JoeSchmuckatelli

Let's Do Dis! You bring up a good point - which I should elucidate, because it exposes potential bias. My opinion is heavily rooted in my background - American. People who survived the war in Japan and Eastern Europe (and their descendants / cultural history) may have a totally different take on the question presented. I recognize this. Further, as you point out - most of the disasters I listed were from the individual, to the city, to regional at best. Like Japan and Europe, the post war reconstruction of entire regions was aided by outside economies; they did not have to boot-strap it completely alone. This social-safety net (for whatever political reasons may have existed) allowed those areas devastated by human conflict to recover and then thrive in record time. While this is true - and I recognize that you posit if not a full Soviet/NATO cold-war level nuclear exchange, something close to it* - I would still argue that civilization will recover. Your scenario would be a Northern Hemisphere catastrophe - and would take a longer time to recover from given that the most vibrant economies would be eliminated - and that there would be no continuation of 'the way things are' that happened after WW2. (The British Empire handed off 'world police' duty to the Americans, but rather than a dramatic shift, the WEIRD economies continued largely on the path they had been on before.) Take out the Northern economies and their economic, political and military might, and the regional Southern Hemisphere powers will likely contest with one another for spherical hegemony. So - yes, you have a major, sudden, human catastrophe in the Northern and a cascade of regional catastrophes in the Southern Hemisphere (as well as those over-looked places in the Northern). Those likely resolve themselves in a matter of years or decades and stability (no matter how uneasy) reasserts itself. I think there is another aspect that might be overlooked - and that's something else that America enjoyed; the freedom from external threat. The survivors of nuclear war may have to bootstrap themselves - but the fear of the aftermath may allow them the luxury of time and freedom from invasion. It's highly unlikely that a successful military government arising out of the conflicts in South America is going to want to lead an expedition of conquest into the USA (or Africans into Europe, or Southeast Asians into China). (Fear of three-eyed monsters and all that). So - here, I think the quibble is 'in what timeframe'? I've had the privilege to live not only in a variety of places around the world (where resilience and industry are on display) but also around the U.S. - in rural areas so easily mocked and discounted by City Elites. And yet, in those places we find doctors, engineers, teachers, universities, as well as farmers, mechanics, miners and dreamers; in other words all the people necessary to revive civilization. Ten years to self recover is likely unrealistic. Yet think about how much stuff changes in a decade. A hundred is probably too long. Vis your scenario: the total number of nuclear weapons still active is way down from US/Soviet Cold War levels. Between the US and Russia, there's about 4k per 'side' and they're not all aimed at each other. Russia has to 'spread the love' between the US, Europe, China and Australia. The US has Russia and China (close to 30 percent of the total landmass). China has weapons pointed at everybody. Now - most targets are the cities and littorals, along with major military installations - that leaves broad swathes of the landmasses untargeted. The US has 310 major cities (targeted) and 19,500 some-odd towns and villages (partly targeted). America's share of Russia's 4k weapons plus China's bonus gifts won't get everyone. The 'rural' population of America is over 57,000,000. That's a lot of people who rely on cities for luxuries - but don't require cities for survival. How Many Cities Are There in the United States? (reference.com) Nuclear Weapons By Country 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com) U.S. Rural Population 1960-2021 | MacroTrends

Some remote employees are secretly working multiple jobs (thehustle.co)

I think I can do this within the rules and general public decorum. Please remember - we are peeling back the sheen of civilization that so many take for granted - and yet what I describe is normal life for a whole lot of people. In my early days in the Corps, I heard a phrase; "I've spent more time [*pooping*] in the field than you've spent in the Corps" - a salty way of welcoming the new kid. Little did I know how prophetic those words would be. Over the course of the next 20 years, much of it spent in the infantry and tanks, I lived outside. A lot. When you live outside all day, every day for days on end - you have to do what we all have to do... outside. There were no conveniences like port-a-potties on Marine base training areas, or clever little things like a wall, hose and hole in the ground like training areas in Spain and North Africa enjoy. True luxury is a plastic chair with a hole cut in it, but a wooden box or trailer hitch helps - otherwise, the good lord has already given us everything we need. Usually, when it's time to download your food, it's just a Marine, a shovel and whatever you can grab. TP is a feature of MREs by the way - so you don't always have to improvise... but sometimes you do. Cardboard and other trash (plastic spoons, magazine pages (folded, not crinkled - this is important like non-icy snow)), leaves, shells, rags, smooth bits of wood, snow, and if necessary fingers soap and water all work. You will note that in some cultures it is considered rude to gesture or hand something to someone using the left hand, for... reasons. Privacy, too is a luxury. I've spent a lot of time doing my business in full view of other people. (Not just Marines, but people - in all that implies). After the first time... you just get used to it. People who have to live that way also do a thing with their eyes to give you a sense of privacy, even when there is none. It's a small kindness - but still appreciated. We recognize each other in a vulnerable and private moment - and even without true privacy, we just respect each other. This was true of the people of many countries I've visited/trained in during peace-time, as well as the civilians of Iraq. Sitting here in my living room in America, I recognize this might sound 'weird' - but frankly, it's 'us' who are weird. Yes, you want to keep yourself clean - as much as possible. Cleanliness rituals are important. I typically washed my hands before eating - bar of soap from a ziploc and dribbles from a canteen - and tried to wash my face at least once every day. When water is scarce - you conserve water. Sometimes it was just my fingertips, mouth and eyes. Sometimes even that could not happen. Still, cleanliness is important - so you do what you can. With more time and water, a washcloth, dishsoap and a helmet's worth of water (when we had enough) took care of the hairy places - but depending upon OpTempo could be days to weeks before the opportunity arose. But once the opportunity arose, you took it. The 'field expedient shower' (washcloth and helmet) still leaves a lot of skin unwashed. My 76 days comment refers to the time between when I left Camp Shoup and was again able to get all of me clean. When that opportunity arose - I took my time and enjoyed every moment. Civilization is, in many ways, a set of agreements, customs, expectations and burdens we put on - and carry, often without knowing or understanding the weight. Different cultures define these differently - but when you take a person who is so rooted to their customary norms and put them into a different environment... occasionally they fail to adjust. Look up the word 'impacted' and you will recognize what can happen to someone overly wedded to Western social norms in a place that does not cater to those norms. Adaptability is a survival skill - and not every human is equally skilled. Still, we adapt or die. (The same disconnect can happen the other way around, by the way; take a person used to living rough and drop them into your hometown? It can take some getting used to).

Sadly the onus is on people subject to the law to protect themselves. I would respectfully suggest that those affected know far more about their environment than those of us who don't live in those places - and perhaps we should just do nothing and let them participate as they will. We certainly don't want the good people of Germany coming to the US and trying to protect us from our highway speed limits. ... Or do we?

If I acknowledge this fact, can we not make a celebrity meme out it? (I've also gone 76 days without bathing - did not kill me)

Grin

Read in connection with the article - which to my mind was leveled directly at the C-Suite - the "we" in the response publication does not read like 'we executives' but the we and us of 'we (all of us at BO) have been maligned' and lets circle the wagons. Examples: Emphasis mine. The article levels accusations of 'swept under the rug' allegations of workplace impropriety and sexism. Further it accuses that 'troublemakers' were identified, and that leaders were directed to speak to them - not listen - speak. If there's any truth to that, and the resentment is still festering, then this part: may have people speaking out of school, as it were, expressing dissatisfaction publicly even if anonymously. That's what I mean by 'additional whispers' in the next few days. If they had slightly changed it to 'we are looking into our leadership practices' rather than 'we as a whole have been maligned' I think it would stink less.

Ouch.

In other news... Russia discovers 'Trucks'. Strongman union claims they won't last. "just a fad" claims Yuri Stronginov

@SunlitZelkova - rereading my post, I want to make clear that I am critical of the idea of civil collapse and a return to primitivism. Hope it doesn't come off as offensive or personal. S/F

'We ' Used gratuitously and deliberately. Suspect that may engender some resentment from a few people... And thus we should hear more whispers in the next few days

Nice! Haven't seen this thread before; wondering if the 'octo' shape is a nod to KSP? (or is the KSP octo due to its being a common shape for probes?)

I most heartily challenge this 'not even wrong' guess that so many people enjoy while thinking about a possibly-longed-for dystopian future. This is a luxury of the bored. Anyone who's lived in or even been to the fringes of 'modern civilization' can recognize the 'things' we are dependent upon in the 'first world' are a thin sheen of nice to haves. First Premise: People are tough. Way tougher than most people realize. 600,000 years of evolution created 150lb-300lb endurance/pack hunters that can shape their own environment through collective action. (for comparison, wolves are 60lb-180lb and African wild dogs are 40lb-80lb endurance-pack hunters, and they can't compete with us. Lions outweigh us, and as opportunistic-pack hunters, they can't compete with us.) We have no major predators that threaten us We can kill and eat pretty much every animal on the planet and a whole host of plants We can pass down vast amounts of learned lessons from generation to generation - and even sideways (c.f. Books). We can survive 30 days-ish with ZERO FOOD and up to 3 days with no water. In that time an individual can forage 20-100 miles w/o water or 400-ish miles with no food. Likelihood of finding sustenance in that range is exceptionally high. Bored people who live in cities and have stuff brought to them are not helpless - like a holstered gun, or one in a drawer that's never used... if necessary, it can still kill. An ability, like a tool, isn't completely lost or useless because it's never had to be used. People have survived every single natural or man-made disaster. Whether Nagasaki, Mt. St. Helens, the Black Plague, Boxing Day tsunami, Camp Fire, San Francisco Earthquake or the Galveston Hurricane - individuals have pulled themselves from the wreckage and gone on. Our toughness and stubbornness are why we can delve into the earth for minerals, choke out a mountain lion and reach for the stars. Second Premise: People are resilient. We've been through a lot - and we're still here. In every disaster - the real story isn't the death and destruction and loss of economic power; its the story about how people have rebuilt, and not only survived but thrived in the aftermath. Revisit any of those places affected by the disasters listed above and you will find not only survivors - but people who waded into the wreckage unwilling to give up on the chance of finding survivors - because they know people will have survived. We rebuild. Some people have been through the worst - and then had it happen again, the worst, and when they survive that... they go on. We have few records - but know - that European, African and Asian diseases unknown to the populations of the Americas swept through and devastated both continents 300-500 years ago. And yet, the survivors continued and enjoyed thriving communities. (I won't delve too deeply into this; mismatched population pressures, rather than mismatched technology explain the aftermath... but when you think about it - there's a reason Africa had a different experience through the age of European expansion and Empire than the Americas. Disease and disease resistance. Despite this -indigenous communities still exist all over the world.). Resilience is a survival trait - the ability to go through unbelievable horrors and keep going? Brilliant. Third Premise: People are kind Rural areas are not unpopulated wilderness - The survivors of the cities will wander exposed into... populated areas prepared to help There are a lot of people who rush TOWARD disaster - ready and willing to help people they've never seen before, just because its what we do. Barn-raising is a human survival trait. Modern cities are just barn-raising writ large Fourth Premise: People are cruel Conquer your neighbor, and you are faced with a dilemma; three choices - let them live, enslave them, or kill them all. There are problems with each decision. Scratch the surface of the human history of slavery, and you discover every single population on the planet has practiced it - and its roots are in necessity. Human labor is an exceptionally expensive and valuable economic commodity. History shows we know how to manage that capital; its merely our modern choice to limit the ways in which we use that human capital. Refugees can be both beneficial and dangerous - humans have driven refugees into their enemies' lands to overwhelm and weaken them, or at times welcomed them or enslaved them. Capriciousness and self-interest are a survival trait. People will not hesitate to use other people in a myriad of ways to make their own lives easier. Fifth Premise: People are lazy We like to automate stuff and let others do our work for us. Modern conveniences like clean water that allow our kids to survive childhood have been automated - no reason to think this capacity won't be rebuilt after even a global disaster. All we have to do is survive. With clean water assured, food provided and shelter available, people will do extraordinary things to give themselves more free time for leisure. Lazy time allows for creativity and thus is a survival trait. Hence, civilization will rise again The Overlooked American Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (yahoo.com) His Memory of August 6, 1945 | Real People | Discover Nikkei How Houston Volunteers Responded to Hurricane Harvey : Aga Khan Foundation USA (akfusa.org) A relief worker's diary (nbcnews.com) Japan Earthquake 2011: Survivors Share 'Miracle' Stories (PHOTOS) | HuffPost The Woman Who Survived the Titanic, Britannic, and Olympic Disasters (gizmodo.com) Army medics- the unsung heroes of World War One (forces-war-records.co.uk) Colorado Jogger Recounts Choking Mountain Lion to Death When Attacked (insider.com)

Nothing like a little bureaucracy to slow down innovation. (That said - I have a feeling / hope that the FAA's review will end up positive and we're only seeing a temporary delay.) On the other hand; Bezos and others have both the money and the clout to really slow things down if they want to - so time will tell.

It's still a MAD, MAD, MAD world. MIRVs basically ensure that we should not get stupid enough as a species to try it. (Mind you - the D in MAD actually stands for 'Destruction' not 'Annihilation'). One estimate I read years ago is that the Northern Hemisphere economies would be reduced to something that resembles the 17th century (population numbers reduced to those levels as well). Africa, most Islands and much of South America, OTOH survives largely unscathed - but subject to a crippled world economy. (Note: this shouldn't relieve you... that world would be very difficult to survive in. However, if you're just looking at survival of the species - chances are good humans will remain to pick up the pieces. What comes out of that will be a very different place than we live now.). Back to your original question - at some point we might get good enough with (or field enough) ABM platforms to shelter certain urban areas - but there's going to be stuff that gets through the best defenses. As one smarty once said: the only way to win is not play the game.

I actually like your suggestion about a dedicated cargo dump module. Probably easier to develop that than add a whole new capacity to SS

Well - you appear to have missed my question* (that started all this speculation) - but then inferred it and answered as well! ... * How much can SS bring back with it and still land? (presuming they figure out how to take it up and back down successfully). We often talk about the payload to LEO or beyond... but that's usually a limit based on lift capability. I've not seen here much discussion about descent capacity. i.e. lets say EM and SX succeed beyond all rational hope and within 10 years we have a hundred SS's flying regularly and costs are waaaaay down. Intrepid AsMining GmbH Ltd Partners and Associates Incorporated LLC decides to buy their own SS and configures it for asteroid mining and retrieval. They find a likely candidate asteroid, shred it and centrifuge out the good stuff... how much goodstuff could they reasonably bring back in a single load? Added - linking with my phone makes the site look weird (should have been just a link not a reprint and link

Deep breath time. One Two Three ...

Refer to my question above... Yeah, it does not matter now - as we are desperate to develop capacity to get off the planet - but someday we will want to bring stuff back, and I want to know how effective SS would be as a descent vehicle.

Anyone who's ever been in the military knows this thread has become the verbal (textual?) equivalent of 'the time when we toss rocks'. . . . We are just filling time. Lots of anticipation for the show to start up again. Just imagine it's a cocktail party - someone says something you disagree with but don't feel like debating, feel free to move on and get a drink. (At least you will have a tasty beverage to show for it.) Edit - I go to all that trouble typing my clever poast - and look what @Beccab does: hit's submit a half second before I do. SMH

From those photos - the space station is circling a dirty brown planet with not enough cities.

How much can SS bring back with it and still land? (presuming they figure out how to take it up and back down successfully). We often talk about the payload to LEO or beyond... but that's usually a limit based on lift capability. I've not seen here much discussion about descent capacity. i.e. lets say EM and SX succeed beyond all rational hope and within 10 years we have a hundred SS's flying regularly and costs are waaaaay down. Intrepid AsMining GmbH Ltd Partners and Associates Incorporated LLC decides to buy their own SS and configures it for asteroid mining and retrieval. They find a likely candidate asteroid, shred it and centrifuge out the good stuff... how much goodstuff could they reasonably bring back in a single load?

Fine for the old days - but modern naval combat is generally over the horizon. Satellites do provide a nice, high vantage that assists with target acquisition and targeting: so, you are absolutely correct - the

I think @sevenperforce answers this best: the problem isn't about making a good streamlined shape for one direction of movement. The reentry vehicle is going to approach the air from a whole variety of differing angles at different times in its flight. Scales are excellent if you want to go nose- forward... but SS only flies that way during launch. Like you, I first thought that a scale design makes more sense - but when you look at the answers to my question above - you see that smooth aerodynamics on the way up isn't really an issue, and the added cost and complexity for such minor nose forward gain isn't worth the hassle. Back to what sevenperforce said - it's going to belly flop the reentry - not dive nose in. Then its going to fall, again belly horizontal for a ways, before kick-flipping for a tailward descent. Scales won't help with most of that.

On a completely different topic: If anyone is looking for a really good read, that believe it or not has a tie-in to spaceflight, allow me to recommend: Entangled Life Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds & Shape Our Futures by Merlin Sheldrake (goodreads.com) An exceptionally well written (and easy to read) dive into all things fungi.