SunlitZelkova

Something like 75% of the world’s crops rely on pollination. Combined with temperatures that the crops can’t withstand and high decline (or extinction) of the pollinators, I don’t think it would work. The pollinators and climate are a problem as mentioned above, and if marine ecosystems collapse as they do in this scenario, land ecosystems could likely be affected as well. This is a good point, but it should be noted that this theory is controversial and there is some evidence pointing to it being false. Turning to the asteroid impact scenario- The actual number of semi-long term bunkers is probably relatively low. Nuclear states obviously have a few, but most countries don’t. There are also a small number of private bunkers supposedly being commissioned by wealthy people, but these hold family and friends, not thousands of people.

It's even funnier as I am already are familiar with the guy (not by studying the Russian government, but by having seen a press conference snippet in a report on NHK).

Err... the debris didn't brake, would "dinosaur bits" (assuming any large part of this hypothetical dinosaur individual survived that particular event) survive impact?

Venus *might* have had surface water long enough for simple life to evolve (3 Ga, using the conservative estimate of 3.465 Ga (out of 4.54), thus 1,075,000,000 years, for Earth as the time for life to evolve). That's not to say panspermia is likely though (or even life), just that there may have been a place. Unlike Mars though, uncertainty surrounding Venus is purely due to lack of study of the planet's past, as opposed to un-encouraging finds.

Those hypothetical widespread extinctions are related to ocean acidification. I didn't understand that portion of the answer, but also I myself may not have been clear. Foraging referred to gathering wild plants. Humans can not survive on that alone. Now, the answers provided have basically answered question 1, so what follows is within the context of question 2. With millions of people looking for food, fauna will run out quickly. They can't survive by foraging, and the marine food sources will either be depleted in a similar manner to land animals or be extinct due to the situation in the scenario. Continued farming- at least, enough to feed the entire population- won't be feasible, as either the climate won't allow for it, arable land is gone, or the pollinators are in rapid decline. What methods of feeding for humans am I missing that might be usable to save millions of people? Bunkers don't exactly hold millions. When I said "relative" I meant relatively within the existence of members of the genus Homo for 2.8 million years. So even if people can survive somehow afterwards, inbreeding depression and lack of genetic diversity in the future will doom the species in time. ------ Thanks to you two for the answers on question 1. I clearly missed a lot!

You probably have seen, but the thing I said in your other thread about Breaking Ground not being part of KSP2 is apparently outdated. So there is a chance robotic parts from KSP1 will be available.

Most certainly then! One thing I am concerned about however is that the devs apparently said that while stock and Making History parts from KSP1 will be available, Breaking Ground ones will not. I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps Breaking Ground will once again be a DLC, but for KSP2?

Q1: To what extent can modern humans survive the collapse of their food industry? Q2: To what extent could humanity survive climate change induced ecological collapse and famine? For the purposes of asking these questions, both take place within the same scenario. Disclaimer- the scenarios themselves may have inaccuracies, but the point is to present a situation in which people don't have access to their "normal" method of getting food. In any case, please feel free to correct me where they are inaccurate. Q1 A nuclear war occurs in 1983 between NATO + its associates and the Warsaw Pact. "Nuclear winter" does not occur to the extent required to induce crop failure, but, transport networks have been destroyed or rendered inoperable, and the economy has been shattered so even if there was a functioning food distribution system, people could not "get" food. Millions of people have survived. What are their options? From what I can gather, their odds would not be good. Fauna will be quickly depleted if tens of millions go out into the forest to hunt them, and foraging is not a viable option as wild plants do not provide enough nutrition to keep people alive. Are they doomed? What am I missing? Q2 Billions "survived" in nations that did not take part in the war, but with the death of millions of scientists and the destruction of the international order, climate change awareness never occurs. Thus sometime in the latter half of the 21st century, climate change results in sea level rise, widespread extinction of marine life, and crop failure. Food becomes very scarce everywhere. So what can people do? Again, fauna (that is, the fauna that hasn't gone extinct in the preceding decades) will be depleted very fast if billions go out into the forest to hunt them. Fishing is not an option as most of them are extinct, verging on extinction, or, for inland species, also be depleted very quickly. Foraging doesn't work, because humans are unable to survive on wild plants alone, and even if they were, that won't get them through the winter. Are they doomed or am I missing something? Even if small numbers of humans do survive (perhaps tribes that are already isolated, namely in the Amazon- assuming the Amazon hasn't undergone desertification) what stops them from dying out due to inbreeding depression and lack of genetic diversity some thousand or thousands of years in the future? My final question can also be applied to something like an asteroid impact or, maybe a supernova. Even if people survive in bunkers, won't humanity go extinct anyways in a relatively short amount of time?

It was discussed in another thread that hopefully, we will get crane parts (and forklift parts, I did not think of that before!) to assemble early base modules, because they mentioned you would have to build up a surface base a bit before it could become a colony with access to the BAE. Better yet, using inflatable parts to minimize the size needed for the container(s). Hopefully we will get better methods of large cargo (like actually built things, satellites, base modules, rovers, etc.) storage, instead of staging with 0 force and then grabbing it with some other method (which is the only method I am aware of right now).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretzel_Logic

An English search for “Russian missile test black and white paint scheme” yields articles about Zircon and the recent ASAT test in the normal view, but interestingly, what appears to be the exact same image/video in the images section. As I typed this, I just realized that that is how search engines work. Yes, it is Sarmat. See kerbiloid’s post below Congratulations to your nuclear veterans on continuing to help preserve strategic stability for 61 years (or more if the “engineering” units with the R-5 count as part of RVSN history) ——— I‘ll actually take this opportunity to ask a question for anyone to answer- I have seen a single claim from Steven J. Zaloga’s “The Kremlin’s Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces 1945-2000” claiming that a nuclear warhead (not the dirty bomb one (which he also mentions), an actual fission device) was proposed or even began development for the R-2. Is this true? It was only a single sentence, with no further details, and very easily could have been a mistake. It feels unlikely given the size of nuclear weapons at the time, along with accuracy issues.

Aren't all of these delays a good thing? Better to have a problem fixed on the ground then have a disaster in flight.

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!