SunlitZelkova

Thanks for the clarification! I have never heard of that term before. It should be noted most “mainstream” climate activists don’t support this- such plans have numerous holes and potential disastrous unintended side effects. I have not seen much support for such efforts in the wider climate movement, apart from the occasional mass media editorial article. I’m sure Mike can give you a more detailed and accurate answer, but higher altitude in general means higher fuel efficiency. Which means airliners high as fly as they can go, as he said.

Concept art of completed bases aside, I have not read much about real-life base construction methods (which presumably KSP2 ones would be based on). The Soviet DLB lunar base had multiple modules, which were partially inflatable (to allow them to be landed as a cube), but I have not been able to find how the modules were supposed to be placed and assembled. Even the most advanced of the Apollo derived lunar base studies consisted of only one module or separately landed ones adjacent to each other, while most post-Apollo bases, even ones with multiple modules, did not progress beyond some mass and dimension figures and some shapes on a power point slide, although some of the latter did feature crane-rovers for use in moving around materials (I can't remember whether there were renders of cranes assembling actual modules however). The current Artemis proposal is just one module. With base building being a bigger focus, do you think it would be possible to see some sort of crane-type parts added? The BAE would be a little lame to use just for a simple add-on module. Using the BAE to do "real" construction work (i.e., the Munar equivalent of building an apartment complex) is understandable, but relying on it for what is basically just setting up a fold-out RV on the Mun would be a little disappointing and feel like over kill, especially when modular space stations of presumably the same scale can be assembled manually anyways.

The fun continues! If I was a progressive Congressman who wanted to phase out SLS in favor of commercial space, I would attack SLS as "a multi-billion dollar program with ballooning costs and numerous delays, all just to send toys into a distant lunar orbit". Snoopy plushy around the Moon is still really cool though!

The thing about climate change is that “colder” and “warmer” does not necessarily mean a literal change in the temperatures humans feel per say. It (the temperature humans feel) does/will, but that’s not what the main point is- the main point is the climate as a whole is going to change (in various complex ways, not just “hot or cold”), and that will be very bad for fragile organisms, from plants to animals, that depend on it. Living on Earth, us humans then depend on those organisms as well, and there will certainly be consequences if they were to go extinct. Furthermore, agriculture is a far more fragile industry than most realize, and the increase in extreme weather (not hurricanes and tornadoes- just higher and lower average temperatures, more rain or less rain) could have disastrous effects on the food supply. Whether the climate models are correct or not does not really matter. The fate of how climate change will play out aside, we are aware and know for sure that CO2 emissions are causing relatively rapid ocean acidification. Not as severe (not “if you don’t halve by 2030 it’s done”) requirements, but basically the same steps to reduce CO2 emissions need to be taken to stop that- unless we want to cause the collapse of the marine ecosystems we depend upon for food and possibly have that extend forward to terrestrial ecosystems. This isn’t based on some art like prediction with questionable characteristics- it’s based on measurements of the pH level of the ocean, what we know about shellfish and other calcifying organisms, and what we know about marine ecosystems (“hard facts”- not future models and interpretations of past data). It’s basically the same though. Assuming “climate remediation” is CO2 emission reductions, the same would end up being done for air quality improvement anyways. The reason “we” have to argue for “climate change action” instead of “pollution reduction” is because pollution reduction is really just a nice have, and in addition, basically everywhere on Earth the pollution is either a) has no dramatic impact that requires reduction on the time scales “we” would otherwise need to stop climate change or b) considered “ok” in the name of economic development. And all of this needs to be done to stop ocean acidification anyways (if it makes those with concerns over climate change feel better, as stated earlier ocean acidification is based on “hard facts” and not just models based themselves on interpretations of data). I don’t think any “real” climate activists actually try to “quell dissent”, at least I have never heard of such events occurring in the manner you imply. It’s the six word sentence FaceBook disinformation people get so aggressively defensive over. Now, it isn’t really visible here in this corner of the Internet, but unfortunately many (not all, I repeat, not all) of those who “question climate change” are just doing so based on conspiracy theories and pure disbelief. Also in terms of “asking questions” about climate change data, I don’t recommend using sentences like this- It alienates those you are discussing with. Are you implying that everyone who supports action against climate change is going to get high on victory and try to “do stuff their way or the highway” elsewhere while “quelling dissent”? (serious question about why this was included, not getting offended ). It also gives off a conspiratorial vibe, which sends many of the more emotional climate activists into “passion mode”- they react not based on logic but on what “feels right”, which is a no no when trying to accurately analyze data and present it to skeptical people. *the following is my personal views, and not part of the wider discussion about climate change data (also just to be clear, the portion below is not an attempt to convince or “turn” you, just describing my views and reasoning for my thinking* On a final note, I’d like to note that none of these potential consequences of climate change “we” discuss are as simple as they seem- it’s not just “no more tigers and elephants, some shortages at the grocery store, a lot more Venices in the world, and cold winters and hot summers”. If they come to pass, it would mean famines that would kill millions, collapsing ecosystems that thus would wreck the environment and as a result cause famine, and extreme weather that would pose a severe threat to the lives of those without modern shelter (most of the human population). Relatively slightly higher sea levels would be the least of the problems, as that mainly impacts real estate and where people live, which are pretty easy problems to eliminate if you actually try. This is all based on how fragile modern human civilization is and what the effects on it would be if the climate was different. And when I say “fragile” I don’t mean “err muh gerd end of civilization”- I mean trying to protect thousands of lives, because if the “boat” of civilization gets caught in a storm, yes, it won’t sink, but many of the crew will be washed over board, and the ship itself will suffer heavy damage. Now from a scientific standpoint of view those aren’t major issues- humanity could probably survive (as long as we curb our “other” pollution). But from a “real life” standpoint, one would obviously want to try to save those millions of lives. Hence even though none of this is “absolutely” “necessary” per say, “we” propose and argue for it. Theoretically at least, there is obviously a possibility “we” are wrong. But I implore you not to see calls for climate change action as doomsday-saying over bad dreams (which is the vibe I get from your post), but somewhat see (not support, see ) them as warnings and countermeasures to a disaster based on *data*. Is it perfect data? No, but is it decent data, properly collected and analyzed to the best of scientists’ ability? Yes, to a decent extent*. *Obviously there is bad data as you and others have pointed out. But it’s important not to fall into confirmation bias- good data exists too. Just because there is bad data does not mean there is automatically no good data. If one searches for unanswered problems, they will get unanswered problems. I say this not in an accusatory manner, but as a cautioning in trying to gain more knowledge in general (this might not even be the case for your personal research/education/whatever you want to call it on climate change- but just something to be careful of in general that I thought I would mention).

The thing to understand about kerbiloid is that (I believe) both the execution of his intentions and writing style might be a little like Charles Fort. Fort had one belief- that scientists in the early 1900s were beginning to enter a religious-like state in defence of their own theories. So he decided to write wacky books (that ultimately had rather poor writing style, perhaps on purpose) about UFOs, sea monsters, falls of animals during storms, and other bizarre occurrences to criticize them. He himself however once said that he did not believe in any of his own theories he wrote on those matters. With kerbiloid, his “beliefs” vary. In this case, it is [described below]. I believe his intentions may be like this based on his response to suggestions that Starship be used for changing the orbit of the ROSS (silly remarks about using Angara instead). I think regardless of the accuracy of his claims in that particular post, all he is saying is that scientific claims need to be supported and accepted based on actual data and proper use of the scientific method, not a five word sentence from a Q&A article. Don’t take this as some kind of gospel obviously. Just trying to help others understand why his posts are the way they are sometimes

While I think there being no debate over whether to establish a large scale presence on Mars or Venus is a reasonable viewpoint to hold and support, I have some problems with the examples and reasoning presented- Yes, but I have no choice over whether it does that or not. "We" do have a choice over our actions regarding hypothetical life on another planet. Also, when my immune system does that, it does not involve complete extinction of those organisms. I don't think the ethics question over how to treat life is necessarily about "having" to either preserve it or potentially destroy it. Its about the choice. On Earth, there are numerous species that could probably be driven to extinction without having a major effect on the ecosystem. Recently (within the context of the entire history of life on Earth) there are examples like the thylacine, auk, and passenger pigeon. But no one nonchalantly discusses their extinction as if it were "ok"- while it was inevitable within the context of the eras in which they took place, it is still something unfortunate and regrettable. The same would be for life on Mars or Venus, no matter how "insignificant" from the operational standpoint of space colony expansion it is. [Continued in reply to the next quote] I think there are certainly more aspects to the question rather than pure relations to space colonization operations and planning. As described above, humanity generally already has a moral and ethical belief that life should be saved to the greatest extent possible (I will come back to this point later, by the way). I don't think the nature of the organisms (simple or complex) matter to the reasons I have presented, because the "value" of the life to be preserved is a matter of opinion (and thus subject to debate with justifiable reasoning), and one could argue that the philosophical/ethical/moral definition of what is "simple" and "complex" is also questionable (I don't intend to answer that question myself, but it is part of the reason why debate would be needed). I think it is incorrect to state that nothing would be lost from destroying their natural environment. If organisms exist on Mars or Venus, something came before them, and preserving the natural environment and avoiding contaminating it would be necessary to investigate the history of life on the planet, along with the extant life itself. Now obviously, "we" don't "need" to study the history of life on the planet, but this is part of why there should/"will be" a debate should this come to pass- outside of the context of space colonization planning, there are certainly justifiable reasons to preserve the environment. I think if we are able to move the large amounts of material into orbit by that time, there will be no difference between landing on Mars and building an orbital colony around it and using machines to extract resources from the surface where feasible or needed, and therefore the "necessity" aspect of establishing a large presence on the surface may be moot. If humanity is at the point where it can terraform the planet, the situation would be even more so to that point.

Actually, it would melt if you tried to take it outside (actually put Legos "on" the Moon). Bringing it to the surface in the ship would still be cool though. On the other hand, building a Lego Mars base that is actually on Mars is doable and something that would be epic.

I like DebDeb, it sounds like Deneb a little. Donk is certainly better than 18472AN1294748

Delays and costs aside, this part of the mission is cool. Bringing different stuff to the ISS has been a thing for awhile, but sending Legos around the Moon really makes me realize that at last, a crewed spacecraft will fly around the Moon again, nearly 50 years after the last one did.

https://blogs.esa.int/mex/2021/10/27/mars-express-keeps-an-ear-out-for-chinese-rover/ Missed this. Zhurong will send a blind signal out and Mars Express will try to pick it up. First test was yesterday, but no news so far. Four more attempts planned. Considering all of the news recently about space warfare, it is nice to see news about tangible international cooperation too. https://spacenews.com/china-is-planning-a-complex-mars-sample-return-mission/ Nice wrap up about what is known about Tianwen-2, China's MSR mission that will occur in the exact same timeframe (same launch windows too and fro) as the NASA-ESA one.

I think one of the major challenges of dealing with CO2 emissions in the timely manner that is required is how many administrations of varying lengths depending on the country these plans need to go through to be accomplished. Especially as emissions related stuff, due to its nature, is often a "nice have" of political decisions, as opposed to something every politician will go into wanting to keep going (like a weapons program with contractors across the country). Even the "out there" goals proposed by China and Russia could face risk (different things have gotten cancelled when leadership changes no matter how important it was to the state under the previous leader- take for example the Soviet Union's ocean-going fleet program of battlecruisers and aircraft carriers. It was fairly important to national security in the early 50s with lots of time and money invested, but was cancelled just a few months after Stalin's death).

In the defence of this situation, there has been no "decent" colonization ever- and therefore the entire concept could be deemed unseemly. However, I myself was not criticizing the term over Earthly colonization's mistreatment of the indigenous population (see my reply to mike below). Well, yes, but this is not my main criticism. Britain "colonized" North America and ultimately the colonizers themselves were treated poorly enough by the motherland that they revolted. This is my criticism over the use of the word, along with hypothetical legal issues surrounding the use of the term in regards to the rights of its inhabitants. What constitutes a crime within the colony could also be subject to debate too. Obviously, there are no indigenous inhabitants of the Moon, and therefore it doesn't really matter what you call building a self-sustaining(ish) habitat there. At the same time, as unlikely as it is, if extant life does exist on Mars or the atmosphere of Venus, it should be debated as to whether it would be ethical to establish a permanent presence there and potentially end up destroying the life. ------------------------ To be clear, my question was entirely meant to ask about the term "space colonization" in English. It is obviously a completely different case for other languages. I apologize for not being clear about that. Also to be clear, I "am criticizing" it. As in, the dictionary definition of criticism. Not the usual "kind of criticizing" different practices that there unfortunately is on the internet. Also (finally), it is aimed at organizations that use the term, not individuals (and obviously not members of the forum).

What’s up with the use of the term “space colonization”? Did whoever first came up with the term really think it through (I suppose it may have been in the 1800s, when colonization/colonialism was an acceptable thing), or was it just the word that made sense at the time? I prefer the term “planetary dispersal”, derived from oceanic dispersal (the term used for when organisms raft upon the ocean to reach a new landmass). *glares at the people who came up with the term* Like, seriously, calling your habitats colonies is basically setting yourself up for sovereignty issues a couple hundred years in the future (if you call it a colony, it will create legal issues about the rights of its inhabitants, which can morph into physical issues, which can lead to conflict).

No, but Starship will in 2023 around the Moon

The word “intelligence” might be better taken off the board then in that discussion. After all, you can say humans are more intelligent than bears because humans can create medicines to prolong their lives, but on the other hand you can say bears are more intelligent than humans because they do not kill each other and create problems over nonexistent things (within the context of each species’ own awareness of the world and behavior).

So Soyuz MS-20 will be launching on December 8th with Maezawa Yusaku (dearMoon guy, owns a textile company), his production assistant Hirano Yozo, and spacecraft commander Alexander Misurkin. A fun fact related to this- the first launch of *a* Japanese person in space was not an astronaut, but TBS (Tokyo Broadcasting System) reporter Akiyama Toyohiro. He flew on Soyuz TM-11 to Mir in 1990. Now, the first launch of two Japanese people on a single spacecraft will occur aboard Soyuz as well.

My "definition" of intelligence isn't so much some dictionary or scientific definition of intelligence per say as much as it is looking for illogicality. If those illogicalities remain unknown to a vast number of individuals despite clear kinetic issues "in their face" that should trigger a realization of what needs to be done, the entire species level of cognitive capability- which could be referred to as "intelligence"- is questionable, hence the limits of human "intelligence" possibly being the main issue in trying to solve the Changing Earth Triple Whammy of Destruction. So when I say "intelligence" I don't mean the philosophical and opinionated interpretation of it, I mean physical cognitive capability (dictated by the brain).

If humans possess the intelligence necessary to ward off the "environmental crisis trifecta" (I am going to use this to refer to climate change, ocean acidification, and pollution from here onwards) these should not be issues. "Society", "businesses", "companies", "economies", "public office", "self-interests (in reference to things like economic ties)", "wealth"- none of these things actually exist. They are just imaginary things humans came to use to control their instinctual "problem behaviors" (greed (which comes from the tendency for individuals of almost any species to primarily value themselves or their juvenile offspring over each other), distrust (again from that tendency), laziness (which is an unfortunate product of the human population and its technology building up to where a relatively small number of people provide for many and the prospect of "never ending rest" becomes real), and so on). Now these things proved useful to the different tribes in ensuring their survival, and in saving lives and improving the quality of life. It's a no brainer that working together is required to solve problems. Supposedly human individuals are capable of truly caring for each other. A food distribution apparatus obviously exists. Instantly turning off fossil fuel energy supply stations is a fantasy- apart from weekend Twitter activists, no one has seriously suggested that. Looking at a more reasonable plan- energy companies voluntarily replacing their dirty energy resources with clean ones, with government and international support around the world to ensure that happens smoothly and without causing widespread harm- there should be no real (physical) obstacles to such an endeavor, and there are nine years to do it, so an unhealthy rush is unnecessary. An intelligent species that is supposed to be capable of truly caring for each other's well being, and has the necessary apparatus in place to provide food, water, and shelter, should be able shed or temporarily retire imaginary structures like political and economic systems, if that is what is required to solve the issue. And yet, I'm sure this is simply an absurd idea for a majority of humans if I was to tell it to them. The fact that these imaginary things prevent humans from defeating this "environmental crisis trifecta", which will likely plunge human society backwards and result in hundreds of millions of deaths, would be (is?) an indicator of a limit of the intelligence of the human species. That is not to say that such "extreme" measures are actually needed to limit CO2 emissions. But if out of all of the things- ensuring the general population is fed, has clean water, functioning shelter, the logistics of trying to construct enough clean energy plants to replace the widespread use of fossil fuels, etc.- for "economics" (especially as "economics" usually pertains to the wellbeing of corporations and businesses, not actual people) and "politics" (people not working together "cause muh fears and insecurity inside muh head") to be the main problem pertaining to stopping the "environmental crisis trifecta" from coming to pass, despite all of its nightmarish potential effects, that is a major indicator of the limit of the intelligence of the human species. Emphasis on species, as this is not about the intelligence of individuals. EDIT- All of this goes in reverse for climate activists incapable of proposing anything other than "StOp cO2 EmIssIoNs noW!11" Humans are very good at starting doing stuff, but really suck at stopping. It took an idea and some campaigning to build the first US transcontinental railroad in 6 years, and some fear and a speech to land a man on the Moon in 8. But if it takes 70 million people dying and the creation of the strategy of nuclear deterrence to stop conflict between the larger of the human tribes, and even then war and aggressive kinetic actions continue to this day- with even conflict between large tribes "still on the table"- then what hope do humans have of ending their use of fossil fuels and stopping pollution? Hence, the "environmental crisis trifecta" may prove to be the limit of the capability of the intelligence of the human species to ensure its survival on both the individual and wider level, just as despite some dinosaur individuals potentially possessing the ability to identify something dangerous approaching from the sky, there was nothing effective they could have done (they were physically incapable) to prevent it from being their demise. Again, however, it is a "maybe", and I would be happy to be proven wrong. Note- When I say "proven wrong", I mean by human behavior itself. I am not suggesting we keep discussing/arguing infinitely

Assuming this is in relation to characterizing some of Elon's behavior, yes, I guess so.

I was not talking about SpaceX's design process. They are very advanced in relation to their goal in that regard and I don't think there have been any internal issues at all. I was more thinking about public relations and "non-engineering" (dealing with regulations, getting land, permits, etc.) stuff. He may not have that in a "black-and-white" manner ("textbook my way or the highway mentality") but that vibe is sort of there.

Each has extremely popularity… amongst its respective propagators. I don’t think it is a tactic being used to sway people as much as it just appears to be the most reasonable conclusion within the logic of each of their respective supporters. Because otherwise, as far as convincing people en mass goes, both are pretty poor arguments. Yes, but tobacco is just a “nice have” and regardless of its size is in no way vital to people’s livelihoods or the economy (within a much wider context, ignoring whether smoking creates social engagement opportunities which improves mental health and so on a la a statement provided by some forum members awhile back + the various people employed by it). Trying to place restrictions alone on something as vital as the energy industry would be much more difficult. To state my thought more clearly, i.e., both cases have people whose livelihoods should (have been?) taken into account, but with the energy industry other factors make restrictions alone difficult. Please correct me if I am wrong, but despite its size, certainly even the tobacco lobby was/is dwarfed by those connected to dirty energy.

“It’s about darn time!” and “I’m so happy this generation of engineers didn’t need to toe the line of a fascist state to achieve their dreams”. Also “take care of your other stuff”. von Braun was a pragmatic dude and would recognize there are numerous things that could go wrong before the first Starship performs TMI. Elon’s “my way or the highway” mentality isn’t good, and SpaceX does not exist in a vacuum (no pun intended).

I’ve seen some claim it is intended to be used to rapidly launch replacement recon satellites in the event of a war, and using a converted solid fuel ICBM is about as rapid reaction as rockets get.

It wouldn’t need to literally be the planet itself, even if it is just something in place of it as you described, it would be nice to have. I don’t recall exactly when, but wasn’t it mentioned that you would be able to study stars from a distance before traveling to them? Instead of just having everything visible in map view in the beginning. Although it isn’t entirely related, being able to see them through a telescope (or just having a telescope pet that scans them) would sort of require being able to “see” objects from very far distance.

It’s unfortunate because even if it is found that the action needed would cause great damage, at least examining the situation in detail would help to calm these “extremist” views. Instead there is either blanket statements with no data to back them up saying that action to limit CO2 emissions will destroy civilization, and on the other hand, climate activists who either out of emotion or are too “focused”* propose extreme measures that consist of a fantasy and a couple sentences with no consideration of the “other part of the Earth” (the human population). *One cannot solve a problem by declaring the other end to be “criminal” and enforcing their measures on them. The concerns and needs of the energy industry and its employees should be properly taken into account in addressing CO2 emissions, however unfortunately due to the meme-like nature of present-day Western society, there is a strong tendency to just say “their jobs are outdated Too bad for them” and pretend they don’t exist.