SunlitZelkova

Depending on the distance of the star, couldn't it be visible during twilight? It would be cool if the same could happen for planets too. Seeing Jool glow in the evening sky would be really nice while driving around the space center.

If there is hard and soft SF, Terraformars is liquid science fiction. It does make some interesting points about the nature of the treatment of insects/arachnids/bugs by humans. (Just as humans regularly kill bugs for no reason at all, even outdoors, the evolved cockroaches snap human necks at random).

I think the issue might be the scale of the problem. The asteroid deflection was actually a poor comparison because it requires only a relatively small group of individuals to defeat. On the other hand, the "trifecta" of climate change, ocean acidification, and pollution require more or less everybody changing their behavior to solve. My main "problem" isn't that society/"the species" has a hard time solving at all- it is that many people (including key people like energy execs and politicians) are actively, perhaps deliberately, ignoring the problem. Hence a limit of the intelligence of humans as a species. Some individuals can see a major problem for the ecosystem slowly approaching that would drastically affect the human species- yet the rest of the population can not be convinced (and thus presumably is physically incapable) of acting to prevent this crisis from occurring. This is where a potential limit of human intelligence- just as a few dinosaurs could have run away (acknowledged the impending danger) as the asteroid sped towards Earth in its final moments, yet the species itself could not actually save themselves- becomes visible. Of course, I would like to be proven wrong for the sake of various extant life forms. Humans depend on the ecosystems that those animals hold up for everything from fresh water to food though. If that goes away, humans could either (unlikely however) completely go extinct, or begin to adapt to the new ecosystem (however nightmarish it looks like). Without the various food items and nutrients used to keep present day humans healthy and strong, humans could evolve in a negative manner (less "intelligence"), hence human "extinction". An example of this is during the Miocene when herbivores without high-crowned teeth went extinct due to C4 grasses becoming widespread. Now humans don't have that serious of a disadvantage if the nature of the food supply was to suddenly change over a couple decades, but the lack of "normal" nutrition (plus perhaps medical care too) would have seriously negative effects. When I mentioned birth defects it was actually related to the pollution aspect only, however, not that I am thinking about it, if climate change and ocean acidification were to seriously affect the food supply, malnutrition could lead to birth defects as an indirect effect of climate change. The thing is though, no one has suggested doing so ("stopping industrialization"). It is entirely up to CO2 emitters how they go about cutting back on emissions- CO2 emitters/energy industry people certainly know better about how to do that than the activists themselves. Even the more radical of climate change action plans at least include some sentences mentioning that green energy "should" be there to replace dirty energy. Certainly the same industry that built up today's electrical/power supply network from literally nothing is capable of transforming it in the manner necessary to prevent "CO2 problems" from occurring, especially as they have 9 years to do it before major issues become unavoidable. (Apologies for the hostile sounding tone. It is not directed at you, but at the energy industry officials who refuse to even at least examine the issue in detail) Actually, I recall hearing that some low lying island nations are drawing up plans for "emergency cuts". It should be noted however that the only reason they feel they need to do this is because no one is making a serious effort to cut down CO2 emissions in an organized and safe manner otherwise.

In regards to not only India or China, but anywhere, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. All of what my post was about was not "X nation failing to live up to international expectations" but "X nation refusing to take action". I.e., not "they need to listen to us", but more so "what you do will affect everyone, so please act logically and in a timely manner in order to solve the issue at hand, because it is extremely important". The entire effort to lower and eliminate CO2 emissions is based on sovereign decisions anyways- I don't think any nation has yet to implement sanctions on another over climate change related issues. But you need large numbers of humans to have that "intelligent species". It doesn't matter how intelligent an individual is- if they can't work together to solve problems, that is a clear limit of their intelligence. Just a hypothetical example to display my logic- Humans work together to solve a major problem like an impending asteroid impact- impressive display of intelligence as a species. One human can understand that an asteroid is about to impact, designs the device to prevent the impact, but can't get other humans to help build and operate it- impressive intelligence display by the individual (human equivalent of a seal bouncing a ball on its nose on command) but a clear display of the limit of the intelligence of the human species. Unless, of course, the observer does not regard saving one's life as part of the requirement for "intelligence". To be clear, I would (will?) be very happy to be proven wrong about all of this. I don't think climate change is an extinction event for humans in the normal sense of the term. Climate change, the acidification of the oceans, and pollution all in combination might be "a" extinction event for humans, but not one where humans cease to walk the Earth (a "pop culture extinction event"). Humans will just evolve in a negative manner to the point that they are no longer human. Emphasis on might however. And I am unsure whether it counts as true evolution- it would just be humans with severe birth defects and health problems continuing to breed, with their offspring having the same effects or more. That might just be widespread defects among the population.

Yes.

Question- what was the state of Soviet space planning between Sputnik and Kennedy's announcement of the crewed lunar landing goal? Were things like the triple launch R-7 lunar landing, TMK-1, Kosmoplan, etc. just internal design bureau studies or were they actually intended to be proposed to the government for funding at some point? I want to write an alternate history where the US puts the first man in space and space development ends up being more methodical and boring.

*First purpose built maritime satellite launch platform. Previously modified cargo ships have been used. Still image of the launcher based on the DF-31 mentioned by @steve9728. Just ignore what is presumably a (training version of the?) DF-31 TEL in front of it .

I am extremely concerned about this attitude. Humans giving birth, with their offspring then healthily developing in the early stages- all in 0.38g- feels like the 21st century's "Mars' atmosphere definitely is capable of supporting gliders". Dinosaurs were, obviously, just as intelligent as any other animal apart from those in the genus Homo. But even if there were some individuals who saw a bizarre looking "star" in the sky on the eve of the K-Pg extinction event, and maybe even started to run away in the final moments, it was simply out of their capability to do anything about it. The effects of CO2 emissions might be the same for homo sapiens. Of course, there are differences. If preventing your species' extinction is to be compared with walking yourself to the emergency room after having a heart attack, the dinosaurs moved one inch before dying, whereas humans collapsed (will collapse?) a few feet away from the reception desk. There are a number of issues with this mentality. This isn't just about changed climate. There is ocean acidification to worry about as well. The fishing industry employs 14.5 million people in India as of 2020, and countless millions more likely depend upon it for their food needs. Their descendants will be out of the job (and food) if the same steps "supposedly" (I use this word to acknowledge potential criticisms of climate change models, not that I myself doubt these requirements) needed to stave off both out of "control" extreme temperatures and weather events are not taken. That's not a good recipe for political and economic stability, combined with potential food crises on the land as well. If developing countries are allowed to use this reasoning to skip out on environmental action then why should the West do it either? My aunt in Montana has a job providing housing for oil pipeline workers. She will suffer economically if environmental protection measures continue to be put in place and cover more and more areas of the energy industry and other businesses. Using such a logic opens a can of worms for everyone who relies on fossil fuels for their livelihood to use as an excuse to ignore the CO2 emission issue. Finally, what is "growth"? No one is saying that we need some sort of "reverse Soviet collectivization but with CO2 emissions" which is sloppy and results in needless suffering. If anyone bothered to think about in detail, surely with international cooperation and UN support, there is a stable way to cut back on CO2 emissions for all nations, whether poor or rich. Whether India's population is actually going to be better off in a 2030 with no CO2 emission cuts vs. one with cuts is pure speculation. And even if there "will" be suffering, it would be much better to have it occur now while international cooperation is available and it can be easily managed- because post-2050* when sea levels rise (to be clear on that, I recognize the exact effect this will have on humans is debatable), temperatures get hotter (heat stroke deaths will be a major issue), and the seas become unusable for a variety of reasons (fish no longer edible due to either microplastic contamination or simply being dead/extinct due to the harm to ecosystems as a result of damage to calcifying organisms), the suffering and reaction of the population at large will most likely be unmanageable. *All of these are simply predictions, which will vary in the "actual" outcome. But they are based on actual data- whereas the collapse of the state of India as a result of CO2 emissions cuts completely ignores political and economy reality.

Depends on your definition of “climate”. Regardless of its potential affects on extreme weather events and the sea levels, burning of fossil fuels is causing ocean acidification. This can have dangerous effects on the ability of shellfish to produce their shells, along with other developmental effects on different sea creatures. Eggs of certain calcifying creatures just die several days after having been laid due to the pH level. In places where calcifying organisms form the base of the food web, the entire food web is at risk, such as in the Arctic where commercial fishing is expected to become impossible, which of course would have its own effects on human society. I say “is” because unlike climate and sea level rise predictions, the pH value of the oceans can be measured “physically in front of you” (and based on that can then be accurately predicted several decades later based on the existing trends). It’s sad that ocean acidification is called “the other CO2 problem”, because it is basically impossible to argue against (it is based on what die-hard climate change detractors would call “real evidence”) and if it was the primary target for climate activists, the global warming issue would theoretically be automatically solved as well, because you basically need to take the same steps to stop acidification.

It’s not just marine life that is affected though, mainly because of micro plastics. Humans will no longer be able to consume seafood without raising the risk of serious health issues. The water will also become dangerous- no playing (surfing/swimming/falling in by accident/whatever) or really going near the shore at all without raising the risk of serious health issues. Of course this will lead to problems on the land as well, when organisms that feed on sea life start ingesting the contaminated prey, and then as it goes around the food web, eventually most land organisms will be affected as well. Also, the risk of famine and conflict will increase as regions that depend on marine life for food supply and income are forced to stop, lest they continue consumption and start dying in their 20s. Of course this won’t be a problem for most of the people reading this post but it will be for future generations.

I do think these things exist and I am grateful that people point them out, but I don’t think this is the case this time around. Just because one video shows things a certain way does not mean it accurately represents every single clean up op. The aspect of whether it is primarily from one source or another aside, I think the only good way to solve this is through education. It doesn’t matter if there are economic incentives or laws or whatever- this probably will not be truly solved unless those responsible for littering change their ways, just as with terrestrial littering. Better waste facilities at ports would be a good supplement to that though.

Kerbals are an unknown life form (within the context of human studies of biology) whose ancestors evolved on Eve when it may have been habitable in the past and came to Kerbin through panspermia, hence their unique properties. On the other hand, the grass is just grass that evolved on Kerbin.

Great Northern Railway (US) and the EMD F7A. Both because I like the Empire Builder and GN, and also because there happens to be one not far from where I live-

You are forgetting spacecraft that completed their primary mission and are operating on an extended one- Hayabusa2 and Chang'e 5's orbiter. Also Akatsuki is operational in orbit around Venus currently. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is operational at the Moon. Contact was lost with Clementine in 1995.

The photo released of the failed Iranian rocket test was an anomaly. I think even they wanted to, they can't because publishing photos allows others to determine the characteristics of the satellite that took it- something classified. Nonetheless, there is fearmongering all around in regards to both space and military developments in China.

Doh! I confused it with the UR-200... which also flew. From what I have read despite the original UR-500 having flown multiple times, funding was never received to develop the siloes/basing, and thus it could be considered "abandoned" as a weapon. I may be wrong though.

Regarding tactical feasibility, one has to ask really how necessary "bigger" weapons are in the first place. Most targets can already be destroyed by a 25 megaton weapon (within R-36 capability). This is why they abandoned a super heavy ICBM to lift an RDS-220 class weapon. The US never felt it needed anything on its ICBMs larger than about 9 megatons IIRC. What sort of target will require a weapon so large it needs Starship? In addition, this weapon would not be a secret. Fueling operations would take time and be detectable by different recon assets, and it will still be detectable via radar once it reenters. Russia and China both already need to contend with "next door" nuclear neighbors anyways and thus presumably have contingency plans to launch under ultra short notice (like 3 minutes, and reentry would take longer anyways for Starship).

It is too young. One can not look at the 80s and 90s space projects because they were obviously unfeasible from both an economic and technological standpoint, but the China of 2021 is very different in both of those fields. The spaceplanes are a little fanciful, but there is not that much extreme otherwise. A short list- 1. Space station + Shenzhou 2. Crewed lunar expedition (just short stays, no funding for a crewed base yet) 3. Robotic lunar exploration (just more of stuff they have already done) 4. Mars sample return 5. Asteroid sample return 6. Jupiter orbiter 7. Two Pioneer 10/Voyager class probes 8. Reusable rocket (Long March 8) This is by no means an unusually large number and is quite feasible. To compare it with NASA- 1. ISS + Commercial crew 2. Artemis (SLS and Orion) 3. VIPER and CLPS 4. Two currently operational Mars rovers + early planning for MSR 5. OSIRISEx 6. Currently operational Juno 7. Currently under development Venus probes 8. More SLS development (EUS) Granted, a number of these programs involve commercial space, but it should be noted space projects are often uber-cheap when compared to the amount of money spent on other things. Thus they are very affordable. China also does not need to worry about public opinion over costs, as no one knows how much China spends on space anyways (lol). If anything, I would be worried China is going to be more efficient than the US. It does not have regional politicians vying for election who wheel and deal useless vehicles into production, wasting money- there are basically two different companies/factories that do all of China's major aerospace manufacturing + CNSA who build probes, and they take their orders from people who don't need regional support to stay in power. The Communist Party also clearly understands the propaganda value of space too and will remain interested in it, especially considering potential economic importance regarding space. Furthermore, China does not have internal competition like the Soviet Union had with Chelomei, Korolev/Mishin, and Glushko. The capabilities and duties of the two major companies are very clear and neither has shown any sign of fighting against each other (it is also unlikely the current government would allow such inefficiency anyway).

It will be very surreal seeing SLS and Orion fully stacked. Because I don't treat space as "our thing" (as a member of humanity) and instead as "someone else's thing" (the aerospace engineers and various scientists themselves) I have had no expectations for it to "be done" as soon as possible, but in terms of observing someone else's project, I still have the mindset it should/will never be completed. I still have very clear memories of reading about SLS as a third grader, back when the graphics had it in a black and white paint scheme, and learning that the first launch was supposed to be in 2017. At the time, I thought "wow, that is very far in the future". That still feels like just yesterday and a crewed spacecraft launching beyond LEO still feels like something that should either be in the future (consigned to nice looking graphics) or in history (Apollo). It will be even more surreal watching it launch. On the other hand, Starship is very new, and I don't really try to juxtapose everything within some sort of personal narrative or view of history, so Starship development launches feel completely normal and un-abnormally interesting, despite SN8/SN9/SN10/SN11/SN15 being the size of a Space Shuttle orbiter (I have seen the Orbiter training mockup at the Museum of Flight in Seattle and therefore have some sense of Starship's scale thanks to the images people have provided here) and intended for freaking Mars.

"Asteroid exploration" is a Hayabusa style sample return launching in 2024. We now have further confirmation that China's MSR mission will be called Tianwen-2- so no Chinese Mars probes until 2028, which is when the MSR mission launches. "Boundary of the solar system exploration" is the spacecraft intended to reach 100 AU by 2049. 100 trillion RMB is 15,667,596,000,000 USD. The major news also coming out of this conference is that the Chinese government has officially approved the start of the development of the crewed phase of the lunar exploration program. Previously everything was just small internal projects of different institutions with no plan to actually go. Translation of the road map in the upper tweet, not by me- To be clear, at first these will be robotic bases. Crew can optionally follow afterwards. The approved crewed program mentioned above is currently only for expeditions, no approval of a crewed lunar base yet. On the space policy side of things- I imagine many of you are laughing at the name of this meeting, but I for one like Soviet/post-Soviet ultra-long commission/document/project/whatever names! And on the defence side of things- https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/questions-linger-over-chinas-reported-hypersonic-space-weapon-test/ This is a pretty decent article on the whole hypersonic FOBS debacle. Quotes that sum it up (emphasis added by me)- Before anyone starts assuming China is going to build an artificial black hole above US airspace (because physics), or decides to build a massive orbital ASAT combat network to shoot down Chinese nuke sats, or "does dumb stuff", I recommend watching a documentary called the The Atomic Cafe. If you take that and then use it as a sort of "mental filter" over current events, it is pretty funny.

I forgot about that. But due to widespread belief in the West that it is treaty violating, it could be used as justification by future US officials for treaty smashing, something that I would think the PRC would take care to not let happen, but it is an easy thing to miss, so maybe they don't care. By mainstream do you mean Chinese people in China? And which media? For domestic Chinese viewer's skepticism or belief in the media, I don't think anyone can say for sure. Western statistics gathers and political commentators are likely just going to find the data they want to see, and of course Chinese state sources will tell you trust in the media is high. Taking a look at how much people trusted the media in the USSR during the 60s and 70s might give you some idea though. I'm not sure what Russian viewer's skepticism/belief in the media is so I can't comment.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20211018_30/ The Chinese Foreign Ministry has denied it has tested a weapon. A test of a reusable space vehicle did occur in July however. I am inclined to believe the spokesperson. Even if such a system can be logical, blatantly violating the OSW Treaty seems uncharacteristic of the image China is *trying* (or at least professes to want to) to produce for itself. Maritime laws in relation to historical territorial claims are one thing but strategic arms treaties?

It is very possible but this having occurred at all sounds iffy. We will have to wait to see if this comes up in any of the threat briefings for Congress in the future. It would be. There are GEO components to it. To continue on that note and in reply to that final tweet, the thing about this is that it is no longer about destroying the early warning network or making a stealth strike anymore. It is instead for evading the ABM interceptors, regardless of whether they see you coming or not. And while GBI is stuck in Alaska, the SM-3 has been successfully tested against ICBM targets, which is probably especially spooky considering China’s small nuclear arsenal. FOBS + HGV thus kind of makes sense, as an alternative to simply expanding to a Soviet level ICBM force. That said, there is still no evidence it is actually underway. But there is potential logic to these claims.

I hope we will see a Vega analog. It would be unique not only in the color of its light, but also shape.

I’m not sure if it is official (present in actual documents and so on) in that sense of the word, but both NASA and Roscosmos have used those two terms in their PR.