SunlitZelkova

No. But it is a possibility. If we were just going based on probability, the study of life on Mars as a whole is convoluted and the instruments installed on various past spacecraft have been a tremendous waste of time and money. Again though, none of that is what I (nor many others interested in searching for life on Mars) am suggesting. SpaceX and Musk could very easily do an MSR mission on their own dime with little delay to their schedule. Starship development need not be halted, and once the samples come back, even if there does turn out to be extant life on Mars, it won't automatically rule out human exploration- but the scientific community and the public deserve the right to discuss what steps should be taken.

I just watched Shatner in Space on Amazon Prime. Non-spoiler takeaways- 1. The people who do their Twitter PR are clearly different from whoever came up with the idea to do this documentary. It was pretty neat, and made Blue Origin look like a healthy company. 2. Obviously a couple posts above me, but also during the first crewed launch with Bezos, I recall people mentioning the coverage was painful, limited to a ground based tracking camera shot of the rocket (I may be misremembering that part). This featured a camera on the side of the rocket looking downwards, and camera apparently mounted somewhere on the side of the capsule, with a view of the booster separating. Odd that that isn't regular. Full review (spoilers)- Conclusion (no spoilers)- If you don't mind PR-type things (with the associated gushing over the CEO, soft ball questions, and all around love fest for the product featured), it is worth a watch, not for BO or New Shepard, but to have a look at the experience of one man's short trip into space and how it affected him. If you expect actually useful information, details, plans, and a proper educational experience, don't watch it, as that is not what this is. Bonus feature (no spoiler)- An interesting line appears where Bezos unintentionally explains why BO is so slow in development. Basically, his philosophy is something to the effect of "be ultra-steady on the vision, be flexible with the plan". This obviously contrasts to SpaceX's- and Musk's- statements that breaking stuff fast is necessary to move forward. Bezos later makes a statement saying something to the effect of "it's going to take time [to get to space]". I am unsure whether this actually has an impact on why BO is the way it is, or whether it doesn't matter at all. I can't think of any technical reason the BE-4 should have taken this long, nor New Glenn, and there is certainly little good reason why BO proposed the lander that it did for HLS. I think criticisms like expecting Bezos to completely fund HLS, etc., are a little "armchair CEO"-like, but there are certainly major issues with the company itself that are preventing it from accomplishing its goals. ------ The observations are all within the context of "looking at a space corporation doing space things". As far as proper behavior as human beings (namely in the treatment of their employees) and whether what BO is doing is actually the "correct" manner in which people should be trying to get to space in an efficient manner goes, I have much more scathing opinions of BO. And that's not to hate on BO. I have equal criticisms of SpaceX's behavior, although at the very least, their space operations and methods of getting to space are actually efficient and useful.

Even if NASA were to take until 2040 to launch their sample return mission, and something happened with CNSA's mission, as I mentioned earlier, SpaceX can do it themselves. The ethical issue is in that they are ignoring the views of others, resulting in an irreversible consequence. It is hard to be inspired by SpaceX if they are literally just going to be your average corporation unconcerned with other's opinions. Dubious real estate claims are one thing to ignore, but scientists wishes to preserve the Martian environment are completely valid and should be respected. No, all Soviet craft that malfunctioned and failed to reach Mars successfully were either flyby probes or lander-orbiter combinations, the latter of which was obviously sterilized, and the former of which none impacted the planet. The point is though that others are concerned about it- not just random SpaceX haters, actual scientists interested in studying past or present life on Mars- and thus their concerns should be taken into account. It isn't about no Earth life organisms at all, it is about preserving the Martian environment as is, at least long enough to see if anything is there. Interestingly, in this scenario, contamination wouldn't matter because we are able to date fossils of Earth organisms. But, the possibility is still there for extant life (no matter how low) and native Martian life. No matter how low the probability is, it is still something that merits investigation. I have never heard the term "areographic", and that may not actually be a word, but it does sound cool.

That’s the entire point of MSR. NASA has a specific policy of not moving forward with a crewed Mars program until MSR happens. CNSA presumably has a similar policy (their MSR mission takes place during the same windows as the NASA-ESA one) while Roscosmos and the other agencies likely are incapable of doing a crewed Mars mission on their own. Now if life is found to still be extent on Mars, that isn’t going to automatically rule out crewed exploration, but a proper discussion amongst the international scientific community should (and probably will be) held to decide what to do. Not only for loss of potential discoveries, but also due to ethical reasons, it would be pretty disappointing if SpaceX ruined that. They don’t need to stop developing Starship, they just need to wait until MSR is complete or do it themselves before flying one to Mars.

Any contamination is unacceptable. If it turns out there is extant life on Mars, they would potentially end up killing it all with Earth organisms before follow up studies can be conducted.

Yes, most definitely. CIWS, at least the Phalanx, are already capable of handling 122mm and higher caliber artillery shells- certainly they can handle 356mm battleship shells. One would assume Russian and Chinese systems have similar performance. Even if it does not detonate, it would be probably be able to disable it anyways by punching holes in critical systems, namely the engines. Just Google “Arleigh Burke class cutaway” (I would post an image here but I am on my phone). Even without anti-ship missiles, battleships were basically useless in a great power conflict post-1945. Just look at what happened to Yamato, which was attacked by dumb bombs and torpedoes. I think the USN just kept them around for naval gunfire support in the various proxy wars they expected to fight.

Wouldn’t using Starship itself be ruled out? They can’t sterilize it. In fact, if Starship does get to Mars before any MSR mission (Tianwen-2 or the NASA-ESA one) won’t that basically screw over the search for life on Mars? That said though, you would think they would do their own MSR mission first, or do one for someone else (as armchair space company CEO as that sounds).

1. In aerospace, has CAD made engineering more efficient, take less time to finish development [of things], or both? 2. Is the long time it takes to develop a crewed spacecraft in the 21st century inherent to all crewed spacecraft, or could a spacecraft be developed in a much shorter amount of time, albeit while sacrificing some safety?

How many missions did “they” (design bureau or government) plan to fly for the L3 program before either cancelling it or moving forward with the L3M and DLB? Or did they not get that far in planning? The 1964 decision, prior to the L3 adopting a double launch flight profile, had two “reserve” N1s after the first crewed landing, but I am wondering if anything further was planned after that.

https://spacenews.com/chinas-new-rocket-for-crewed-moon-missions-to-launch-around-2026/ This is the 921 rocket, also known as the Long March 5DY, and which I personally think could end up being the lucky rocket to receive the designation "Long March 10" (which AFAIK has not been used yet despite the LM-9 and LM-11 existing). To be clear though, this is the equivalent of Korolev or Chelomei saying "we (our design bureau) will launch the Moon rocket by 1967". What the Chinese government's schedule looks like is still unclear. On the other hand, preliminary development work appears to be underway- http://finance.people.com.cn/n1/2021/1103/c1004-32272645.html This is a 3.8m diameter LOX tank (test article I think, this is being done with Google Translate), with a length of 21 meters- the longest such tank China has produced. The article mentions it being related to development of a "new carrier rocket". However, there are no known Long March rockets under development with that diameter. Thus, it could be concluded that this is related to the development of the Long March 5DY, as it will use stretched LM-5 cores. Development may be even further along according to the article below, although I am personally a bit more skeptical. It claims thrust structures are already undergoing testing. https://www.lianeon.org/p/chinas-mysterious-manned-moon-rocket Reading this article however, I kind of wonder about the LM-5DY's purpose and origins. Perhaps CASIC decided to take advantage of signs NASA was looking into a crewed lunar program post-Asteroid Redirect, certainly their top executives and engineers are kept apprise of American developments, and there is no doubt the MSS does its best to keep tabs on what's happening at NASA. They may have decided to take advantage of that politically to make a crewed landing happen quicker (elderly Chinese aerospace engineers want to put people on the Moon ASAP just as engineers and space fans alike presumably do in the US) by offering a, in theory, cheaper rocket for the job. The LM-5DY uses stretched LM-5 cores and, for the most part, new versions of engines that already exist. This would certainly be much safer than attempting to develop an entirely new super heavy launch vehicle (Long March 9). In contrast with the completely new LM-9, the LM-5DY uses a proven concept- "triple core-ing" an existing rocket. This would be very attractive in the face of a hypothetical threat of American domination of lunar exploration. LEO is "free"- everyone knows that. But when a hab gets planted down on something as "local" as the Moon, and a nation starts regularly exploring and theoretically mining an area, no one knows what will happen. If I was a high ranking Chinese strategist, given the fate of something as simple as the Open Skies Treaty, I would not put much faith in "the other OST". The Chinese government does appear to have taken interest in the establishment of a lunar economy. The urgency surrounding the issue wouldn't really be "get there first" as much as it would be "get there in the most efficient manner, as quick as feasible (but of course take the necessary time and don't rush)". ------ On another note, in case you are wondering what happened to it, the Long March 9 appears to have evolved into China's answer to Starship- basically a Saturn V class rocket using a Falcon 9 mission profile, if not during the first launches, which will likely be expendable, eventually. It will play no major role in the potential crewed lunar program apart from launching very large base modules.

Charcoal would indicate a plant (which also could have been flung to the Moon). What one would look for would literally be dinosaur ashes.

I think what you mean is not have KSP2 have its own core "unsolvable" issues in a similar manner to some that KSP1 has. Problems from KSP1 should be mostly fixed, it is KSP2 after all. Speaking of the second part, in the event KSP2 "new parts/craft mechanics" is basically limited to more powerful propulsion, and Making History parts and Breaking Ground parts get added to stock KSP2, I wonder what options there could be for KSP2 DLCs. Including Breaking Ground parts in the stock game would not automatically prevent them from adding new DLCs.

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.