SunlitZelkova

Hovering is certainly a euphemism. It probably actually flew in racetrack pattern over the state. I suggest taking a hot air balloon ride if you are interested in how balloons can control their speed and direction.

[snip] I don’t think this applies to any certain *system* tries to stay on topic, it is just a feature of bureaucracy everywhere. Space Shuttle is to American aerospace bureaucracy as spy balloon is to Chinese intelligence bureaucracy.

This became Thread of the Month (TOTM) apparently.

Russian segment is only funded until 2024, ESA and NASA have received an okay to continue until 2030, nothing has been done on JAXA’s part but presumably they will continue until 2030 too. Nauka is supposed to become part of the ROSS (Russian ISS replacement). For NASA, probably ESA, and presumably JAXA, commercial space stations will replace it. The original idea was to use a modified Progress spacecraft to push it out of orbit. It’s unclear what is going to happen with that though.

*that news* makes me wonder why the USSR did not make any efforts towards reconnaissance aircraft capable of reaching the US (apart from the obvious elephant in the 1950s CPSU meeting room of satellites). Tsybin RSR has been called a Blackbird counterpart but it’s range made it only useful in Europe, likewise I think the Beriev S-13 did not have any provision for refueling that would allow it to reach the US. I haven’t heard of any balloon projects. SAMs made aircraft unattractive, but in the early 50s, when U-2 development began, that wasn’t clear. How come there was no similar effort in the USSR until later?

In Japanese- https://www.jaxa.jp/press/2023/01/20230126-1_j.html H3 first launch is now scheduled for February 13th JST.

I was thinking this might be the designation

Gemini derived Mars lander http://www.astronautix.com/b/bygeminitomars.html This mission is interesting as it uses a ballistic descent at a time when most proposals made use of gliders, meaning it is one of the few crewed Mars mission proposals that remained viable after Mariner IV's discovery of how thin the atmosphere actually is there. For some reason, despite the proposal using a ballistic descent, the illustrations they included used wings. Assuming the lander would have been similar in configuration but without the wings, it gives off Starship vibes given how elongated it would be, IMO. It would have spent only five days on the surface, with two crew landing and two remaining in orbit. There is no Earth return capsule, it was planned to propulsively brake into Earth orbit and presumably be picked up by a shuttle (perhaps Big Gemini if this proposal had gone through ). Given the lander is mounted on the front of the craft, the landing astronauts would likely need to spacewalk to their lander, N1-L3 style. It is propelled by a single NTR. It would use a series of drop tanks, with the number of tanks differing depending on the required amount of fuel stipulated by the chosen launch window. Inspired by this proposal, I intend to create a working (if absurd) Gemini derived Callisto expedition proposal, and perhaps even greater proposals. This proposal also makes me wonder if there is a Vostok derived Mars mission hiding somewhere in the RSC Energia archives...

Does Tianhe only have those ion engines for experimental purposes, or are they actually the main orbital adjustment system?

What sorts of concepts was ULA toying with in 2009-2011? For a fictional world I'm working on, I am trying to use proposals from the era just after Constellation got cancelled, and there are no tensions so the reason for Vulcan existing in the way it does isn't a thing. I'm looking for something with a payload to LTO of 11,000 kg or so. Wikipedia says "ULA looked at numerous proposals to replace Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy since the company's founding in 2006" but I have no idea where to find them. If possible, I'm trying to find the proposal they thought they might go with at the time, or a main series of proposals, rather than radical concepts.

@steve9728 Thank you for the translations! This has been an amazing source of info!

None? In relation to finding inspiration for science fiction (say that ten times fast), I read The Invisible College by Jacques Vallée recently. Regardless of his reliability (which I am not going to comment on as I don’t feel comfortable fully trusting someone so “onboard” with UFO research- and at the time even psychic phenomena), he makes some interesting observations in it. In the “more reputable” reports (not someone with a blurry photo going to The National Enquirer, groups of military professionals seeing odd things) the occurrences are bizarre at times or seem unbelievable. He theorizes that even if something is worthy of research, people will be less inclined to study it if it is totally unfamiliar to them, vs. something familiar. So a new weather phenomena is more “digestible” than a glowing oval that zigzags over the farm and disappears into thin air. I don’t agree with what he writes, but it is an interesting thought.

You fill in the left eye when you set a goal, and fill in the right one when it is complete.

Second test of the solid fuel launch vehicle. It was visible across Korea and Japan, and reportedly caused widespread UFO reporting in both countries. https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20221230008753325?section=national/defense

He said it could be in games.

I suppose what I am really pondering is whether theorizing on concepts that are in contradiction of known physical laws- like pushing extraterrestrial visitation reports as true when we more or less know such things to be impossible given the nature of how the reports usually occur- or pushing unfalsifiable theories as science (interdimensional hypothesis on UFOs and the simulation theory) would constitute a denial of science. That is, if ufology rejects certain tenets of “mainstream”/actual science, is it really all that different from full on science denialism, which rejects science as a whole? Does a “partial” rejection of science constitute a rejection of science as a whole? I suppose the answer would be an obvious yes*, but ufology and the like are not classified as science denialism. So the very core of my query is- what separates pseudoscience and science denialism? Why are they considered separate entities? EDIT*- yes, it is an obvious yes *facepalm*

Is belief in alien visitation/UFOs, cryptozoology, and other conspiracy-related pseudosciences a product of the same psychological mechanism that induces basic science denialism? I.e. is “the scientists lie, this fantastic thing is actually happening” identical to “the scientists are [just] lying”?

I usually just find your vehicles entertaining in design (not in a somehow "lesser" way, but not necessarily shocking), but these actually made me spontaneously think "oh my God" to myself

My following of space in elementary school (2009-2011~) was more about facts rather than news, and I didn’t pay much attention to it at all after that until 2020. So here is a question to veteran Space fans- how common were launches prior to SpaceX? At what point did streaming of launches become common? I’m just amazed at how often it happens, and am trying to grasp the extent of such an extraordinary feat.

I assume you must be talking about national news, which I agree like to fear monger. As far as I can tell local news, at least in the Pacific Northwest (WA and OR), only use “winter weather advisory” when an actual weather advisory has been issued by the NWS…

I’d say what you need is acceptance then. Yes these things are here, and that’s ok. You still do your best, of course. Otherwise I can’t see any sort of special answer existing beyond “keep on keeping on”. The only two close historical examples to what might be required I can think of are- 1. Response to famine/pestilence type calamities. Millions died, but people kept on going and praying, and thus some lived. 2. Idealized Soviet determination. Famine? War? Political upheaval? No problem, they kept working towards that utopia that would never come*. There’s no special trick to what they did there to overcome their problems beyond keeping doing what they were doing (trying hard, that is) and not falling into despair (at least on the level of doing the work they needed to do). As @JoeSchmuckatelli says, a positive attitude is all there is to it. I don’t say that to sound audacious or to look down on your problem. I would like to try to find a more detailed explanation for you, but I** can not, unfortunately. *Valid till about ‘65. With caveats **Perhaps someone else could? Note- I’m grasping at the philosophical straws here so I’m welcome to criticisms of my comments he he.

Eh, if the folded envelope is stored on a smaller airship, deployment of such a large balloon could be feasible. Separate airships with oxygen would periodically dock to inflate it. I don’t know if you have ever seen a hot air balloon be inflated, but it is by no means a one and done thing. Staged inflation is a possibility. The main colony proposal I have seen envisions docking smaller platforms together anyways, not enormous singular ones. That said, it is by no means economical.

Someone should make a slot machine where the first thing is an HGV, the second is a JL-3, and the third is an ABM system. You win the jackpot by guessing what the mysterious clouds are each time

Such issues are effectively political and thus off topic, so no.