SunlitZelkova

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.

The spittle and vocalizations of Homo sapiens individuals- whether they come from journalists or officials- have zero effect on the physical world. The world has “felt like it is coming apart” before. In fact, I have heard that exact phrase used to describe both the period between 1947-1950 and the events of 1968 before. Yet looking back, there is a recognition there was quite a bit of drama going around, and things were not nearly as bad as they appeared at the time. Contrary to the image conveyed by the media and officials, I don’t think this world is driven by the decisions of a few people in power, and I don’t think we are “doomed” or that the “end is nigh”. An official can shout and make whatever decisions he wants, but it won’t change the goodness in people’s hearts, nor their basic morals*. And Pompeii might explode and Hiroshima might be obliterated, but people will not give up on living. Even if a group is split, those new divisions will support themselves and continue living- separation is not the end. Humans are animals, but animals recognize basic norms and taboos necessary for survival. Even after seeing the most trashy of news feeds and headlines, I don’t see a burning planet. I don’t see savages ripping each other apart, fighting for the title of king of the hill, I see mishaps in what is otherwise a perfectly fine organism. Are there tribulations? Yes, but that’s how Earth works. An apex predator such as a shark can be completely dominant in his environment but will still face problems, some that to a human might seem life threatening or gargantuan, yet the shark overcomes it simply as a matter of course. Because I have heard “recognization of a lack of control” mentioned in the “emotional support” genre as being necessary to calm down, I will also say this. History reveals that on a grand scale, most events were preordained to a large extent*. A group of small men did not cause World War II, the attitude of all of humanity did. Of course, the present will soon be part of history too. Therefore as much as blame is thrown around and solutions are proposed with great imperative and spittle, it is likely all of what is happening is already determined and can not be changed. But history also shows humanity is resilient. Rome or the Qing might fall, but the peoples of those places are still here. As I said, individuals alone are not responsible for change. Just as it has its “problem children”, humanity has its “golden boys” doing the work that needs to be done to make sure everyone is safe and sound. You alone will not have a great impact on the course of history, and therefore do not need to be concerned to the extent that it burdens your emotional state**. *This does not come out of the traditional study of history. It is only when asking “what if?” that I have seen realization that things could not have changed. **I mean this in a factual way, not a belittlement or something. Also, if you happen to be the leader of some grand social movement, and are anonymously engaging in discussion in this here spaceflight game forum, such is not the case and you are doomed to stress and the emotional short stick.

Consider the viewers of this thread amazed too!

Military related questions seem to be allowed when they have to do with the engineering aspects of the equipment. Otherwise I would think they would belong on a military forum. This doesn’t have anything to do with cell phone technology itself so it may not be on topic. In the event it is… Jamming is a possibility. Also, the locations of cell phone towers are well known. Hitting them should not be hard.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20221218_02/ Hakuto-R is stable. Landing will take place in April. Image from the lander. That white dot is the F9 upper stage!

@Snark @adsii1970 There are some ChatGPT posts over here too. Can they be merged to avoid having two separate discussions? Whichever way is the standard policy (this with the other or the other with this).

Naw, someone has to revive the M5 Mars sample return proposal with its triple Proton launches within seconds of each other to earn that title. This is more comparable to Gemini 8.

This one might be used for further ground testing and then perhaps end up in a museum after awhile. I imagine refurbishment won’t be much more difficult than that of Dragon. The only thing that needs to be fully replaced is the heat shield. Note that Artemis II is also not an all up spacecraft (it lacks a docking port) and thus will also take more time for refurbishment when compared with Artemis III or IV. Orion’s reusability has been known for awhile. Here’s a space.com article from 2013 describing it- https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html Things are only uncertain if you don’t bother to look into them. @cubinator we might see the method @Brotoro describes for Artemis II and some of the earlier lunar landings, but I don’t think we will see such a recovery method used once they start doing month long missions in the future. It will eventually start to look more like ISS recoveries as missions become longer, assuming lunar gravity is relatively just as detrimental to human health as microgravity is.

I could see Boeing and BO doing a huge PR campaign comparing it to the N1 in an attempt to get Starship discarded in favor of SLS. I am skeptical he has been distracted because there is no direct evidence his “other venture” has had an impact on Starship. Orbital flight is tough. We would be in this situation even if he hadn’t begun all of those other ventures.

LOL. I disagree because technically the level of danger on the Ohka includes the transit to the launch era, in which the bomber was incredibly vulnerable to being shot down by radar directed fighters. Tim and Co. might be riding a potential bomb, but no one is shooting at them.