SunlitZelkova

Hakuto-R, SLIM, and Peregrine. I don’t know of such a long string of failures* in lunar exploration since the Ranger program. The closest thing to it in recent times seems to be the back-to-back failures of Nozomi, Mars Climate Orbiter, and Mars Polar Lander. Interestingly it’s reversed. 1 Japanese spacecraft and 2 American at Mars, and 2 Japanese spacecraft and 1 American at the Moon. Fingers crossed for VIPER. It’s integral to South Pole exploration, and it would be a major blow if it failed, especially considering China is launching a sample return mission to there this year. *Some a partial failures though, I suppose.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26176-migbus-airbus-crazy-spacecoaster-idea/amp Somewhere in an alternate universe, MiG-31s are launching tourists into space, instead of Kinzhals.

https://x.com/cosmic_penguin/status/1747801739129196801?s=46&t=Jd73T2beq0JLNtwTy1uR5A The first flight of the next generation crewed spacecraft LEO variant and the LEO version of the future Moon rocket (Long March 10) is coming in 2025-2026.

https://www.koin.com/news/alaska-airlines-flight-1282/boeing-picks-a-retired-admiral-to-lead-a-team-that-will-review-safety-in-manufacturing-planes/ Admiral Kirkland Donald (retired) will head an in-house team to review Boeing’s manufacturing processes and make recommendations for improvement. He previously headed the navy’s nuclear propulsion program for eight years and now is chairman of Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding. I wish I knew more about the personality of this guy. I wonder if he can do what Richard Feynman did for the Challenger investigation. Kinda asking questions someone from within Boeing wouldn’t, going against the grain of whatever Boeing wants to happen with the investigation and not being afraid to make damning statements. I think we have a nuclear boat vet here. @TheSaint? Did you happen to hear anything about this guy? He might have been before your time.

Well I did say many. Perhaps Russian language sources have more (although I don’t how reliable such a count would be), but the more well known Western cases of that decade are at least in the 10s.

There might have been that one Soviet astronomer or physicist... I read about him on Wikipedia years ago and can't remember his name... who said that "you Americans have us beat when it comes to UFO reports" but when it comes to conspiracy culture, Russia (and maybe the other former Soviet states too?) certainly give America a run for its money. I wonder if that comes with being a superpower. In Japan UFOs are treated more like mythology or simple tales of monsters rather than "tin-foil hat territory", at least by my observation. But getting back to UFOs in the ex-USSR, I had a theory that the reason there weren't many reports coming from there during the big waves of the 50s and 70s was because- 1. "Culture of staying low"- granted this comes from my very Western biased view of what it's like in an authoritarian country, but I assume one wouldn't want to attract the attention of the police for lights in the sky and what when it comes to life and death, one is probably better off assuming was a hallucination. "You gotta keep your head low", so says many American dramas set in police states. 2. Classification of police records- Anything reported wouldn't really come out in the first place. 3. Lack of interest from scientists and authorities- Now this is an iffy one. Jacques Vallee claimed in his book UFO Chronicles of the Soviet Union: A Cosmic Samizdat that Soviet scientists had actually undertaken a great deal of UFO research throughout the Cold War. But beyond his first two books, Passport to Magonia and The Invisible College, he seems to have drifted from his original championship of free thinking and become the very thing he once despised; espousing ideas such as full-on ancient alien theories and UFO crash tales (the former of which he distanced himself from in his first book, and the latter of which he noticeably omitted from the second book, perhaps correctly seeing that that incident is very much a fabrication). *deep breath* So, I don't know how accurate it is. But if there were people like Nikolai Kozyrev studying things such as time as a substance as late as the 1970s (and I did even find MSU articles on the subject dating from the early 2000s) who knows what they study? But, as I said, it's iffy. In the high stakes environment of the Soviet Union where a project can get cancelled with a few wrong words (allegedly the Tu-91 was cancelled when the officer showing it to Khrushchev said it "had the firepower of a cruiser" instead of "more than the firepower of a cruiser", to which Khrushchev said "then why do we have cruisers?", laughed, and promptly cancelled it), would scientists really risk their career on lights in the sky? Would military men risk it? Let alone politicians. Especially when such a circus was going on in full view in the West. Perhaps it is something they wanted to be above.

I think you are partially right in that there isn't even a market for that much iridium in the first place, but at the same time, we don't know what the demand is like in that world. Electric cars and fusion power plants are widespread. Who knows what else needs iridium? Household appliances? Smart toilets? My point was that FAM's society- at least in the West- has improved a lot compared to our timeline. Climate change being mitigated, social progress, more advanced science and so on. I suppose from the POV of an "alternate alternate timeline" where the asteroid was sent to Earth, maybe it is possible investment in Mars actually did improve society compared to had it been sent to Earth, and the world suffered because of that. But from the POV of me living in our timeline, it seems well off enough that it doesn't matter if they stop at Mars. But I guess it is instinct to always try to improve, so it makes sense they would think expanding Mars and going further would be better than putting resources into space. Given how much society improved (again, at least in the West) with a continued Space Race already. I was talking about IRL. I agree with your point that expansion into space is necessary to stave off a "end of resources" scenario, but I still disagree it is useful in preventing extinction from an asteroid impact. It just doesn't make sense to build a pressurized, self-sustaining habitat on another planet when you could just do it underground on Earth.

I don’t recall Dev or anyone ever saying it wouldn’t change the lives of people, it’s just that there was money to be made in doing so. Earth society has improved a lot in FAM so to say that it would be all for nothing if the Mars program plateaued is incorrect IMO. It’s like saying Apollo was all for nothing, but a lot of lessons were learned from it in designing rockets and doing lunar flights. Expansive fallout shelters would be more efficient than a Mars colony for human survival. It would take centuries for a Mars colony to become self sustaining IRL, and what would we do if the asteroid shows up in two decades? I’m sure in TV land they’ll have one going in just 10 years though.

Oh that’s right. I forgot. I do clearly remember them in the final episode saying “Ranger’s fusion reactor” though.

They never clarified this. They just say "fusion reactor", "ion engines", and "plasma engines". However, they did clarify that they had a fusion reactor, not fission.

If you go look at his old posts his signature kinda implies he got fed up with the political arguments that broke out here, unfortunately.

Well…

https://www.koin.com/news/alaska-airlines-flight-1282/flight-passengers-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-boeing-after-planes-critical-failure/ The passengers have filed a class action lawsuit against Boeing over emotional distress. “The force of the depressurization ripped the shirt off a boy, and sucked cell phones, other debris, and much of the oxygen out of the aircraft,” the suit reads. “The shirtless boy leapt over the woman next to him, and escaped toward the front of the plane. At least two others seated near the hole followed and found new seats closer to the front.” This is a little fishy, the incident occurred during ascent and no one should have been allowed to unbuckle and walk around especially after the incident.

Instead of serial numbers (S/N), BO should use bureau numbers (BuNo) like the Navy in WWII. But of course there is no BO bureau, so call them BO numbers, or BONo for short.

I changed the rules, so feel free to upload them!

Here's some pictures of that WWII diorama I talked about. I was in the middle of cleaning the table when I took the pics. The destroyer Fubuki, submarines I-58 and I-16, a midget submarine, a sub chaser and some A6M2-N floatplane fighters lie at anchor, while Yamato, a minelayer, the destroyer Akatsuki, the carrier Zuikaku, and a minesweeper transit the base. I was going to add wakes to make the ships moving, but haven't yet. Perhaps it looks better when they are at anchor? B-25s are attacking the base, with all making a bombing run on the Yamato. An Aichi D3A painted dark green and an A6M2 Zero in the colors of the Akagi carrier squadron close in to intercept. The planes aren't cemented down on the deck of the carrier, because when I made this model I was 14 and walked to be able to rearrange the planes. I didn't feel like tediously rearranging them, so I left them as is. All of the models are Tamiya, and I made the land scenery and dock myself. The cranes, buildings, and water effect plate are from Tamiya too. All 1/700 scale. Three Zeros, one in green camouflage, one in the colors of a Zero from the Japanese movie The Eternal Zero, and one in Rabaul Kokutai colors are on the docks. A captured B-25 is also present. The dock is lined with anti-aircraft guns. Next to I-58 is a E14Y seaplane. This aircraft type had the distinction of being the only enemy aircraft to bomb the US mainland during World War II, and, in fact, one of few foreign aircraft to ever make an attack on the mainland US at all. I fixed the mast on my Pr. 949A class submarine And finally, here's my most recent completion: the Tamiya 1/48 T-55A medium tank. This side looks alright, but on the other the decals broke when I was trying to take them off the sheet. I learned the hard way you should wait 45 seconds before trying to move the decals off the sheet, NOT 10 seconds as the instructions say.

Reminds me of a Wizards of Waverly Place (Disney Channel TV show from the late 2000s/early 2010s) episode, where the wizards are tested by their headmaster with a fake government agent asking for help against an incoming alien invasion. There was no alien invasion and the guy who revealed his secret got chewed out later on.

I know it's too early to talk about real life cadence, but launching in February or March would put the time between two launches on par with that of the Saturn V I think. The average between Saturn V launches prior to Apollo 13 was something like every 3-4 months (I think, it's been awhile since I looked at the list of launches in detail). Meanwhile, prior to the second launch that destroyed the launchpad, the N1 took five months to launch two rockets. Not counting Shuttle, the only other SHLV to fly more than one time, Energia, had a year inbetween its two launches. SLS... even if Artemis II launches in 2025, who knows how long it will be until Artemis III? If it takes three years between two flights, how are they supposed to jump to once a year? By the way, this may be a dumb question, but will this launch license process be required once Starship is actually flying payloads? Or will things become more streamlined? The time between each test flight feels very guda guda (グダグダ), which translates as tedious or sluggish. Will people be watching the regulatory process when operational flights begin? They don't do that for F9 right now, as far as I can tell.

https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/ntsb-press-briefing-alaska-air-1282-boeing-737-max-9-pdx-01062024/ The area the door is in is near the hospital I was born (for real). Could they have tracked it falling on radar? I think there is an ASRS-4 or whatever the main CONUS radar is not too far from Portland. EDIT- And in case you check the Pacific time zone and wonder why I posted this at 3:00 AM, well… university’s winter break isn’t over yet and I’m something of a night owl.

Harvesting energy from souls in the after life to power a rocket factory sounds like the plot of an anime.

I live in Portland so this was all over the local news. Here’s a piece @PakledHostage might agree with (at least partially). https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/seattle-aviation-lawyer-pilot-calls-alaska-plane-incident-preventable/ The Seattle-based aviation attorney says he thinks it is an isolated incident, not a major defect with the MAX. I take this to mean it could have happened with any aircraft. Alaska had already cleared 18 of 65 MAXs to return to service by the way.

Merriam-Webster states the definition of humanity is “the totality of human beings”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanity I don’t think there is any need for a logical justification for saving humanity. Survival is a natural behavior, and humans should have enough cognitive capability to understand that survival means saving all or a good portion of the species. Contrast this with dinosaurs. I would imagine T Rex’s turned to cannibalism on many occasions after the asteroid. I wouldn’t rule out interstellar travel, but it is really out of our ability to know right now. It’s certainly a possibility it’s impossible. Interstellar space has barely been explored. Once we attempt something like Daedalus or Project Longshot (a probe) I think we will have a better idea. Kinda like how although it isn’t spoken of, crewed Mars mission design was almost certainly influenced by what probes found out about interplanetary space. I’m not suggesting people who want a Mars colony want the people on Earth to die, I’m just saying there is a flaw in the language they use. That only goes for the “colony as a backup” people though. I get the feeling the “colony as a new home because climate change has destroyed the Earth” people don’t really care about anyone who would be left behind. The reason I had this thought is because there was this guy on r/ForAllMankindTV saying a Mars colony should be built because Earth is already doomed. If someone supports a Mars colony as a “just in case” I think there is nothing wrong with that, but trying to abandon 99% of the species population by assuming that nothing can be done for Earth (“the disaster has already happened”) is just sick, to be frank. To be clear, I don’t think the majority of colony supporters are like that. It’s just this one dude I encountered that bugged me and caused the shower thought.

If I tell you, "the lifeboats on this ship will save the passengers" wouldn't you think I meant all of the passengers, not 1% of them? The only way a ship with 100 people and a lifeboat holding a single dude "saves the passengers" is if 99 of the people are not classified as passengers. Same for a Mars colony "saving humanity"- only 1% or whatever number of the human species counts as "humanity". Now if you say "A Mars colony will save the human species" you are correct. But a Mars colony will not save humanity. To be more specific, it won't save all of humanity, only some of humanity. The distinction is important.

Unless someone can describe a convincing manner of building "bomb bullets" I think this thread belongs in the lounge, because it has nothing to do with actual science or spaceflight. To answer your question, what you are describing is basically infantry turned into a sort of mini-artillery. So I imagine it would be dealt with in the same way that artillery is- counterbattery fire or air support. In this case if the good guys don't have bomb bullets, they would just use tanks or regular artillery (maybe in direct fire mode) to counter the bomb bullets.

I have a truck with a missile on it that is supposed to be a GAZ-69 and it looks exactly like one of those pics (but with a rotating launcher for the missiles instead of the fixed one).