SunlitZelkova

*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.

Three questions- 1. How do rocket paint schemes work? Is it just to make it look cool, or do the black portions of the Saturn series and the grey of the Soyuz boosters actually have a purpose? 2. Why do modern Soyuz variants still get GRAU designations? Is it because the original Soyuz had it so the modern variants still get it, or am I not realizing how close Russia's space industry is to the military in modern times? 3. This is not a question I am seeking a definitive answer for as much as it is one that I am curious to hear the opinions of the members of this forum on. To what extent would you (anyone who chooses to respond) say that as subjects of interest, the military and space exploration are intertwined? Is one's interest in military affairs enriched and enhanced by also holding an interest in space, and/or is one's interest in space enriched and enhanced by also holding an interest in military affairs (or at least paying attention to it a little)?. On this forum pure (but brief) pure military equipment related questions often come up and a number of space related discussions have drifted into military technology and operations recently. On the other hand, in the military video game forums I am a member of, while discussion of reconnaissance satellite constellations and ASAT capabilities does occur, mention of space is not common, apart from the occasional KSP meme. I myself am not sure how I would answer the question, but I can say that it was much easier learning about the Soviet space program having already acquired prior knowledge of the USSR's ballistic missile and nuclear weapon development (from pure military, non-space related sources, prior to my re-interest in space).

Crew is as follows- Commander- Zhai Zhigang (PLA Strategic Support Force Major General, became the first Chinese person to walk in space in 2008) Operator- Wang Yaping (PLAAF Colonel, deputy of the National People's Congress, second Chinese woman in space, visited Tiangong-1) System operator- Ye Guangfu (PLAAF Colonel, first spaceflight) More pictures from the launch- Six is considered fast. Soyuz used to take two days to dock with the ISS but the 6 hour docking flight profile first used on Soyuz TMA-08M is referred to as a "fast rendezvous and docking". Soyuz MS-17 used an "ultra fast" rendezvous and docking profile, docking in 3 hours.

Mission profile of China's asteroid sample return mission, which will launch in 2024. It is currently being referred to as Zheng He, after the early Ming era maritime explorer. --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- I think the Chinese commercial companies have a much better shot at nailing reusability compared to the government funded Long March 8R. Of course, I hope both will be successful, but not much visible progress has been seen on the LM-8R and I am a little skeptical of whether the "old space" ballistic missile manufacturers have the will to deal with the failures to eventually succeed.

Maybe it folds back.

What I meant by Wild West is that there is civilization but not necessarily "someone" there to help one's self immediately, and maybe some crime waves from time to time. Thank you for your reply! I am going to color quote your post and my response is indicated by the color. The reply to the astrixed notes at the end are indicated by the number of astrixes. I don't disagree. To clarify my position, I am not saying that nuclear weapons will destroy the environment which will then lead to societal collapse, I am saying that the physical destruction from then nuclear weapons- that is, the blast, ignoring radiation- will then cause economic havoc which will then lead to societal collapse. So not so much "things (like hospitals, factories, etc.) have been physically destroyed so society cannot survive", but more so "key nodes in this imaginary system called the economy that humans have created to control and regulate their greed have been physically destroyed so the rest of the system will topple". I don't disagree with this part per say, but I still maintain my doubts. Yes, Xboxes and Tractors are unnecessary and life will go on without them, but this was not really my point (I should have made it clearer, I apologize). https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Economic-impact.pdf https://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919216305851 The first is about the non-kinetic effects of nuclear weapons. Effects on agricultural are not heavily mentioned but electricity is still necessary for food mass production (of the level needed to maintain the needs of the millions of survivors) and of course with how people are supposed to obtain the food is also an issue. Rationing? Are these millions of survivors migrating from the cities really going to peacefully stand in line for days just to get something that can barely feed their family? Thus start the food riots, which devolve into crime or wars, and thus society collapses. One might argue that "thanks" to the famine, eventually the number of mouths will drop to a level that the food production system can feed without issue, but those potential famine victims will not go quietly into the night. The next is about food security on the individual level. This is why the southern hemisphere is in danger of collapsing as well even if the nuclear war is limited to the northern hemisphere. Money will still exist in the southern hemisphere which makes trying to feed people even more harder. For most of its history capitalism hasn't exactly been great at adjusting to help those in need when their numbers skyrocket to become the majority. Thus conflict, revolution, war, and societal collapse, at least on the national level. The last is about food security on the national level. This isn't an overview of food security itself as much as it is an explanation of how to interpret food self-sufficiency graphs (which often are just percentages with no explanation). Unfortunately I could not find a national food self-sufficiency graph apart from this one from the Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries which has been archived on Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_self-sufficiency_rate - most cover individual food security. If the No. 8 country on the list is already at 40% (37% as of 2020), what can be expected of the developing world? Hence the food riots, conflict, and then societal collapse on the national level. Even if the tools to make food "are there", unfortunately large numbers of humans don't really do "stuff physically"- an imaginary system exists in their minds that quickly gets overcomplicated and inefficient (note- this is not to argue that "imaginary system" isn't necessary- but it does indeed have faults)- hence I am skeptical that survivors could regroup and feed themselves, followed by rebuilding society. The whole Wild West thing was about what society might "look" (literally look) like, not the exact nature/mechanics of it. I think I am going to drop this statement because it is unnecessary. *- Answered by my response in green. **- It is important to also take into account the effects of fires burning uncontrollably which would suffocate victims. Dresden had modern buildings yet the number of casualties was still high. People survived in modern buildings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably because there were few people in them at the time- both bombings occurred with no warning. If you get hundreds of people into basements you will end up with lots of deaths from asphyxiation. ***- This was presumably just a note about some of your figures so no response. ****- I don't disagree that national level organization could eventually arise again *someday*, but whether it will manage to reach the same level of technology and sophistication is something I am skeptical of. In regards to your last sentence, I think this is another opportunity to clarify my position. In a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, yes, the damage to structures would be different from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but the death toll would be far higher, economic effects just as devastating as the WWII air raids on Japan, and whether people would really be up for getting behind the same people who will probably be held by many as the initiators of the war (the ruling national government) for an "Arduous March" style movement towards recovery is dubious. Thus, my position is not that the physical damage from nuclear weapons will cause societal collapse, but that the non-kinetic effects will eventually lead to it. ---------------------------------------- I apologize to you two for suddenly disappearing from the conversation. Some stuff occurred in real life and I was unable to reply immediately.

The "things" are indeed there for revival of civilization, but I am skeptical whether people would have the will to work towards restoring things to their pre-war state- the state which lead them to the war in the first place. Civilization has advanced up to its point now because each generation advancing it felt they had to- had been raised to have to. After a war once things reach to a certain minimum level (the Wild West and/or 17th century towns and villages) I do not believe the population would feel any need to go further than that, as they will continually be raised in an environment where food and child rearing is the number one priority- and beyond that is a distraction. It might be a "Wild West" with 1990s level medical care- but not the continental spanning singular societies/civilizations from before the war. These are mainly just the aftermath of religiously or power driven* empires from earlier history that eventually got to the point where no one in the general population realized what they were doing and have become the numerous democracies or republics we have today. *power driven, but this "power drive" was bound by a sense that power was necessary to advance because they had to in order to extend their life and interests (the same need to advance described earlier) and would not exist for the same reason given earlier. I think we agree on the facts- there will be lots of surviving towns (intact pieces of civilization) and the resources needed to rebuild wider civilization will be available- but our disagreement would lie in our views of human nature in a major (nation-wide) disaster situation, which are outside the field of science and other analytics. Yes, my scenario for whether civilization could revive itself or not was with Cold War arsenals and tactics. With real life modern day arsenals it is a completely different question and my opinion basically aligns with yours. But arms related factories will either be targets themselves or lie close to targeted cities. I don't think the prior authority figures will survive as they too will be targets themselves. And the civilians will not rely on the army to get them food either because of a lack of trust or reasons related to certain beliefs. People will work together, but not nation or state/province sized organizations. The Wild West thing wasn't related to the state of survivors in the immediate aftermath, it was about how civilization would ultimately end up- relatively modern amenities spread here and there, but no nation level cooperation and also frequent lawlessness.