JoeSchmuckatelli

So... what you're saying is that, "It works in KSP"!

That's what I remembered: writing something - and the resource is something I found interesting when I first read it probably 25 years ago. I think there are some parts on climate, but, again going from memory, there was a strong presumption of nuclear winter back then - although I don't remember whether its specifically in there. There are also (I think) parts about differing city construction techniques vs survival and fallout, etc.

Glad you're asking the math guys! Did you ever look at the report I linked? Had some old 'guesses' about the post war economy given different scenarios that I thought you would be interested in.

The twit-grumble says Q1, but the dates show 12/20 - 03/01... so isn't Dec still possible? What part am I missing?

Fair - who wants to work that hard right before xmas. Do it early Jan

@SunlitZelkova - this may be of interest: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/revisiting-the-tsar-bomba-nuclear-test/ Newly declassified info about the American response and other interesting stuffs

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ocean-carbon-capture-report-national-academy-of-sciences_n_61b12211e4b04ae319f9d971 At least some of the well intentioned worry about the prospect of being an idiot. (Article about remediation technologies)

These neat 'find ways to sequester the carbon' ideas are likely solvable... But I question the prudence. Beyond unforseen consequences - it is a method of excusing industry and consumers taking no action on emissions reduction. The kid in LA still has to breathe the smog as they wait for the fake trees or rock producing factory to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere. And you need different tech for the methane, heavy particulates, Sulphur, etc. The recapture tech shifts the financial burden away from the polluter. I'd rather see capture at the source required.

That is certainly something they can negotiate with SX about - but has no bearing on the 'fairness' or 'appropriateness' of the offers received. That is not how valuation works. Property value is all location, location, location - whether Gulf front in TX, lake front in Kuttowa, KY or beach front in Hermosa, CA.

I felt the article rambled. It could have been better presented. Thus, 'Meandering'

Slightly related to your question: https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.mongabay.com/2021/05/is-planting-trees-as-good-for-the-earth-as-everyone-says/amp/ O2 isn't the risk, ham-handed and ill informed people with the best of intentions, lots of money and popular support can cause more harm than good.

Three Cheers for RAD!

Ooh - I missed that. Somebody is being a special little snowflake - just in time for winter!

Day late and a dollar short, NBC News joins the party. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/disgruntled-neighbors-dwindling-shorebirds-jeopardize-spacex-expansion-rcna7792 Okay, there is nothing short about the article. It's a meandering take on SX, Boca Chica and the environmental review. Favorite theme is 'SX won't buy me another Beach View house somewhere else... They only offer me at or above the value of my home. I want more but I think the commissioner is out to get me. Sadface. "

Most satellites are small and contained within the space defined by their own volume & solar panels. Maybe the size of a football field for ISS. And yeah, I get 'big sky, little bullet' but instead of dozens to hundreds of meters for average to large satellites - we are talking a line measured in kilometers, aren't we?

So you have this very long, ungodly strong line whipping down to the atmosphere and around to just as far above the atmosphere... How long does it take before you completely obliterate some satellite? Or all that cross its path? You are basically going to need a completely clean orbital path the diameter of the circle, aren't you?

Mea culpa. Inadvertent rather than intentionally done! Btw - I really enjoyed the vid you posted. Those old ones are quaint, but very straightforward. Thanks also for the Manley vid!

Okay - serious question time... Why aren't we launching from the Peruvian Andes? I get that ocean adjacent launch sites are easy-access, and that mountains are hard - but there are railroads. So I just watched the ULA launch; they got to Mach 1 45 seconds into flight. That's pretty much 1,000 feet per second, so a mile every 4 seconds. Clearly just attaining 15,000 feet is nothing for a rocket - but how much fuel is spent leaving the lower atmosphere? With a high launch cadence, is there a break-even point where launching from 15,000 feet would make a difference and be cost effective over the ease and safety of an ocean-adjacent launch site?

Balloon or Dirigible? Given the expected turbulence? Balloon could sling about a science payload for a ton of fun if you don't have anything on board that gets motion sickness... but for controlled flight I'd presume you'd want something more blimp like.

I like the cut of your Jib, Sailor!

I'm wondering whether they should be working on anything but tanks and fuel infrastructure before they learn something about the launch, and how the Boca Chica tower works/doesn't. No sense setting steel into concrete until you know you have what you need.

Haven't you played KSP? Its an ARCH!!! ... btw - like the new avatar.

Falling is easy - falling with style? That's the hard part.

@mikegarrison is likely to be a good resource. My guess is that the gravity is such that just trying to get into the atmosphere to be slow enough for actual flight would be exceedingly difficult.