SunlitZelkova

I think regardless of technical feasibility, in the ethics dimension it should be treated like the military. 17 is fine with parental permission, obviously at 18 you’re an adult and can decide for yourself. Maybe 16, I’m not sure what the consensus is on the minimum age for enlistment. Allowing wavers for younger ages would be unethical, IMO. Sending 12-15 year olds into space regardless of what is considered reasonable for employment in other fields because “they can and there could be benefits” is identical to sending 12-15 year olds into combat because “they can and there could be benefits”. The circumstances don’t matter- there are certain things children don’t do and only adults do, for a variety of reasons. Generation ships and space colonies are another question though. My argument against children in space only applies to *exploration/“astronaut”/crew for exploration purposes* as these are more like normal professions with all of the problems that they generate.

Nuclear winter is not comparable to actual climate science. Climate science is backed by real data. Nuclear winter and autumn is nothing more than assumptions, poor modeling, and random fearmongering. I would like to clarify that there is plenty of poor modeling and fearmongering in climate too. Nuclear winter doesn’t have any good evidence going for it, though, and thus I don’t find the to comparable.

Nice, looks like a technology demonstrator for a future maglev rail line (on Earth), and maybe some day this could even evolve towards lunar high speed long distance transport. I feel like it would snap in half during the warp lol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petunia flower Maybe it could be the F-35 Venus Fly Trap in light of its cooperative engagement capability. AWACS have the sticky parts and the F-35 “closes the mouth” with AMRAAMs.

I have seen pushback. For example, people have been pointing out that Ukraine’s successful offensives supported by armor completely destroy the “tanks are obsolete” clickbaity articles that came out in the early days. I can’t post it here, but I have also seen a good video explaining why drones are not the end-all-be-all- not just for simple tactical reasons, but for very critical technical reasons- so I think it is safe to say the people who actually make the proposals won’t be swayed in the wrong way. The issue of course is that the people who hold the purse make careers out of being swayed!

Looking forward to the United States v. People’s Republic of China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration for the ruling on Shackleton Crater sovereignty *facepalm*

The Soviets named numerous self-propelled guns and mortars after flowers. Like the 152mm Acacia, 122mm Carnation, 203mm Peony, and 240mm Tulip.

The conventional tug was supposed to partially fulfill the satellite repair role and act as a reusable booster stage for probes and satellites. The nuclear shuttle was for heavy cargo and crewed Mars missions only. People were to be kept off of it as much as possible because of the huge dose of radiation they would get each time it fired. Also, it could be only flown 10 times before the engine became dangerous to fire, so the conventional tug was necessary for lunar flights too. With DARPA looking at NTRs, SpaceX’s fuel depots, and Dream Chaser, it’s interesting that the architecture outlined by the IPP will ultimately come to fruition (albeit with rough resemblance) under the commercial space industry their government partnerships.

Sadly, no. My middle school mascot used to be the Thunderbird but it was changed a couple years ago due to being offensive*. Presumably the attitude would be similar across the country, with any Native American derived name. *I would like to note that the image used was a simple Native American motif, nothing truly inflammatory or offensive, and was thus presumably taken down because the tribes were never asked if it was fine to use them, rather than being actually offensive in the same way a certain football team’s mascot was.

I consider it a problem if I have to waste even a second doing number things when I want to make multiple batches of cookies.

Yes. Interestingly, I recall an interview with a project member of this rover being specifically asked about how he felt now that it was decided for good that the LEV/SEV would not be going to space. He said he was disappointed considering how much time and effort went into it, but understood the international nature of Artemis compared to Constellation, and was glad to see new nations being able to participate in lunar exploration. He also noted that Japan’s experience with the auto industry would be beneficial in their development efforts. Checking now these are actually separate statements from different people. Mark Kirasich, who at the time was the acting director of Advanced Exploration Systems, said that Japan’s auto industry was related to the decision here https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/nasas-first-lunar-habitat-may-be-an-rv-like-rover-built-by-toyota/ and “Senior Lunar Scientist” Clive Neal said he thought it was unfortunate the SEV wouldn’t land on the Moon, but the link to it is dead. Mr. Kirasich also stated the decision wasn’t purely related to the ideal nature of Artemis, but also to cut American costs in the program.

Yes, I was thinking this too. One of their early SLBM tests (seven years ago now) was also speculated to have been launched from a submerged barge despite them claiming to have fired it from a submarine.

I wrote about the crazy basing methods proposed for the MX/Peacekeeper missile program back in the 70s awhile back. This was one of the ideas. Fun fact: North Korea claims they have become the first ever nation to employ such a method of ballistic missile housing, some 45 years after the US first created the concept. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/dont-laugh-at-north-koreas-lake-launched-ballistic-missiles As far as I can tell, it is not clear whether it is actually operational though. This would also qualify for the "Real Life Kerbalisms" thread!

It's a Desert RATS mission! NASA PR must be pretty sporadic at times because I didn't realize this until now. Here's the blurb from NASA- NASA crew: Jessica Meir (astronaut, participated in first all female spacewalk) Sarah Shull (systems engineering and integration manager for the EVA & Human Surface Mobility Program had to copy paste that and previously worked at MCC) JAXA crew: Hoshide Akihiko (astronaut, has the record for most spacewalking time among Japanese astronauts) Kanai Norishige (astronaut, lieutenant and Diving Medical Officer in the JMSDF) Ikeda Naofumi (systems integration and driving systems engineer for pressurized rovers also had to copy paste that, worked in the auto industry (consumer and racing related research) before joining JAXA) Yamasaki Yusuke (engineer, is now working on the rover but previously worked with the Kibo module on the ISS, and prior to that he worked as a test engineer in a "commercial airplane development program", possibly the Mitsubishi Regional Jet) They are taking turns and going out on different excursions in teams, the rover isn't big enough for all six.

I did not. Thanks! They have ones in the 100 kiloton+ range too. I think the bigger ones would be for cities and smaller ones reserved for things like air bases and ports. They could use multiple ones too. The US did a study in the late 40s, estimating it would take 40x (!) Fat Man sized weapons to destroy Moscow. This is probably why one of the loadouts for the B-36 was 4x Mk 4 bombs (modernized, production Fat Man).

Yes, I meant that. I flip flopped on how to format this so the numbers are all over the place (like the 1000km missile but 1000km range radar) It has been theorized that Tokyo could firestorm. There is lots of flammable material on buildings intended for thermal control/energy efficiency. Some speculations on nuclear war claim fallout shelters will simply save lives but I have seen at least one early 1960s take from some professor claiming these- from subway to basement- would end up much like the basements of Dresden and Tokyo and asphyxiate people. Yep. The talk of early warning and sheltering is pretty bizarre considering even Britain, as far away as it was from the western USSR, was generally seen as doomed to little to no warning in media (Threads and When the Wind Blows feature nuclear detonations within seconds of the characters receiving a warning) and government policy (letters of last resort - I’d assume this meant they didn’t expect to be around to order retaliation). The irony of it all is that these fallout shelters being discussed in Japan aren’t just for common people, they are intended to keep the entire government functioning, probably including the 100+ member National Diet. IKR. But given the Izumo class helicopter carriers were built with a flight deck capable of accommodating the F-35B takeoff and landing despite promises that they would never be deployed on such ships, I think something else may be afoot here. ——— So getting back to something closer to science… How fast do people run on average when running for their lives? I have only found one article with no source claiming 12mph/19kmh, or about 300 meters in one minute. Which is a lot more than I thought, but that doesn’t take into account running over people who have fallen or the bottleneck at the entrance to a shelter, or people shoving you back to get ahead of you. Japan is known for public orderliness in crisis but I can’t see how lining up and calmly filing into a shelter is going to work, when there is a minute and half or so until the missile hits- although people are so oblivious to the actual severity of the danger there I would not be surprised if people did calmly file in expecting 10 minutes or so of evacuation time, only to get vaporized or blasted. But IIRC MythBusters tested the “everybody just cram into the airplane” method of airliner boarding and it kind of worked, right? So maybe we will be ok, right? No. There is little to no concept of civil defence there, in stark contrast to South Korea. It’s silly considering how strong natural disaster preparedness is. My question was related to civilians sheltering rather than getting retaliatory missiles off.

About how much of an early warning would Japan have of incoming ballistic missiles coming from 1000 km away? I ask here as Google will not give a straight answer. The US would have 30 minutes or so thanks to early warning IR sats. But no else apart from Russia has these systems. France had the Spirale IR sats… for a brief period of time in 2009. Contrary to the misleading claims that Japan’s IGS sats can be used for “missile early warning”, this is only by looking for signs of missile deployment- not round the clock warning- not taking into account the existence of solid fuel missiles. It is unclear if US early warning info is transmitted to allies or not*. This leaves them to rely on their radars for detecting incoming missiles. These radars have pretty poor range (within the context of BMEW), about 1000 kilometers max, but I would assume these would have worse range when it comes to targets from space. This question arose as Japan’s PM announced his intention to have the government study the potential for construction of fallout shelters. Not only is the survivability of them questionable, but I wonder whether it is worth the cost if we are only going to get 1 minute-40 seconds of warning. *I assume it is not clear because despite Wikipedia claiming DSP provided “timely warning” of launches during the Gulf War, Japan began sounding sirens only after a missile had splashed down recently. Also this counts as a spaceflight related question, right?

Nope. The “Phantom” (F-4) is already the Phantom II. Here is the Phantom. It actually had its first flight during WWII! So the F-35 would be the Phantom III, but given we already call the F-4 the Phantom, would could also just drop the number when referring to the F-35. Panther is technically taken by the Navy F9F Panther, which came in straight wing and swept wing flavors and served throughout the 1950s. It is interesting that Air Force pilots would use it. If anyone is feeling controversial, feel free to try out the original proposed names for the F-4: Satan or Mithras.

I would go as far as to say they are given in bad taste. Who’s idea was it to name a disposable spacecraft, that is, one that will burn up in the atmosphere, after Kalpana Chawla, a victim of the Columbia disaster? Its like a patriotic shooting target manufacturer naming their latest human shaped board “the JFK” in honor of the former President…

This is a great guide. Thanks!

How are Starlink profits connected to Starship funding? It may not necessarily be a big thing, but Musk’s comments have me curious.

I see two options. The F-105 was called the Thunderchief, which got shortened to Thud. So we could shorten Lightning to “The Lig”. The A-10 was named the Thunderbolt II but was also called the Warthog because of how ugly it was. So we could call the Lightning “the Beemer” because of how expensive it is.

It's not that dumb of an idea, the Tu-16 and Tu-95 both became airliners after all, as did the B-29, while a Tu-4 conversion was proposed too. I think rather than any detailed engineering reasons, it is just a matter of design common sense. A bomber is designed to carry payload to a target and RTB. Not carry luggage and people, not have fancy accommodations. In the same way that converting the Concorde into a bomber would have been silly- it would be more efficient to design a purpose built bomber- converting a bomber into an airliner is not the best choice. If you can, it is better to build a purpose built airliner. Conversions of anything- ships, fighting vehicles, aircraft- usually are lacking compared to purpose built alternatives. An example of this is the WWII Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo. It was converted from an ocean liner that was under construction, and thus had awful handling characteristics when compared with its larger purpose built comrades. Despite being huge it also had a small aircraft capacity. The Tu-95 became the Tu-114 out of convenience. If you have to do it it will work, but purpose built is better. Like how a Toyota Hilux does work as a combat vehicle if you have to, but a HMMWV would be better.

I didn't say he was right I think saying "screw cost" is feasible for simple catch up like China is currently doing. Once they need to maintain that level of space capability, they will need reusability. They are aware of this, which is why Long March 9 will no longer be an expendable rocket, and the Long March 5DY and its LEO variant, which will replace the LM-2F and LM-7 in the space station transport and crew launch role, have also shifted to a semi-reusable configuration.

What I meant was cadence and *stuff* rather than cost. China’s space based observation capabilities have expanded at a ridiculous rate when compared with Russia, India, or the EU. Space historian David S. F. Portree has criticized SpaceX’s (and basically everyone’s) fixation on cost and stated that in his opinion, we just need to accept that space is expensive and get over with it. I think China may have temporarily adopted such a stance, which is why they are so willing to launch expendable rockets at the rate they do while Japan has been taking two decades to build a simple 10~ sat missile early warning constellation that apparently doesn’t work. The various Sino-Falcon 9s and the Long March 9 will come by 2030. I think SpaceX will certainly overtake China when Starship gets going, but China will make a comeback in the 2030s. Still, with rapid reuse/tanker launches SpaceX will probably be in an eternal lead in number of launches. Long March 9 is basically a giant Falcon 9 (semi-reusable only) and thus would have similar cadence limitations.