SunlitZelkova

This flight, officially designated Korabl-Sputnik 4, also carried the first guinea pigs (cavia porcellus) to reach orbit.

I think the power grid the ground control centers are connected to, and the communications to the centers, will be destroyed by cyber attack long before the sats themselves get targeted (that may be what the poster was referring to, but I thought I would say anyways).

A lot of the sites I looked at included product suggestions and thus felt a bit dubious, but this seems to give some decent general tips- https://www.planetary.org/articles/how-to-pick-the-perfect-beginner-telescope This also has good information to know when looking for the right product- https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-equipment/choosing-astronomy-equipment/telescopes/types-of-telescopes/ These tips are mainly just for picking out for the right telescope-type (specs/performance) for your kid. The actual "entry level" aspects mainly fall into things like ease of maintenance, etc., and those are really only found by searching for the product itself. Some personal notes- 1. All telescopes will "by default" have an upside down and/or mirrored image. There are some addons that will amend this for some telescopes (at the cost of reducing the amount of light it can collect), but just something to be aware of in case your kid is expecting a "normal" image. 2. This is obvious, but depending on where you live, even if a telescope "can" see things like galaxies and nebulas, does not mean it "will". Again, something you may want to take into account depending on your kid's expectations.

Nice! Because it is a direct photo, it feels like it was actually taken by a Kerbal using an old camera or something.

A few questions- 1. What is the likelihood that an external nuclear weapon being carried by a tactical aircraft (like the B61 on an F-16 or the 8U69 on a Su-7B) would detonate upon the aircraft being shot down (by damage/hits that do not completely destroy the engine/power supply, but instead aerodynamic surfaces, like a wing)? 2. Do derelict satellites remain stabilized? Last summer, I observed what appeared to be a satellite transiting the Moon through my telescope, and I wonder whether it was junk or active. It did not appear to be tumbling. 3. What do spacecraft smell like inside? Is scenting used ("that new Soyuz smell"), or is maintaining a "neutral" environment important for detecting things like leaks? 4. Does sinking a nuclear ship or submarine result in contamination of the surrounding environment? In a story, the USS Ronald Reagan (Nimitz class aircraft carrier) is sunk off the coast of Japan by DF-21 ASBMs. It is described as a "looming environmental disaster". Nuclear submarines have sunk before however and I am unaware of any nautical exclusion zones, although that may have been in very deep water (the Ronald Reagan was sunk in relatively shallow waters). 5. Obviously, weapons for use on the Moon would require extensive redesign due to the nature of the lunar surface. But what about Mars? Would it be possible to land something like an M56 Scorpion or ASU-57 (airborne self propelled guns, completely open crew area) and use it on Mars?

In defence of this tactic/behavior, sometimes, talking about the worst case scenario- no matter how unlikely- is necessary to make people do stuff (in this case, take climate change and sea level rise seriously). Take for examples car seats for young children. There are certainly quite a few children out there who go about never getting involved in a car accident in that stage of their life. If I went and counted the number of car accidents involving young children in my state (Oregon), it would be probably be in the hundreds, while there are thousands of young children here. So using a "non-alarmist" logic, a young, cash strapped family would probably forgo buying a car seat, because "it is by no means guaranteed it will come in handy in accordance with the data". Of course, this is an absolutely horrible way of going about making sure one's child is safe. Even if it actually is unlikely one will get into a car accident with their child according to the data, one still needs to take into account the possibility that they will and deal with it. Likewise, even if it is not guaranteed X climate change or sea level rise prediction will come to pass, it is still possible it will, and therefore "we" (concerned individuals, organizations, various entities) must bring it up when arguing for action against CO2 emissions and the associated problems they cause. The scientists themselves will obviously be far more calm and nuanced in their investigations and research. But the policy proposal/activism side of mitigating climate change requires the use of such language and rhetoric. That isn't poor ethics, it's just how human society works, unfortunately. ------ Note- this is merely an argument in defence of such tactics. My intention is not to change your opinion, but merely explain why this happens. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions/criticisms/concerns

Another thing recently (I don't recall this being shared)- https://www.roscosmos.ru/33568/ Russia and China have agreed on cooperation between 2021 and 2025. It will include "integrated and innovative development of the GLONASS and Beidou systems, increasing their compatibility and complementarity" (from Google translate) and ground measurement stations for each other's systems will be built in the other country. The document claims it is purely for civil purposes (which it probably is), but I wonder if this could lead to Russian ships using Beidou to navigate and Chinese ships using GLONASS in future agreements. In addition, China possesses the FT PGB guidance kit for dumb bombs (a JDAM equivalent), and being able to utilize GLONASS would be useful. Of course, that would all only be useful in combat if a true world war were to occur. In a regional conflict, China would not want to lend Russia data from BeiDou, lest it be drawn into the war, and likewise Russia would not want to let China use GLONASS to guide bombs, as that would certainly draw Russia into the war.

Yes. I was not trying to deny the existence of environmental racism as a whole, but in this case, I don't think race is actually involved in the issue. Whether it was a poor white community or a poor black community, SpaceX would be doing what they are doing. On the other hand, deliberate ignorance or intentional neglect of the plight of a low income community may be present in the situation. The complaints at Boca Chica are pretty serious. Floodlights forcing people to board up their windows to sleep, windows being broken, and of course the damage to the surrounding wildlife habitat as well. "The economy has grown" is a poor indicator of the actual situation on the ground. There are plenty of communities and countries where the economy "grows" and yet a majority of people still lack quality services or basic necessities. That is not to say these complaints warrant a complete expulsion of SpaceX from the area. But they should be listened to, and measures should be taken to address them if they are found to be justified. SpaceX hasn't really done any of this. KSC is a poor comparison. People don't live at the same distances from KSC as they do Boca Chica, and KSC actually takes steps to reduce its environmental impact. Of course, JSC is too, because it doesn't have any launch sites.

https://www.space.com/china-mars-rover-communicates-via-european-orbiter Great news. The relay test between Mars Express and Zhurong was successful! ------ https://insidegnss.com/beidou-conducts-laser-communication-experiment-steps-ahead-of-u-s-could-improve-satnav-accuracy/ (Ignore the Hubble image. There are other versions of this story from more reputable sources, so apart from possibly manufactured details, the event is real, but this one does not have a paywall) China has conducted a laser communications test ahead of NASA's LCRD. From English sources, details are sparse, but it involved *a* BeiDou satellite apparently.

From the transcript- "Off the *uninterpretable* [pad?], is that soft and queasy. Hey, that's neat. I don't sink in too far. I'll try a little- boy, that sun's bright. That's just like somebody- shining a spotlight on your hand." His words upon fully getting down the ladder were "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me. I'm going to step off the pad." Another fun quote by Alan Bean (Apollo 12 Lunar Module Pilot), during suit donning for the first EVA- "Those rocks have been waiting four and half billion years for us to come grab them". https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12trans.html

I don't think this is the full story. The primary problem lies with either editors or the people above them (management). I haven't seen any evidence that journalism courses in either high school or university have declined in some disastrous manner. But at the news companies/agencies themselves, one of the following happens- a. The news organization gets bought by an entertainment media company b. People mainly experienced in the entertainment media industry become key management figures- or leading figures- of the news organization c. The management and leading figures in the news organization are profit-focused and lack ethics to begin with This then influences the editors. The editors get instructed by their bosses on how to run the paper, what stories are ok, what stories they should have, and so on, and then the editor enforces that throughout the organization. All private organizations need to make profit. For news companies, this is primarily done by running ads. To get revenue from the ads, you need more people reading your stories, so you can charge more for people to run ads in your paper/website/whatever. This means getting people's attention, and nothing gets people's attention like controversy, scandals, and so on. Even subscription based services need to do the same thing, because people will only subscribe if you have their attention/interest. People lose interest in things that are too detailed. They also will be more interested if the content is further dumbed down, and even further interested if the content plays into their own preconceptions about the world or the topic of the article/story. They also like drama. These are the kinds of stories that sell. So then the following happens- 1. Reporter writes decent story using his common sense and skills from school 2. Reporter takes it to the editor. The editor massively edits it, dumbing it down, making it more dramatic. He probably tells the reporter "this is how it should be", and then proceeds to have the edited version published. This is, as mentioned earlier, based on what management has ordered the editor to do in regards to content and reporting practices 3. Reporter doesn't want to lose his job (imagine, after having it checked by your teacher, being told by him/her "this is how the project should be done" and then proceeding to undo his/her edits and make it in the way you did originally. Not only would you presumably get a bad grade/score, but the teacher would likely feel offended too). Reporter proceeds to use the "style of writing" recommended by the editor 4. Other reporters take note of what happens. Either just by noticing and deciding on their own, or by being directly told by the editor, they start using the same style as well 5. With poor reporting being rewarded, the entire news organization becomes geared towards producing such content. Those who do not comply are fired, although most will comply as they want to keep their job (there isn't much else they can do with a degree in journalism). In the post-Cold War hyper-consumerist society and culture, many probably can't tell the difference between whether this constitutes poor reporting or simply "adding a little fluff" anyways, and thus do not oppose the situation Now you could blame the reporters for not speaking out, but this is not a problem with the reporters themselves as much as it is with society itself. Failure to speak up to change the organization (assuming they could in the first place, there is a lot going against one if they have the courage to) occurs everywhere, from the government (NSA surveillance practices) to aerospace (Boeing) to... well, just name an industry and you can probably find an example where problematic practices persisted despite the employees knowing of it.

Fun fact: China's H-6N bomber (a derivative of a variant of a license built Tu-16 Badger), specifically designed to carry air launched ballistic missiles, can carry a missile with an HGV, as seen during the National Day parade in 2019 (I think, it may have been another event). This is probably what this is intended to replicate. Perhaps it is related to things like Kinzhal too? The article only mentions HGVs for SRBMs and ICBMs.

Err… which report? I apologize. There have been so many discussions (I have either just observed or actually participated in), some involving wars, some involving economies, that I am not sure which exact report you are referring to. If you are referring to the 1970-something Congressional report on nuclear war, no, I did not, as my main focus at the time was how nuclear war might affect climate change, which I assumed the report would not have anything on, as it was before climate change was widely accepted. I do happen to be in the process of writing a nuclear war scenario for a different video game, and the only part left is the aftermath, so I will be sure to check it out. It will be a good resource, as my previous plan revolved around pure assumptions. I completely forgot about it, so thanks for the unintentional reminder!

So the article states building a 1000 megaton or 10000 megaton bomb was proposed by Edward Teller as a response to Tsar Bomba. Interestingly, the author of the article the article is about and the man interviewed (Alex Wellerstein) states the weapon would be impractical because "it would weigh the same as the Space Shuttle". Assuming this means just the Orbiter though, looking at the numbers (53,590 lb for the Orbiter), a Saturn V derived ICBM should have been capable of lifting it. What is the weight-to-yield ratio for thermonuclear weapons? Am I correct? What about a 1000 megaton bomb? What sort of LV would be capable of lifting it? (Asking these questions for anyone to reply)

Hence why I wrote "whether that is "correct" or not is a different question". If it was just empty land, I would agree, but they are, for all intents and purposes, forcing people out of their homes to expand their (rocket) factory. If they are going to do that, it is only natural people will expect to receive enough money to buy an equivalent property, regardless of its "real" value, and regardless of how things normally go in the real estate business. So I don't think their demands are particularly abnormal or outrageous.

As it is an idea for science fiction works, illogicality is to be expected, but that sounds a little silly. Because regardless of whether you solve global warming you have to cut back on CO2 emissions anyways to stop ocean acidification. ------ I have identified another serious plot hole in For All Mankind. In Season 1 there is an incident in the middle of the season in which Lunar Orbiter probes (which are somehow still in orbit despite all having decayed before Apollo 11 in real life) photograph a crash site of an LK lander, which appeared to have been carrying "inflatable modules". The Soviets are described as having "covered it up". First off, the LK could not have carried inflatable modules. It was already "stripped down" quite a bit to fit into the N-1's payload capabilities, and thus had little redundancy in its systems. Second, before I get into how silly the "deaths in space being covered up by the Soviets" thing is, I'd like to note that in Season 2, during a conversation between the alternate history Apollo-Soyuz crew members about technology, duty, etc., Soyuz 11 is mentioned. Which makes no sense if the Soviets are supposed to be secretive and cover stuff up as claimed in Season 1. The "Soviets covering up deaths in space" thing can really only be described as an off shoot of both the "Lost Cosmonaut" conspiracy theories and wider misconceptions regarding the practices of the Soviet Union post-1953. Although CPSU officials were apprehensive at first, following Vostok 1, they realized they needed to announce their crewed missions, to control the narrative ("all peaceful space missions, no reconnaissance/military flights") because other countries could intercept the radio communications and know someone was onboard anyways. Thus, if the Soviets had launched an N-1 towards in the Moon in June 1969, it would have been known three or so days in advance, not as the descent and lunar EVA was taking place, as happens in the show. And if the Soviets had launched another N-1 carrying "inflatable modules", the world would know too, and the crash would just be a national tragedy like Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11, not some state secret. For the first landing at least, I can kind of understand why the makers of the series might have wanted to do that. They were probably trying to create parallels to the shock the US had when Gagarin flew. But for a serious alternate history, let alone one claiming to have technical and operational accuracy "to the greatest extent possible", it is rather silly. Even worse though, this is outright not the way it would have actually gone had the Soviets landed on the Moon first! You would have had three days of dread while the LOK and LK cruised to the Moon, followed by tears and anger during the descent and EVA. This is egregious for an "alternate history", it may as well not be an alternate history, simply a new installment of "American Horror Story" (that is, a fantasy). Within the context of American TV shows about history, it is decent as entertainment, but it (so far) fails to say anything meaningful about the nature of the Space Race, nor space development, nor US-Soviet relations, which are supposed to be its major themes outside of social progress.

Because none of these people actually want to move. They are only moving because SpaceX wants them to. And some apparently gladly will, so long as they get enough money to buy an equivalent property near a different part of the area. Now whether that is "correct" or not is a different question, but in any case, it is understandable that if you are going to try to get people to move out of a scenic retirement-type community purely for the purposing of expanding your facility (whatever that may be, industrial or space or whatever) they are going to want to get enough money to buy an equivalent property in return. Especially when you originally got approval for the facility while making it seem like the scale and operations were going to be on the down low.

Within the context of a mass media article, and the (low) expectations there are for the quality of such reporting, I think it *wasn't awful*. But I agree it could have been structured better.

The Japanese text reads "this is the real space". I think that is intended as a jab at Virgin Galactic (below the internationally recognized standard) and Blue Origin (lasts under 30 minutes), probably meant to encourage other Japanese billionaires to use Roscosmos instead. My theory is somewhat further evidenced by this- For those who won't click the tweet, the selling points in each of the colored images is as follows- Red = Fast, Green = Safe, Blue = Cozy, while the final one also says "Fly with Rocosmos!". If I could could pick any of the commercial space services to fly on, I would personally choose Space Adventures/Roscomos/Soyuz. Excellent safety record, and I would have a lot more confidence having a professional cosmonaut as my chauffeur instead of the American alternatives, which are either entirely automated (that is, no option for crew take over in an emergency) (New Shepard, Dragon) or use an unnerving mission profile (SpaceShipTwo and SpaceShipThree).

Of course, there is automatic apprehension that comes with a mass media article, but this was a pretty decent run down of people's issues and complaints with Starbase. "Meandering take"? Of course, there are some questionable parts, like the accusation of environmental racism (it should be noted however that looking beyond the very vocal retired white people, Brownsville is a "community of color" https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US4810768-brownsville-tx/), but most of these concerns are pretty valid. Did you properly read the article? The original offer the first interviewee (Celia Johnson) was given was based on that of homes without a beach view, which is obviously lower than that of her beach view home. There is no evidence (at least in the article) SpaceX or the third-party real estate firm they use (JLL) has actually offered anyone above the value of their home. The second retiree interviewee (Maria Pointer) stated they got "substantially more" than the previous offer of $210,000 and the original of $70,000, but this was only after holding out through intimidation tactics used by JLL. The comment Mrs. Pointer made about the government was not in relation to the amount she got for her home. It was about SpaceX's negative business practices in general. The environmental concerns are completely valid. I'm not going to list them here because unlike the section about their property acquirement tactics, those were presented pretty well. As is mentioned above, Brownsville does appear to have a pretty high Hispanic population (95%). It is not an entirely unreasonable accusation. That said, I disagree with that one too. SpaceX and Musk would be doing what they are doing whether it was in Brownsville or in an "all white" community.

What is the nature of the reason the Russian government considers US military space activities destabilizing? The technology itself (like a space equivalent of the anti-nuclear ideology), or the people utilizing it (as a broader part of criticism towards supposedly hostile NATO actions)?

Yes. It was a joke in relation to military use of the Moon.

Apparently there is a hoax with somewhat widespread dissemination among ufologists and conspiracy theorists in Russia, in which it is claimed that during the Potsdam Conference, Stalin proposed splitting the Moon among the four victorious powers (USSR, US, UK, and France). If it was real though the costly race could have been avoided lol.

Salyut 7 has me confused. When the LES jettisons for the Soyuz, does the fairing get jettisoned at the same time? The animation for the Soyuz MS-20 launch had the LES jettison and then afterwards the fairing was (which of course is what actually happened). Or does it vary by variant?

Apologies if it is obvious and I missed it, but is the mission you proposed/created a conjunction class mission or an opposition class mission? @sevenperforce