PB666

Those are essentially after the fact occurrences, the Empire started bleeding before was bleeding heavily after WWI great fortunes were lost among the peerage. The colonies would have fallen with or without the UN, the bigger problem was the corruption of the aristocracy and their essential lack of flexiblity and desire to maintain the status quo. Let me give you a brief history. Kaiser Wilhelm II, Grandson of queen Victoria, mother of Victoria married Fredrick II of Germany Tsar Nicholas, First Cousing of George the V. First fall off, Boxer rebellion . . . . . . . . . .1900 China the lions share European was British economic holdings . Although they won the conflict, the political toll on Britain was great, and most of the interior holdings and interest were eventually abandoned and with Japan moving into the vacuum Russo-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905) , Despite an eight country coalition and many warships the European Allies lost the hearts and minds of chinese people, and had mediate transactions with the Qing dynasty. It began a pattern of Britian were a win was in actuality a loss. It would not be long before the Japanese had gained sufficient control to block western ambitions in China. Gallipoli Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1915 widely regard as one of the largest British defeats of the 20th century, the waning ottoman empire was in full collapse at this point, the British sought an opportunity to take back Istabul, the battle was ill-planned. With minor german support the advance was defeated. Ottoman empire would collapse, Britain once again snatches defeat from the hands of victory. Second fall off, Easter Uprising . . . . . . .1916 Ireland, post war 1919 to 1921 war of independence - freed in 1921 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence. Britian managed to win this conflict also, but in the end kept only 6 provinces of Ireland, and lost 26 Third to fall off, 3rd Anglo-Afgan war . . . 1919 Once again the British won, and Afgan declare themselves an independents state, the british are forced to place a formal boundary between Afgan and India. Withering influences and corruption of the mandates 1923. Unilateral abandonment of Palestine May 14th 1948. Started the first Arab-Israeli war. Although technically not a loss, the 5 year mandates became a pretense for the Balfour doctrine for establishing a Jewish homeland (sate) in palestine, it was a wholescale subtrifugation of the agreed upon British Mandate (justifyable by humanitarian means, but a pretense for the covert shipment of arms to British allies in palestine, by agents of Lord Rothchilds), was coincidentally uncovered. The first revolt occurred in late 1920s (you will have to look up the league of nations annual reports to see the documents). British responsibility was to set boundaries between religious groups, on May 14th 1947 they exectude a preannounced abdication their responsibilty. The american president H. Truman warned that such a sudden exit without a UN force in place would cause bloodshed and humanitarian crisis (which it did). Then next day the first Arab-Israeli war started. Patial history here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict Note the similarities between Romans and Britian, The empire does not fall to bits, its a process of wittling away at the territories until it was unrecognizable. Great Britain had two hidden nemeses Stalin and Roosevelt, both felt that Imperial Europe was the cause of WWII and both sought to undermine its influence. Both had their interest, Stalin was building the Soviet Empire, and Roosevelt and Truman wanted to expand American economic interests in Asia and in Africa.

Kraken excrement. Don't land to hard.

We have almost perfect information about the Great Britian late Victorian and Edwardian Era , it engaged in a couple of wars during the late 19th and early 20th century both of which they were victors, and yet the Empire collapsed. Knowing the problem of Imperial rule and reparing them once they have peaked is not a winnable task. To say the least it was the Victorian period the created their enemies, that is to say the period was essentially self destructive. To further the problem WWII demonstrates the aftermath. The eccentricities of the period in europe can be compared with those in greece or the increasing dicotomy between port cities and inland areas of Europe during the roman period.

The workers are part of the problem, its not either or. There is a saying that democracies fail when people realize that the can vote that give themselves everything they want. The reality is that true freedom can only exist when the individual realizes what their responsibilities are, and this can only exists when there is perfect information. In the case of the workers their responsibillity is to work, to take care of their well-being (which includes health at home, the capital class is responsible for health at work) to raise their children well, and to properly steer the children into productive careers, and away from unproductive occupations (both at work and off work). Currently a large section of workers fail on two of three regards, this is why the current employment rate is not reflective of employability, there is underemployment in certain areas of the economy. The issue of information is also problematic, when the major information networks are full of misinformation and that feed on superstition, ignorance and bias for corporate self promotion. If the career class was properly organized according to demand, the unemployment rate would be 4% and wages in the middle class would be 20% higher than what they are now. This is not a corporate problem, its a lower middle class and middle class problem. You take alook right now at interest rates and fed-reserve, they are trying to raise interest rates, but they can't. The reason is very simple, underemployment, there are careers out there that go unfilled. In know a company right now in Houston, $50,000 per year jobs, start in level, 4 positions open, sales with technical experience. Sales they can get, technical experience, nope. Worse, be in a managerial position and try hiring a technician, lol. The problem is social, science and technology are disrespected in certain theo-social sects of society, because of that the kids are steered into demandless or payless careers. These positions are being filled by second-generation immigrants who are not burdened by these career restrictions, but even so the demand still outstrips the supply. One thing that you see in these immigrants, stable families, sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the family, a more or less incorperated family attitude. I can give you a recent example, female, nursing student, parents are both from a latin american country, father works in construction, wants to raise money to buy house, gets a low level job at sales company, moves within year to intermediate position at 50,000/year, a year later moves to a different company, is learning medical technology, still in sales, 3 years out of school, formal field specific training 100k per year with bonuses up to 200k (which she will likely recieve). Another student, strait out of UHD, technician at 30k for 1.5 years, gets a job with chemical sales company, 120k/year. Lot of these kids out there, their parents are no less than a ball and chain.

This is one third of the groups topics, of that the most important, you want to put it in a single thread . . . .what a bad idea.

Now but we don't call the US the DC empire (although some Americans believe there is a something called inside the beltway). @Bill Phil Germanic tribes true, but it was also roman, I think in the sense that the appointed roman emperor defended the papacy in Rome, entitled his authority, just like roman generals who were born outside of rome could become emperors because of their exploits. Thats not a particular problem. The bigger problem was authority, because the capital of the empire was moved to Nova Roma; however when constantinople fell to the Turks that issue dissolved. The roman emperors of the late period were basically house of Habsburg (king of central european trade), rather meaningless in light what was going on with England, the Dutch and Spain/portuguese.

That is because of the background brightness. Its temperature is 2370K which means it emits here: On the yellow side of orange. On the edges at ground level the hydrogen plasma will react with oxygen in the air, this will cause a color shift on the outside of the plume. Modern day designs, in theory, seek to achieve temperatures around 4000 which means they would emit closer to green part of yellow. Besides spectrum you have to consider intensity. In a conventional rocket engine the gases are still reacting in the plume, adding color to the plume, in an NTR its about electron exchange amoung equals, its less energetic.So no additional energy is being add except on the ground, but energy is being lost, cooling the gas. (in space the pressure impulse hits space and expands, PV=NRT which means as the gas expands it cools). In space the faint yellow orange should be visible at the center of the plume, and it will fade quickly with distance from the rocket.

Although there were other factors also supporting this, there was a long standing tendencies of Gothic expansions that brought their descendants into SE Europe. The Huns reached the edge of Europe about 375, Attila the Hun died 453 and his empire disperse if 455, it was not a British sleepover in Washington DC. There was the story that in his invasion of region that is now Poland that he killed so many people in the north of the country, that cities remained full of the smell of death a decade after he had left. Note the difference in the size of the empire before and after the Huns attacked. The Huns could be ruthless to an extreme. The advantage that the Huns had, their core mercenaries could essentially live on the back of a horse, it meant they could cover more ground in a day than most of the roman forces, at that time they exceeded the roman ability to communicate. They literally took control of the Danube, which was a major trading corridor going back to the early Neolithic. In addition, the Alans, one of the first groups to attack were a Scythian tribe that was apparently displaced by the Huns movement westward from Asia into the Caucasus. This is more to the point concerning the invasion of the Huns, whether you think the Romans able or feckless defenders, the Huns attacked and killed, or forced migrations of groups previously considered able among the barbarian tribes. When there is talk of the great migration, it hardly begins before mentioning the Huns. So the basic claim is that the roman empire was on its knees, probably an exaggeration of the fact that it really faced some pretty able barbarians from the East, more than that the faced the disruptions movement of starvation and diseases the disruption caused. If we have the origins correct they came from somewhere around lake Baikal about 375, within 25 years they are knocking on the back door of Paris and a few years after that deciding whether to cross the Po and take Rome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period I think the key problem was a sense that the roman Identity was Mediterranean in nature, if you want to call this greco-romans, and Roman leaders tended to concentrate along the prosperous ports leaving control of the periphery to negotiated partnerships with allies, many of whom were fair weather friends, as long as there was a benefit, they stayed in the alliance. Defense became uncentralized. Of course this causes production in the major ports to be extremely reliant on goods elsewhere, and the supply lines are vulnerable, but secondary weaknesses are in controlling the problems of poverty and disease in the core territories, because it is the children of the impoverished that are future defenders of the empire. If the raiders come through and say we'll treat you better than them, the empire has a problem. This is the problem the Huns create, they see a good rider who likes the warrior lifestyle . . . . . and so thats how the huns became powerful so quickly. But the problem was more than that, there was a series of bad emperors, and prior to the east/west divide the empire had been split before this when rulers died and sons took over, outside of the port cities this created fracturing. There were places, like hiberia, where the politics remained cohesive, but hiberia did not have an extensive frontier which barbarians could attack.

Some of romes enemies were barbarians in the full sense, IS would have a difficult time competing with the Huns. Ask the poles about the huns. Look up the vandals also, not blaming them for romes decline, but the period of great migration was not a banquet for the roman empire.

I'de dislike it but I dont have a u-tube account, you got strange fettishes son.

been trying to get a cogent reply to the previous one but the GUI interface has been futzing up all the character mods, whenever I cut an past info here it completely messes up the formating. This is going to be low tech, sorry if it looks a bunch unreadable, blame it on the website. u is equal to the celestials gravitational constant, from this point we care nothing about gravity other than this constant, static gravity has meaning but not in the calculation of enery. for any orbit above the surface of a celestial there is an a such that a = pe/2 + apo/2 + rsurface,celestial for any a there is an r such that r = a on all points. For that r there is a potential energy from outside the hill sphere (r = infinity) to ra in which the potential energy difference is equal to u/r (very simple, but in real life its actually a negative value). Except close to the hill radius and/or L1 and L2, the potential energy of a static object is always double that of an orbiting object and also double its kinetic energy relative to the point-center mass. So lets say that I have an orbit of 6370000 meters at v = 0. My exit potential is 62574638/kg No problem, if I do not add dv I will have an orbit about a point center that is basically two infinitely close lines that touch the center of the point mass (essentially it would be a black hole and I would fall into it). To create an orbit I need to add half the energy so I take (62574638/2) that give Ehalf then (2E)0.5 = V = 7910 now to exit the orbit I would have to add another Ehalf of velocity. Now I already have a pretty good idea, because GSO is relatively close in energy to the hills radius Epot and So from the surface that is simply (2*u/r)0.5 = 11,187 so I kind of know that dV is going to be less than 3277. So now I want to have an orbit that goes from Surface to GSO. Ok lets assume that both orbits are circular orbits. To get to GSO I need to add 53121104/kg joules from an object just standing on a non-moving surface. The problem is that velocity gets me to GSO from the surface but it doesn't keep me there, I need to add additional energy to keep me there, so I have to add some more E to keep me. To stay at that distance all I need to do is add half the potential from GSO to exit this gives a velocity of 10756. Since I have already put 7910 into getting to my surface orbit I simply [cough] need dV 2345 which needs to be parse into an initiation burn and a completion burn. Its not going to be this good, there is waste because there are two burns required to reach a circle and two more required to reach GSO. Whereas if I launched strait up to GSO and burned it would be 13400 dV. Thus circularization is good at LEO and burn to GSO compared to burn up and circularization at GSO. Meaning if you have to burn vertical and horizontal, by all means do it at a lower altitude. However there are still better choices, because all I need to do is get a high enough vertical velocity to keep me from slamming into the thick atmosphere while I do a horizontal burn. I can get closer to the 10756 if I blow off what it took me to get to 10,000 meters (about 450 dV) and assume that I had a fast perfect burn to elliptical GSO from there, and avoiding the circularization. There is a good space ecology reason for doing this and not circularizing first, any stages you burn through to reach GSO from a pe of say 10,000 to 80,000 meters, or even a bit into the circularization burn, they fall promptly back down to earth or into decay circularization to earth. The reality is the approach up to 80k alt is going to have to be an engineer approach, not pure math, a strategy of simulation based on maxima and NGO setpoints (e.g. maximum dynamic pressure) CoD, turns. But the point is at 80k you want to be on that GSO ellipse and very close to have accelerated to intercept velocity, and not spent much more energy fighting gravity than spent fighting drag (that is a reason for small craft getting CoD to absolute minimum is essential). At that point you can delta the difference between Erequired - EIdeal + Esurface velocity of earth at whatever latitude and determine the launch anomaly. Someone had a post the other day about Cygnus futzing up the parameters, but what they don't see is that drag is an estimate, the atmosphere is not perfectly predicable. BTW GSO has a radius of 42,163.96 km = Roughly CubeRoot( 398600442000000 /( 2*pi* 365.2422 /( 24* 60 * 60 * 364.2422 ))2) ok maybe not roughly

Thats not exactly true because you know the semi-major axis of a circular orbit and for an elliptical orbit its pe/2 + apo/2 + rsurface,central body and if you cannot calculate v at apo and peri, well need to spend more time on the wiki pages. Did I not say this was just different ways of solving the problem. When you talk about orbits for me its potential and kinetic energy thats they way I think (IOW before KSP this is how I solved), so if I am not offered any solution, I will naturally solve for those two for any orbit I want to solve. If you take the integral of uH you can solve for potential energy for any two positions about a warp in space-time, so thats damn easy, at least for me. The rest is just velocity energy differentials. The reality is if you know how to calculated the celestial gravitational constant for any body, the math suddenly becomes much easier. 3.98E14. See, in the game your conics show you the dV required for each segment, but for planning you only need to know total dV for each transfer. Let the game split them. If you had an excel table you simply put in your orbit your target orbit and the eccentrity and let the hidden vbasic function spit out a total dV, its pretty philosophical since you still haven't handled inclinations. Theoretically for any switch you hohmann burn at the asc or des node (with a vector for inclination and at apo you burn both simultaneously for remaining inclination and circularization, but if you are catching target you might burn part of the orbit inorder to create an orbit that has an apo that coincided with the target and perform a second burn for an efficient use of dV for both inclination and orbit matching. In the game I do this alot for docking from launch, as part of my game I have a factory at 600k that needs to be resupplied, so I am going to use several burns, first one at peri to reach apo, then a second at apo to creat an orbit that will intercept target and finally a third burn to match target speed. I can throw inclination burns needed into this at my convenience. Doesnt really fit into the tabular form you provide. But what would be convenient is to know the total dV of the target intercept. The problem is that the greatest source of variation is in the launch to dV. If I let McJeb do it, its often a wash, or inefficient, if you do it manually you are often left short or excess of fuel. So what I really need is a launch program that looks at things like CoD, the maximum dynamic pressure, maximum thrust to weight ratios, Therefore we run into inaccuracies when you start dealing with things like 3-body problems, inclinations, interception, ect. The highest energy inclination differences per degree however are the inclination changes required for circulation after launch, which you basically swept under the rug.

Every time there was a change in leadership they would split the empire amoung sons, then merge parts back together, it became an empire for the sake of emperors, were as the emperors origins (the generals) were fore the sake of the republic. When the seat was moved to constantinople this became a big snub of rome, when the romans asked for assistance Nova Roma half heartedly complied, eventually provided no assistence at all. Nova roma essentially threw rome to the Alans, Goths, or whatever the barbarian of the day was. And a 1000 years later when constantinople was in trouble, Rome threw them to the turks. bye-bye. What is an Empire, its a collection of divergent states with a centralized control, but who is best at defending themselves, the central government or the people, ultimately the central government relies on people to defend themselves, so that if they remove the power from the people and take it upon themselves, they can only defend through isolated garrisons, and these are subject to corruption (i.e. Iraq) and the tiniest group of vandals can come along and topple them.

Plasma is extremely reactive, it strips electrons off of any material it contacts as it cools (which in general is a very high temperature compared to stable temperature of most metals, when it hits solids it transmitts its kinetic energy and then steals electrons off the surface). You could generate the same effect if you could find a vapor that caged a positive charge in its interior, in this way it would not need to be hot. The problem with this however is it becomes very energetic to confine significant amount to small spaces. The natural equation is PV = nRT where avagadros number defines rationalizes n. As a consequence natural pressure of such a substance would be much lower per unit mass of such caged charge because of the mass required to create the cage. Creating pressure is work, and therefore the charge repulsions created constitute the input of energy. One possible molecule might be a bucky ball with Iron3+ inside of it. Either vacuum or plasma have to deal with the fact that the atmospheric pressure drops rapidly, they both rely on boyancy of space, to support any given unit of mass, the volumn of boyant space required doubles with altitude unit, this is refered to atmoshere scale, in kerbal is a fall in pressure of 2.6 for each 5000 meters. Exemplary that if you are at MSL pressure is 1, at 5000 pressure is 1/2.6, at 10000 its 1/2.62, at 15000 its 1/2.63 and so on, If you had a volume lets say 1.5 cubic meters at MSL that can support a kg of total weight, at 5000 meters it would need to be 3.9 cubic meters, at 10000 10.26 cubic meters (on earth it would only need to be 4.5, kerbal scales out faster, but it gravity also drops faster), at 15000 its 26.364, eventually the structure that contains the media weights more than the bouyancy. But lets just say this wasn't the problem, lets just say you could float as high as you want, you are still not in orbit, you still have to add 7800 dV and the bigger the profile of your ship, the harder this would be. So for example suppose I wanted to do a Hohmann transfer to mars, if I am floating I don't get to take advantage of oberth affect or burn windows, although I am traveling with the surface, still I am moving slowly. If I tried to circularize my orbit I would have to face huge amounts of drag.

easy v = sqrt(mu/r) and if you have velocity and r you have total momentum. But this isan issue of taste your method is valid you simply gloss over the kargest source of dV variation.

Basically correct, rome divided itself, then it moved its capital east and was actually paying the barbarians that attacked the west. The replacement of the republic fortold the fall of the empire, it was ressurrectect under charlemane but fell agian as a cosequence if napoleonic rule. It was basically the aristocracy of europe that started wwi and indirectly to blame for wwii, and so now mostly they are gone or reduced to benign positions. Not competitve in the new world order.

There's a hell of a lot of coal still in the ground and we know where it is, its likely to stay there, particularly the lignite coal.

They have to have an atmopheric pressure and surface water levels comparable to earth, also you have to consider the length of the day. If the day is too long, then by the time a planet makes a full rotation basically everything on the dark side has been frozen solid. Instanteous A planet close to the center of the habitable zone. It needs to have a dense, turbulable heat sink (like oceans) It needs to have an atmosphere The planet needs to rotate say at least one revolution per 48 hours. (and would need more atmospheric CO2 and more turbulant oceans, so a moon might be desirous) To have an atmosphere it needs to have a magnetic field or be much larger than earth It it is much larger than earth it needs to be silightly further from its star, If the planet is larger the atmospheric pressure cannot make oxygen in space-suite poisonous, Therefore the atmospheric pressure should be about the same. Also the atmosphere cannot be corrosive (for example it cannot have SO2 or SO3 in high concentrations), this would destroy even stainless steel. It should not have an atmosphere that contains high levels of ethylene, ethane, propane as these would dissolve a parachute and spacesuits. Its atmosphere should not contain high levels of cyanide or other toxins that are immediately deadly in small quantities Longer term Its primary star should not be a flare star, or a high UV or X-ray emitter. If its a binary the two stars should not be so close that material from one star is being ejected into the other. If it secondary star is a red-flare star it should be far enough away that flares are survivable. It should not be in a period of great bombardment, it should have cleared its orbit. It should have, at least the appropriate starting conditions for the growth of condition tolerant cyanobacterium. Even if that growth requires some human assistent. It should not already have notable life (otherwise its an inhabited planet) The ground should not have widely distributed high levels of mercury or arsenic. The ground should not be more radioactive than the soil of the chernobyl's red forest. There should be widely available sources of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. There should be water bearing rainfall. And finally the planet should have an indigenous population of women in need of spacemen. . . . :^).

So much of the things presented here are. I count habitable like a primative campsites. If you can't walk out of a lander without a pressurized suit or a firemans suit , might as well be the moon or venus.

Electricity is key, if you can make and store electricity you can make steel from rot-iron, with a source of electricity the technology is not that fantastic. Had they known that using magnets and a good waterfall (like Niagara falls) they could easily produce enough electricity to make an electric smelter the technology would have changed 100 years earlier, but a hundred years earlier people did not think of electricity as a novelty or something to avoid. In those days steel came and forests went.

best case simplification doesn't work, because we assume an equatorial sea-level launch, this create a Hohmann burn off a highly eccentric ellipse at its apoapsis running tangential to the surface of the earth, an impossible launch because of atmosphere and because horizontal acceleration at this starting velocity cannot be idealized as Hohmann. The launch phase has to assume dV placed into vertical velocity to create an ascent rate, that provides a temporal window for a horizontal (or off horizontal) burn to orbit. You can only extrapolate back to a Hohman transfer elliptical after you have developed a good positive verticle velocity and well into a turn. In this case you do not have idealized dV but are burning along a vector (generally with some vertical component) that is not at the Hohmann peri or apo. If you launched sideways off of mount Everest along a Hohmann transfer you still crash into the earth around Burma, the transfer assumes that the burn aspect dtheta is trivial, in space you have the liberty of kicking several times at periapsis, but on earth you don't. The vertical aspect is a complete waste other than the energy of bring you up to a certain height which can be defined as MGH, only the horizontal burn dV is conserved. Then you have to factor in coefficient of drag, sub-mach-mach conversion dynamics at altitude, Situation 1. Launch phase. Ideal, very low coefficient of drag Ideal, Infinite acceleration Ideal, no Mach pressure effects. Launch altitude = 100km, launch velocity = 1400 m/s ascent time = 142 seconds Situation 2. Circulization phase Altitude 100,000, dV 7825 Combined = 9225. Reality, Limit below 10,000 m Mach 0.95 Maximum acceleration is 15m/s rising to 18 m/s Horizontal acceleration might be 2 m/s , drag losses might be 10% 55 seconds with a velocity of say 300 m/s During the 55 seconds 907 dV is produced, however only 442 is conserved and 446 is lost (possibly more do to Mach effects). Then you move to the next 10,000 m segment until your target altitude is reached. This could be at a separation stage, but here again its not an idealized hohmann because it still has vertical velocity and the idealized Hohmann begins at the periapsis. The surface launch consideration should not be given at all in the graph, Instead a minimum (but unstable) orbit is at 80,000 meters. Instead what you need is a object (like a Vbasic worksheet function) that uses CoD, Starting accleration, Maximum acceleration, starting surface horizontal velocity (latitude function), altitude, radius of earth at latitude. Makes some assumptions about the turn to horizontal, enter these is cells to the left of the function cell and then calculate dV. The best I think you can do is to assume something like at 30,000 m peri on a Hohmann transfer, but even there why bother. Next row should be the |normal| burn for inclination equitorial and a total dV. Honestly if you are worried about 47dV at the hill radius but don't do some kind of homework on the launch then higher alt parts of the tables are meaningless.

Its Vogons, and all you have to do is engage the infinite improbabilty drive to magrathea and get zephod to sign the letter reverting the highway, or simply tapped the lab mice and tell them the vogons are about to obliterate there experiment to answer the ultimate question. Of course there is always marvin the depressed android with a reciprocating emotion gun. I wonder actually, if you are making a highway, why would earth inconvenience the process, after all the sun would be more in the way, and the oort cloud and asteroid belt create more inconveniences. If humans get into space seriously, we can divert any asteroid, thats not a problem. If we can't get permanent stuff in space, were doomed (as in red giant sun bakes us to smitherines in 300 million years) anyway so the asteroid would simply shorten the misery. I figure the second will be the case, I was listening to NPR its funny that Belgium has one terrorist attack and they want to split apart add this to the Brexit, seems like the EU is doomed, the more inclusive they become, the more the wealthy players want to exit. This is human nature, don't share resources unless there is strong coercion to do so.

I think I went blind reading this graph. Even on my 32 inch monitor I don't think I could read this. I not sure if anyone has mentioned this by you have not give a dV from the moving earths surface to orbit. So for example if you launch from ESA site in S. AMerica, or canavaral, or russian lanuch site, etc. How much dV does it take to reach these various equitorial parking LEO orbits. Seems like that is the 800 lb elephant in the center of the room. Each site has a different amount of dV spent because of it latitude (slower surface velocity with increasing latitude and cosine loses for vector angles to equator and inclination correction losses.

Yeah there are no centralized stores of knowledge now, its not like we store stuff in the clouds. :^).

During the dark ages the libraries were the first to go. Remember the library of Alexandria. Non-compliant information is a threat to the power of those enforcing ignorance. When a zero sum game collapses, the demagogues and autocrats rely on ignorance to keep them at the top of the pyramid. The shrinking game, the powerful can only stay powerful if they take more from the bottom.