hours. Designing something similar that can do an orbital flight plan, 50 years later, should obviously be doable. We went from bikes to the moon in ~50 years.
he didn't mention the magic word - (Score:5, Insightful)
He has been working in that field for thirty-three years - he doesn't mention cost. throw enough money at it and you can deliver anyone anywhere on the Earth in an hour.
Re:he didn't mention the magic word - (Score:4, Insightful)
But will they survive the G forces?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone on Earth could survive an attack by the G-Force [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm at one G acceleration at the moment. My butt isn't moving much off this couch. Perhaps you meant two G?
Re: (Score:2)
What a delightfully 18th century worldview!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You'll find that in terms of squished eyeballs, Einstein's notion of acceleration is the one that matters.
Re: he didn't mention the magic word - (Score:2)
I'm not sure you actually read that article ... and if you did, I'm pretty sure you didn't understand it ...
Re: (Score:2)
Charming.
He's from the US military! (Score:4, Insightful)
The guys with such an overabundance of money, that they literally begged the government to *not* buy them 400 new tanks, as the last 400 were still rusting unused in the desert! And got them anyway.
As the say:
Business to business, add one zero.
Business to goveenment, add two zeroes.
Business to military, add three zeroes.
missile gap redux (Score:5, Interesting)
Here we go again, Generals telling us the evil Russians are going to beat us up with 1/10 the military budget we spend (and waste).
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have to beat us up. They will just divide us up and watch us beat each other up while they sit back and laugh.
Re:missile gap redux (Score:4, Informative)
The results, not the input of dollar matters.
Solar bottles and roadways (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bet it involves a new kind of battery using a surprising technology.
Doubtful. Batteries tend to have poor energy density overall.
Shhh! Don't tell the Musketeers! (Score:2)
Using fuel cells to cleanly "burn" high energy density hydrocarbons, and the turn it them into hydrocarbons with solar power, is out! Boo!
Mining litium, cobalt etc, to create short-lived, heavyweigt low density energy denisty fuel, is in! Yay!
Much better path!
learn to accept it (Score:5, Interesting)
China is a world superpower. China tries to disguise this by also officially holding status as a developing nation in international organizations. But it's all a way to scam the West. Just like China has been scamming the West with their artificial suppression of their own currency. China wins through a combination of central planning, a single party system, and a complete lack of respect for individual liberty. You can see that last one in every announcement China makes about Hong Kong or Macau
"We will never allow any external forces to interfere in Hong Kong and Macau affairs."
Except Hong Kong started as an internal movement, by Hong Kongers themselves.
You can pour through speeches by Chinese officials, and you'll not find them discussing individual liberty, or even class equality (a Marxist concept). China is not communist (maybe long ago they were). They picked up some of the traits of capitalism, but do not operate a welfare state that most of us in the West enjoy. Why? Because citizens of China are not citizens in a sense that we would understand, they are more accurately described as property of China. People's Republic of China? more like Republic of China's People.
So they are a corporation then? (Score:2)
Sounds like they need some government regulation!
What do you mean, eww? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China tries to disguise this by also officially holding status as a developing nation in international organizations. But it's all a way to scam the West.
Have you checked out the definition of developing countries [wikipedia.org] and China's ranking in the GDP per capita [wikipedia.org]? Besides the West classified China as a developing country without criteria for re-assessment. Must be that the West scammed themselves.
Just like China has been scamming the West with their artificial suppression of their own currency.
This is a perpetual lie spread in the West. Go to a bank in China today and try to wire more than US$50,000 out of China and you can find the truth. That's not allowed [scmp.com] because China has to limit the outflow of hard foreign currency in order to POP UP its currency; and that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If USA had 700M people living cheaply their GDP per capita would be much lower too.
And in your alternate reality would that make the US more developed or less developed...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that the United States have on many occasions actively interfered in the internal affair of Hong Kong and China.
Sorry Charlie, human rights is not "an internal affair".
Quite simple to achieve (Score:3)
At that acceelration... (Score:2)
... it will already be messy, right from the start. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
1-hour global transportation is possible (Score:2)
Replace the nuclear warhead in an ICBM with a human.
Worry about the details, like survivability, in Phase II of the project.
Re: (Score:3)
Replace the nuclear warhead in an ICBM with a human.
Worry about the details, like survivability, in Phase II of the project.
... Gottfried? Are you okay up there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity%27s_Rainbow
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say this, it's Musk's "intercontinental ballistic passenger rocket" idea. I hope it doesn't take off any time soon for environmental reasons, rocket launches release a lot of fossil CO2 and we have to consider the utility of that CO2 release. Satisfying a rich person's impatience is near the bottom of the scale.
Re: This is actually legitimate.. (Score:2)
Re: This is actually legitimate.. (Score:2)
It'll happen, but a bit later than planned. And it'll be on Mars.
BS is BS (Score:3)
All sorts of things the military says is BS. For example, we grossly over advertise the capability of our stealth technology. The Blackhawk was shot down just using WWII radar tech. There was never a such thing as a stealth helicopter.
The military had been doing this for ever. They spread a rumour that they had teleported a whole ship in WWII. It's always about confusing other militaries so that they are never sure what is true and what is BS. And most of it is BS.
Re: (Score:2)
The Blackhawk was shot down just using WWII radar tech.
I would dearly love to see a citation to back up that claim. As far as I can tell, no SR-71 has ever been shot down. There have been crashes, but no losses to enemy missiles or (obviously) gunfire that I could find references to. Maybe you're thinking of the U-2? Or, are you claiming some kind of coverup/conspiracy?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Blackhawk is a helicopter (UH-60, I believe)
SR-71 is the Blackbird.
Blackhawks have been shot down, see the movie Blackhawk Down, for instance. But this whole discussion kind of slides around the edge of the point/abilities behind current stealth tech.
Re:BS is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably too wordy and OT of a reply... but your parent poster may be talking about the F-117 Nighthawk, the first "stealth fighter". A F-117 was indeed shot down by an old missile battery of an air defense unit of the Yugoslav Army during the 1999 NATO operations in the Kosovo War. The missiles which brought the aircraft down (NATO designation, SA-3) were relics of the 1960's and considered obsolete by the USAF and almost everyone else. The whole shoot down is a fascinating story in the use of tactics by the Yugoslav unit to counter the advanced NATO systems (including NATO air defense suppression efforts), which is told here, https://nationalinterest.org/b... [nationalinterest.org]. The commander of the air defense brigade which accomplished the shoot down and the pilot of the F-117 met and struck up a friendship after the war.
The lesson is that "stealth" like all weapons and tactics is not invulnerable, just tilts the odds, maybe by a lot in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means the F117 (Nighthawk) that was shot down in Kosovo. The air defence operators said that they spotted the F117 on radar when it opened its bomb bay doors. That's a known, and pretty unavoidable vulnerability.
Well not completely stealth, duh. (Score:2)
It reduces the amount of energy reflected. For the frequencies it was designed for.
By reducing the amount that is dirextes back where it came from. Basicall by making specularity ("shinyness") very high.
Obviously if you're at the right angle, that means *all* of it comes back to you. And obviously, the vehicle still has to have a function. Meaning it cannot just be a cube shape or something. It needs to have rotors. And exhausts. And windows. And weapons. Etc. All details cause a bigger radar reflection.
So
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
There is an entire genre of stories based on this scenario, and the vast majority end up with people making giant, multi-ton combat vehicles which duke it out in space [fandom.com].
Max. distance on earth: 20,000 kms (Score:2)
To survive the G forces you need to start and end 'slow' but the middle trajectory will need a speed that's pretty close to escape velocity...
Fly, my paid shills! Flyyy! (Score:4)
Trump signed the space force into reality. Now all they needed, was a justification, for taking even more money out of them pockets of Americans, and giving it to job^Wprofit-creation shemes for the arms industry.
And suddenly, some crazy people with silly fearmongerig stories get dragged through the news.
Toootally unrelated coincidence.
Laying the groundwork for more money (Score:2)
Budget time is coming, and the military wants new tools. Classic military bargaining tactics: present the potential threat (emphasize worst-case), advise doing nothing is not an option, promise fantastic solutions, and flavour with hints of "unknown" technological abilities. Probably will go over well at the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
..and what about our precious bodily fluids?? (Score:2)
"We can say today we are dominant in space" (Score:3)
I thought you would need to have the capability to transport humans to space without hitching rides from the Russians to call yourself 'dominant'.
Re: "We can say today we are dominant in space" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't mention NASA. But they currently can't transport people into space either.
Hardly (Score:2)
"deliver any human being from any place on planet Earth to any other place in less than an hour...."
You'll have to get to the check-in 2.5 hours before boarding though.
Why? (Score:3)
... does the USA seem to think everyone is their enemy?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're a frontier people who won independence through violent revolution. That combination results in a national identity that combines individualism and self reliance with a healthy dose of paranoia and distrust of foreigners.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
We don't. We see them as our rivals. And like anyone who has been #1 as long as anyone can remember, we struggle with the paranoia stemming from imposter syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
... does the USA seem to think everyone is their enemy?
The USA thinks half their own citizens are the enemy. Never mind dirty foreigners.
Did he change his name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's where the missing $trillion went (Score:2)
To those who follow the field of UFOs, this is not news. As the late Ben Rich, head of Lockheed's Skunk Works, said, "We have the technology to take ET home." Of course the disinformation specialists are quick to debunk this. It's not that he didn't say it, it's just that it was a joke. Ha ha. But just recently the "Wilson Document" has come to light, which tells the story of how Admiral Wilson, J2 at the Joint Chiefs, was refused access to a top secret program run by private industry to reverse engineer an
We cannot allow a mine shaft gap! (Score:2)
What's the evidence of China's militarization of space? This sounds like the Red Scare all over again. It's a money grab using specious analysis to frighten dipshits into handing over truck fulls of cash to defense and aerospace companies. Hucksters swindling us using our elected representatives.
Yep (Score:2)
But, hey, if you don't mind G forces in the hundreds, go for it!
They sure are hiding it well (Score:2)
This from the country that hasn't even sent a dozen people into orbit? Who are still mostly using converted ICBMs for launchers? Who have only put up two small stations and those two stations together have been occupied for less than 2 months? I'm sure they have some wicked plans drawn up, just look at some of the amazing ideas they had in the heyday of the American/Russian space programs. But most of those plans never came to fruition. Hopefully they can achieve some of those ambitious (peaceful) plan
I actually watched the talk. (Score:2)
I thought it was revolutionary tech at first, but he's talking about:
1. SpaceX Starship e2e
2. SpaceX Starlink
3. The Tesla tower out near Austin that the Airforce is funding.
1. is "no new development" in only the roughest sense. I think Starship will succeed but permitting is going to be a bitch for e2e.
2. He says Starlink is wifi from space that you can get with your cellphone. I can't even - maybe in the 2030's.
3. This is the most interesting one since it's new and the small-scale test tower worked.
Thes
Re: (Score:2)
Hush with your Pesky Facts, they're drumming up support for another Trumpian Slush fund.
"Facts". Lol. ... Nah, simpler: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's what you get, when you want to make your enemy look both like a totally incompetent bunch of idiots and losers much inferior to our glory ... and like a huge and powerful threat that justifies huge arming expenses.
Completely self-contradicting
Like racists that are going: 1. "Those stoopid Mehicans cannot even read, and got no shoes n sheet!" 2. "Those stoopid Mehicans are takin our jerbs and wimmin!"
What kind of a shitty job did you do then, if somebody who can't even read can take your job and woman?? Did they pay you to club rocks with your bare fists? Like "Uuugh! Rock, CRUSH!"!?
Choose one, ya fuckers!
Re: "Facts". Lol. ... Nah, simpler: (Score:2)
You're basically saying "if you have a job doing manual labour, well fuck you".
No, I didn't. (Score:2)
I said rock crushing with your bare fists. That is a biit below "manual labor". In an absurd sort of way. :D
And I said that *they* are saying those foreigners are the stupidest, yet they seem to take their jobs, so by logical conclusion *they* are saying their job can be done by the stupidest person. Which, to explicitely highlight it, was precisely what I pointed out as silly and not possibly correct.
It has nothing to with manual labor. Even "stupid" can be replaced by "lazy" or whsatever else they are cal
Re: No, I didn't. (Score:2)
And I said that *they* are saying those foreigners are the stupidest, yet they seem to take their jobs, so by logical conclusion *they* are saying their job can be done by the stupidest person. Which, to explicitely highlight it, was precisely what I pointed out as silly and not possibly correct.
And that's why you're wrong. It doesn't take a great deal of education or brain power to move boxes, mop floors, mow lawns, or pick fruit. So there is absolutely nothing in any way suspect about suggesting that illiterate immigrants who are willing to work below minimum wage could displace existing workers in those fields.
You seem to have lived your entire life isolated in some middle-class lilly-white bubble. Not only are you apparently incapable of imagining that there are jobs out there which require
Re: (Score:2)
'You seem to have lived your entire life isolated in some middle-class lilly-white bubble.'
Wrong. What the worry is that business has the ability to replace a skilled, educated and valuable employee with an equally skilled foreign employee that lives in an economy where the minimum wage is equal to 20 cents an hour here. The equally skilled foreign employee is able to work for less than half the wages and produce equal quality work, but that employee doesn't participate in this economy. Hence earnings leave
Re: No, I didn't. (Score:2)
That is called capitalism. And happens all the time in the USA. Where jobs in states with good schools and high taxes go away to areas with bad schools and tons of poverty as they can pay lower wages.
Stop thinking that places like alaba and Florida don't already do this. It is just happening to them now and so it is a national emergency.
Standard hypocritical Republican thinking. Capitalism is good until it doesn't do exactly what I want or I start to lose to those who did to me what I did to others
Re: No, I didn't. (Score:2)
You're mixing up capitalism, illegal immigration, and globalisation, as if they were all the same thing ... and then calling republicans hypocritical because you have no clue what's going on. It's entertaining, but not particularly interesting.
Did you have anything to contribute? (Score:2)
With that nickname I would at least have expected a semi-skilled trolling. Come on! At least make an effort! :)
Re: Mm hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. The F-35 crushes every other 6th gen fighter in one most important category: it actually exists.
Yeahy and it is so shitty and buggy, (Score:3)
that the military prefers to use older ones, so they don't have to deal with that particular hell.
Also, it costs a fuckton by comparison.
Nevermind that there literally are no threats whatsoever that justify their existence. Plans, just in case, yes. Actually flying them, no.
Let alone them taking money off of your table, to buy them!
Re: Yeahy and it is so shitty and buggy, (Score:2)
Re: Yeahy and it is so shitty and buggy, (Score:3)
The F-35 has had very well publicised problems, many of which have been spread by competitors -namely Boeing. That makes it an easy punching bag.
It's still an amazing weapon platform and there is nothing on Earth that comes close to matching is capabilities, and won't be for decades.
Re: Yeahy and it is so shitty and buggy, (Score:3)
Technically you are incorrect; the F-22 meets and/or exceeds most of the F-35s capabilities. But yes, nothing else comes close.
Re: Yeahy and it is so shitty and buggy, (Score:2)
The F-22 is technically multi-role as well ... it's just not likely to ever be employed for CAS and the like. Too expensive to risk (and too few in number) when you can send in an F-35 instead.
Re: (Score:2)
A plane, designed by committee, is never a good idea.
It now has features that makes it cable to do almost any task...and that is apparently where your (and the committee's) attention span ends.
It cannot hold it's own in a dogfight, as in it loses against planes that are 30 years old. And yes, the F35 has a good pilot in it.
It cannot carry that much of a bomb load, as that messes up the stealth, so it is limited in use as a bomber.
VTOL?
Use that and it's operating range is reduced significantly, so it won't d
Re: (Score:2)
When expensive, harder to produce technology won:
The Wehrmacht with motorized armor blew over Poland who had horse propelled artillery, which was easier and simpler to produce.
Gulf War I
UK owning the oceans and colonization.
Israel vs Syria/Egypt.
US vs Japan August 1945
-------
"Then you'll need highly skilled pilots to fly them. An asset not as easy to come by as you might think. And it takes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, it took the planet roughly 24 hours to make a full rotation.
Re: no need (Score:2)
Bullshit. You are defining "you" and "death" in a very particular and subjective manner in order to make an invalid observation.