SunlitZelkova

That was actually me lol. I don't have a problem with it, I just find the correlation between civilian and military on the internet interesting from a sort-of-anthropological perspective. In my defence, in "real life" physicists (and thus scientists) often are responsible for nuclear targeting or heavily involved in developing the doctrine for such weapons, due to their advanced nature. An example of this I have been having fun reading about recently is how many a military related official in the 60s said "we need nukes in 'Nam now" but the scientists and civilian analysts said "not only would that be politically and morally disastrous, it wouldn't even be militarily effective". It is probably a scepter. The Lego piece itself is officially a magnifying glass though.

GIRD-09 replica in sandbox mode. Image source- http://www.russianspaceweb.com/gird09.html It won't even reach space, but flying it and then leaving the debris is very symbolic to have still visible in your tracking center when you start landing on Duna or visiting the Jool system however long after. It will be even more poetic when going interstellar!

Fun fact: of the 204 replies to this thread (excluding this post, the 205th), approximately 60 of them are military or weapon related.

What was the size/production capacity of the N1 assembly plant at Tyura-Tam? I am trying to figure out what the launch rate might have been if it had worked according to the original schedule. Approval was given to produce parts for 14 rockets. That began in February 1967. Vehicle 3L was actually completed in May 1968 and was supposed to launch shortly after, but problems were found with the first stage, so it wasn't launched until February 1969. Vehicle 5L was launched in July 1969. Events afterwards are irrelevant, because the design was modified after each failure and that took time. To compare with the US, which had a number of facilities spread out across the country, such as the Michoud Assembly Facility, on average about three Saturn Vs were delivered each year from the start of production. Because the Apollo flight schedule was "slow" after Apollo 13, some had to be stored at KSC. It took about three years to build a Saturn V. In contrast, it took one year to build the first N1. This isn't surprising considering the N1 never flew successfully. But this hypothetical scenario I am creating takes place in a world where the Soviet response to Apollo started in 1961 instead of 1964 and has full funding (also, Korolev doesn't die). So for quality purposes, it might be assumed that production time is longer, but I don't know whether the manufacture of the N1 was short due to sloppy work caused by a rushed schedule, or if the N1 failed because of sloppy work alone, and not necessarily a rushed development schedule.

I would be interested in anything you could direct me to! What has been put on the table so far by lawmakers hasn't really been up to muster (at least for the Paris goal). This is what I was referring to in that particular sentence. Looking back, the original comment I made was itself emotional to a great extent, and I defended my position in a zealous manner. I apologize. I am just very disturbed when looking at the potential damage compared to the level of response

I am not necessarily asking average citizens to actually be responsible for crafting a full scale climate change response plan. When there are economic problems, officials go to economists to figure out how to sort things out. When we have other societal issues, policymakers and analysts provide insight into solutions. A proper response to climate change would require contributions from various different professionals, from climate scientists to relief organizers, yet that hasn't really happened. I am now thinking what I mentioned in my original comment was actually a symptom of the problems democracies have been having all over the world in regards to participation, rather than something pertaining to climate change specifically.

No, but whereas there are a lot of American proposals that don't use a nuclear reactor at all, most Soviet and Russian proposals do, and keep it out on the boom. They also had a preference for nuclear electric engines, so it is nice that more ion thrusters will be added to the game. If they did implement such a feature, that would probably mean we would need some sort of part to ensure that the antenna stays pointed at Kerbin.

Is there a consensus on what would happen to high rise buildings in a nuclear detonation? I recall seeing a claim many years ago that it was possible that skyscrapers might absorb part of the blast and spare outlying structures to a certain extent, but other sources say otherwise.

Comment/fun fact- I was not alive at the time, but to give an example of a widespread Japanese attitude with a piece of (what to me is) history, the production of an anime film about World War III in the 80s was boycotted by PTAs, teacher unions, and even the union of the animation company itself for "demonizing the Soviet Union" and "warmongering". The script had to be changed as a result. And this was after the Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal, when the Japanese government was doing things to show the US it was a faithful ally!

Within that analogy, it is assumed the hypothetical helper did not give up better opportunities. But to get back to climate change, while certainly one who chooses expensive solar panels over the cheap existing electrical grid does "care" about the environment, there still remains the wider issue of CO2 emissions and what everyone else is doing. The grassroots do-gooders won't solve the problem alone. I now realize the analogy I made was poor, because there are different levels to the problem. One can buy solar panels instead of using the regular electrical grid and indeed be said to care about the environment but at the same time, if they don't really mention the issue to their friends and don't really mind the current rate of CO2 emissions, they could be accused of "not caring". Yes, but is it real interest? My original statement merely proclaimed that it is not, contrary to the statements of many a poll taker, politician/government official, and news organization. Now one might say "but people make such courtesy statements all the time", but I find this to be especially egregious because it potentially involves millions of lives and billions of livelihoods. This just takes me back to one of my other statements- if people don't know what to do, they should either hold serious discussion or conduct serious research to figure out what needs to be done. This is happening nowhere right now. "Deindustrializing" is not an actual solution to the problem, it would cause lots of problems as you mention. It is the fact that there are basically three types of proposed responses to climate change- either "Go BaCk tO 1400s tEcHnolOgy NOw!!11!111", "everything is fine", or "this problem is a hoax"- that makes me think people do not actually care. These proposals seem to be based purely on emotion- not actual research. The goal set by the Paris agreement (no more than 2 degrees Celsius of warming) was actually based on science, but no one is really following through on the agreement (that is where the "2030" deadline comes from). If someone produced a report stating that it would be impossible to reduce global warming below 2 degrees Celsius without significant harm to the economy and thus people's lives and livelihoods, I would concede that they cared about the issue and took it seriously. But what is happening right now, across all different types of response, is the equivalent of a cop being told that a bank a mile away is being robbed, and then making one of the following responses- "SOMEONE CALL THE ARMY", "there is probably already an officer en route so it is fine", or "yeah right". "Change" is merely the word that got chosen, the physical action that will take place will be widespread. Just because I might call decapitation "height change" does not mean it is any less severe (not to say that climate change "will" be as extreme as decapitation). I have not seen any reports indicating climate change "might" not cause a disaster. The food supply for millions will likely be threatened by both loss of arable land and the pressure of expanding population. Ocean acidification would further exacerbate the problem. This could even expand to developed countries. This is just going off of increased average temperatures, the status of global agriculture, and what we know about ocean ecosystems. It doesn't include the more extreme potential effects. It won't be some apocalyptic end-of-society event, and billions will be just fine; I am not trying to sound alarmist. I am merely explaining this under the assumption that large numbers of people dying preventable deaths at all is a "disaster". I am not saying that "will" happen, because I can't literally predict the future, but that is what the data and trends are pointing towards. The current 2050-2060-2070 goals won't stop it, and naïve assumptions about food security won't stop it either- thus I am of the view people don't really care. To be clear, this part of the reply is not a tirade intended to get you or others to "start believing", all are entitled to their opinion on what should be done, what is acceptable, even what might happen, etc. I am just responding to a statement I have not seen any evidence supporting, in a manner intended to support my argument as part of this discussion In the actual world, no, but this mini-discussion started and continues to be about whether people actually care about climate change or not. One side argues they do, and that we don't see much action because of how complex the problem is. I argue we don't see much action because people don't care. I think so. Willy nilly CO2 emission reductions will cause issues like the ones seen in China not long ago. "Climate remediation" would probably be a total disaster, and won't stop ocean acidification and continued loss of arable land as a result of mass consumption of beef. But, the "parameters of the problem" are basically known. We already have data on the parameters of other economical and societal issues. There isn't really any more needed to put together an image of what might happen, and likewise, not much more needed to figure out a safe and efficient response.

Regarding developing countries- the situation I described in my earlier post in which people "actually care" assumes the way people interact with each other is so radically different that such problems wouldn't exist. India and China would still get automobiles in that scenario. ------ Well, I guess it depends on one's personal perspective. If a person only cares about CO2 emissions and other pollution if it is in their personal best interest, is that really "caring about it"? If I only volunteer to help out at the homeless shelter because I got paid $1000 to, can I actually say I "care about the homeless"? I agree that the situation you describe is the reality. But I question whether using "incentives" to bring about action on climate change would actually qualify as people "caring" (my original comment claimed people probably don't actually care that much about climate change). Basically by people I did not mean the definition/concept of "people" in the context of society and popular use, but the population of human individuals in a given area. The following is in relation to how governments behave. If an incentive is required, do they really care? See my analogy in the reply to JoeSchmuckatelli above. I still see no technical reason why action can't start now, or at least serious discussion on how to properly respond. If you look at past great disasters, like the Great Leap Forward or Bengal famine of 1943, they didn't occur because "nothing could be done". There were little actions that moved towards such a crisis and nonactions that ignored the potential crisis, because it was in the government's "personal" interest or because doing something was not in the government's "personal" interest. And then disaster strikes. Not because "nothing could be done", but because no one cared or tried. The following is in relation to how people (private individuals) behave, but also discusses how people (private individuals) should behave in relation to their government and "entities" (i.e. companies). The word "action" in this portion of the response refers not only to personal action but also includes actions like "lobbying/campaigning" towards governments or entities by individuals or groups of people (private individuals). I agree action isn't clear, but if it isn't clear, then people (private individuals) should either discuss together or research on their own what action is necessary. This is not happening right now, as evidenced in an earlier reply. We have the data on climate. We have the data on ocean acidification. We have the data on numerous aspects and problems of society. We can do something. Even if we don't know right now, we can research and determine what is necessary. As this isn't happening, I can't help but think that people don't really care. The thing I mentioned regarding past disasters and how action should be taken in the reply above regarding government applies on the personal level as well. It wasn't just the government that either chose to make decisions that contributed to a potential crisis or ignored problems- people, too, either ignored warning signs, deliberately made decisions that contributed to the potential crisis, or just didn't care. Unlike in the era those past disasters occurred in however, information is readily available, and climate change is a widely recognized issue. I can't help but think such non-action (including lack of discussion or research on action) is further evidence supporting my personal opinion that people simply don't care.

Congrats! The landing is impressive too!

Pumice can cause serious issues. After an eruption of an underwater volcano in Japan in August of last year, pumice clogged ports across the archipelago, resulting in fishermen being unable to depart to do their work.

I think my response wasn’t entirely clear. I was not suggesting that a successful response to climate change should directly look like or take inspiration from those historical examples. The section of my response you quoted was about how people (in general, theoretically) might need to behave on a personal level, not within the context of different existing elements of society’s structure. See here- So to speak technically, within my theoretical concept, it isn’t “dirty energy workers need to become unemployed and ruin their lives for us”, it is “some dirty energy workers go into green energy, some lose their jobs. But other industries pitch in to help them find work and provide necessities in the interim”. Or not “developing country sacrifices its economy for the first world countries” it is “developing nations receive massive amounts of assistance from wealthier nations while implementing climate change measures. At the same time, the whole societies of wealthy nations either restructure themselves or just act on their own initiative to counteract any losses sustained domestically in the massive program”. I’ll add that I think this type of “caring” is theoretically possible, and that “caring” does not require some enemy per say. The Gulf War did occur purely because the West “hated” Iraq, it was because of what Iraq did in Kuwait- which threatened both civilian lives and international interests in the region. The expenses and sacrifice of the conflict didn’t merely occur because there was an enemy- the side choosing to enter had to care about something first. In the case of climate change, while a “hatred” (enemy justifying sacrifice in struggle against said enemy) of climate change is required, this is only possible if people care about the lives and livelihoods climate change might damage or destroy. Thus I argue “caring” is what is primarily necessary to solve the issue. Past issues, whether they be war or modernization, have required caring about one’s metaphorical “self” (in actuality, usually country in the examples mentioned so far). In the case of climate change, I argue humanity as a whole should constitute this “self” that people care for, and that should then drive people into action. “Gimmicks” like Tesla and limited green energy investment notwithstanding, nothing is really happening however, and therefore I am of the opinion that “people” (media, government, general public) don’t actually “care”, despite the alarmist articles and net-zero declarations. ——— I don’t think I have been very clear. My original comment and all posts as part of this discussion have been in relation to why I think “people” (media, government, general public) don’t care, not a monologue telling them to care. I don’t think any of what I have proposed is actually likely to come to pass or is feasible, not because of any technical or practical issues, but merely because people don’t care- and will not care. I don’t personally mind that being the case, but I am of the personal opinion that we should be honest with ourselves about our actions on any issue, instead of sugar coating things, pretending to care, or lying. And I am not trying to force this opinion on others, I am merely explaining it as part of the discussion.

I don't think the problem requires "getting everyone to do something". "Getting" everyone to do something is unfeasible, considering how hard it is to get some people to do something. Any problem can be solved if people care enough. Wars aren't won when one person or a small group of people "get people to do something". They are won when people care and do their best. To go back to my economic modernization analogy, Japan didn't go from a country that, for all intents and purposes, had only 17th century technology, to a great power with a navy rivaling that of the United States in just 70 years "because they got everyone to do something". Everyone cared about modernizing the country and matching the West of their own volition, not because someone made them. The uniqueness of the problem should have nothing to do with how hard it is to solve it. If there is a town with a budget equipped to handle minor flooding and it gets hit by a tsunami, the people don't panic and leave, they adjust for the conditions of the situation and figure out how to solve things. The reason I made the statements in the previous post was because right now, that isn't really happening. Goals have been set but these are not enough, at the moment warming by 2100 will be somewhere between 2.0 and 4.9 degrees Celsius- and that assumes these goals are actually pursued and don't get changed or abandoned in the first place. Rapid change has occurred, albeit sloppily, in Japan, the Soviet Union, and China. If despite all of the issues those changes came with, they could still succeed, with the managerial techniques, science, and social awareness/dedication of 2021, I think solving the climate crisis is completely feasible in a short period of time (over the next 29 years), if people care. It is indeed a complex problem. But I don't think we aren't seeing a lot of action against it because it is complex, we are not seeing much because people don't care. Even during the worst phases of the current global crisis, we heard updates from pharmaceutical companies and research institutions on how they tried to search for new methods of recovery and create a vaccine. We do hear about how different companies and governments are "going to solve the climate crisis" but scientists have looked at the details of these plans and they don't really add up to what needs to be done. And there isn't any explanation of this- these companies and governments appear to want us to be fully convinced they "have it in the bag". And yet, it really isn't- we are still on track for dangerous warming, despite Tesla and 2050-2060-2070 goals. Out of 7.9 billion people, no one seems to really care, save for a few million who take part in protests. Thus I can't help but think no one really cares. Drastic problems require drastic solutions. If we expect to somehow solve the issue of climate change within our existing understanding of economics and society, we will probably fail. The data is before us, little of what is problematic in trying to solve climate change is understudied or unknown. But if we try to think of solutions while thinking "X entity helping the wider community with nothing in return is outrageous", what can be done is severely limited. Climate change isn't just a "I don't want hotter summers or I don't want the pretty tigers to go extinct" problem- it directly and indirectly threatens millions of lives and livelihoods. If it was the 1920s, I could see the major issues with trying to solve such an issue. But it is 2021. There are no technological or practical issues with solving climate change. It comes down to how much we are willing to do ourselves and for each other. I never said that you said that. I said "Furthermore, while "disruption of existing jobs/communities" is a potential problem that would be faced by a rapid shift to green energy, no one has actually looked at what steps could be taken to alleviate or eliminate such problems, merely saying "because this comes up, we aren't going to even consider this- just give up". "no one" not "you". "No one" refers to society in general, not the members of this forum or this discussion. It wasn't very clear, I apologize. ------ Disclaimer: I mention different ways of thinking about solutions to climate change in my response. None of these belong to any member of the forum. Terms like "we" and "one", etc. refer to humanity/society in general, not any member of the forum.

I just hope the Soviet and Russian method of putting reactors on a long boom away from the crew module will work

I meant on a wider scale towards the whole problem, not "little things". Mainly because the little things alone, while good, do not actually count as a solution towards the wider issue. It doesn't matter if everyone in Europe drives a Tesla if the rest of the world primarily drives combustion engine vehicles. Most electric cars already do this. The manufacture of a Tesla does have a larger carbon footprint than the average gas car, but the long term savings make it still more ecofriendly than any gas vehicle. I have not seen any studies or reports indicating this would actually happen. Furthermore, while "disruption of existing jobs/communities" is a potential problem that would be faced by a rapid shift to green energy, no one has actually looked at what steps could be taken to alleviate or eliminate such problems, merely saying "because this comes up, we aren't going to even consider this- just give up". I don't think a rapid transition to green energy and complete elimination of fossil fuels within 8 years would be impossible. It is just absurd that we can build over 30,000 JDAM guided bombs in one year but phasing out gas cars is "hard". In general, rapid change is not impossible. If people "get the message", anything can be done. Even with widespread opposition, violence, and political shenanigans, the Soviet Union (with all that country implies as far as inefficiency goes) went from an agrarian country with little manufacturing base to a great power capable of producing thousands of tanks and planes within 10 years, and then went on to defeat Germany. Imagine what the nations of the world in 2021 (with actual decent efficiency) could do if they put their minds to it! Of course however, "we" aren't, as such I can't help but think that people really don't care that much about things like climate change, pollution, ocean acidification, etc. This is my personal opinion however. I am not trying to convince you to change your or anyone else's opinion, merely explaining mine as part of this discussion The solution isn't "forcing" people to eat anything- it is just not raising cattle in the way we do and on the scale we do. When we ban any sort of consumer item, we don't force people to stop using it, we stop its production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery It has been a thing since the 1960s. This will not be a thing forever. Arguably the worst issue surrounding meat consumption isn't the methane release, it is how unsustainable feed production for livestock is. In fact, in general the way we grow plants for food is unsustainable, too. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-018-0027-3 Cattle is inefficient, in land use- https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets Meat doesn't need to go away entirely, but its consumption does need to be drastically decreased. Taking into account the way agricultural land is being destroyed (77% of agricultural land is used for livestock) and the methane release, lowering meat consumption is the best way to solve these crises. Um... This article doesn't support your statement... It merely states that there is no historical reasoning for why people should not eat meat. Not "not eating meat is incorrect". This is a pretty good article on the whole topic- https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-humans-supposed-to-eat-meat#evolution It states- But goes over the pros and cons and then says- I think the article above titled "Agriculture land by global diets" makes the best argument for how to approach the question as it relates to the environment. Meat consumption should be limited (quite drastically in fact), but need not be ceased. And if things come to push and shove, banning individuals from eating meat is not the way forward- banning its production would be. Although at that point, if the problem actually becomes "visible" and not just predictions in studies though, there probably won't be meat (or many other foods for that matter) to eat anyways.

The Space Shuttle was originally intended to consist of a small orbiter and a large booster, both crewed, making the system fully reusable. It of course didn't turn out this way, but during the era when this design was the favored concept at NASA, it was realized that this would open up the potential use of launch sites other than KSC or Vandenburg AFB. As Space Shuttle development was public, politicians and even regular citizens put forward their own proposals for launch sites. Two proposals were for sites near none other than Brownsville, Texas, including one that may very well be at Boca Chica! You can read more about it, and see the map with all of the proposals, here- http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/03/where-to-launch-and-land-space-shuttle.html Washington and Oregon each had three, including one alarmingly close to Seattle.

Speaking of the Moon... The renderings come from that old promotional video shared by @AllenLi, with the Space Shuttle lifting off from the Moon and the spacecraft with radiators that resembled a Sith Infiltrator. But the line drawings/diagrams appear to be real.

It might be just me, but I find this picture to be one of the most depressing works of art in the solar system.

Well, I think searching for those choices would be included within the metaphorical "going to help", whereas the lack of attention would be "ignoring the screams". If "they" (society) doesn't know what to do, they need to figure out what to do. They need to start trying. The other "they" (scientists and activists, some corporations) are, but the actions of much of the general public, media, and government feel like fluff. I wouldn't call it "willful ignorance" but (I hold the personal opinion that) it is not excusable by "we muddle along". The problem is right in front of us, we just need to take it seriously and devise solutions. Yes, we have "muddled along", but that doesn't make the tragedies and disasters of the past acceptable, and it is not a free pass for wholesale ignorance towards future problems and threats. So yes, what steps need to be taken aren't clear, but no one is really trying that hard to figure out a solution in the first place (it's either "shut down all fossil fuel use now" or "this problem is a hoax"), and therefore I think my metaphor is still valid.

It was rare, but may not be anymore. China has developed the PL-15, a very long range air-to-air missile (200-300km range) which is probably intended to shoot down USAF support assets, like tankers and AWACS. Before the PL-15/AWACS-tanker vulnerability hype began though, the Soviet Union developed the R-37 air-to-air missile, with a max range of 300km. It was delayed by the collapse of the USSR and ensuing economic problems of Russia, but now is entering service. The United States has a similar weapon called the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM). "Joint" refers to being used by both the USAF and USN. Its range is actually classified, Wikipedia gives it 200km while another source claims 222km. The entire program is very secret, with a special bunker being built specifically to house the missiles at Hill AFB. It could be used to attack AWACS and tanker aircraft. The USAF is also developing a missile called the Long-Range Engagement Weapon. Not much is known about it, but it will be even longer ranged than the AIM-260. Given how North Korea seems to be trying to mimic as many modern weapons as possible (they have revealed some sort of Abrams looking MBT and recently flown hypersonic glide vehicle prototypes), I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on one too. Whether it will actually perform well is another matter, however.

Toast? (in the third picture)

What treaty? SALT just limited numbers, not new development.

I wasn't going to reply to the "extraterrestrials making it" thing but because it has continued I will. A reason extraterrestrials might do this is similar to how some humans derive pleasure from hurting animals. If a species has become so advanced as to be capable of surviving interstellar travel, manipulating viruses without detection, and somehow releasing that virus on Earth without being detected, they may very well not treat humans as "people" as much as just chimpanzees with very sophisticated sticks (tools). But, there is no way of proving any of this, because part of the theory revolves around the extraterrestrials being impossible to detect. Furthermore, because we don't know anything about theoretical highly intelligent extraterrestrials (we merely project ourselves or the behavior of our fauna on to them), it is mere speculation, not based on any real evidence. So seriously pursuing this possibility basically amounts to a conspiracy theory or pseudoscience.