SunlitZelkova

I know what ERA stands for in this case, but it is very funny to imagine them installing Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor on Nauka.

Outbound Flight, as a tribute to the attempted intergalactic colonization mission in Star Wars.

I was assuming the war has started for other reasons. Then SpaceX gets attacked, whereas if it does not pursue a Starship combat variant, it might be left alone. Starship isn't useful as an ICBM though because it is liquid fueled. Now the Titan II managed to do 24 hour alerts but regardless of whether Starship can be redesigned to do that, building a silo for Starship would be prohibitively expensive.

Space APS? 1. This is a bad idea. It will just invite attack on SpaceX launch facilities themselves. Better to just accept sats getting destroyed. Also armoring of a satellite does not matter because the impact will likely destabilize the satellite anyways. 2. This won't work. The re-entering Starship will be detected by radars, even mobile ones like the AN/TPY-2 (THAAD), AN/MPQ-63 (Patriot), and presumably the S-400 and S-500, will be able to provide early warning. Again, this will just invite attack on SpaceX launch facilities themselves. And if SpaceX launch facilities get attacked, a Mars City can be kissed good bye. SpaceX development facilities would become key targets too.

Within the story, the Artemis missions aren't building lunar infrastructure or any thing. They just go there, "do science", and go back- the true purpose of the program is mainly propaganda. Boca Chica is destroyed in the war so no Mars cities, but Russia and Europe emerge as the sole developed areas of the world so it will be interesting to see where ESA and Roscosmos go. R-7 development began in 1953 as the R-6 and it took four years to get to the first launch, but afterwards launches occurred at a decent pace (multiple per year, although granted that was uncrewed so the development was impeded by a high need to "make it work"). I am assuming once they get to the first launch, it won't be *too* hard to launch again. SLS Blk 1B might be a different case though.

I am currently writing a timeline for my alternate history where the COVID-19 pandemic never happened, and although the main point is the lead up to a major conflict in 2027 (which I am portraying in another video game, which is the point of this alternate history), I am including space achievements as well. How does this look for Artemis? November 2021- Artemis 1 August 2023- Artemis 2 October 2025- Artemis 3 March 2027- Artemis 4 (with SLS Blk 1B)

https://castic.cyscc.org/35/lectures/lecture1.html Long Lehao, basically modern China's Glushko in terms of position in the space industry (but without the economic trouble and infighting with Chelomei to slow him down), has given a lecture at the 35th National Youth Science and Technology Innovation Competition. Interesting takeaways- 1. The first prototypes of the YF-130, YF-135, and YF-90 engines for the Long March 9 have been fabricated. 2. First crewed lunar landing date has "officially" been decided as 2030 by CNSA. That is, this is the target date they are working with in development. It should be noted a crewed lunar landing has not yet appeared in any approved economic plans.

It was actually the Chiss at the request of Palpatine, because if Outbound Flight (the intergalactic spacecraft) had managed to leave the galaxy, it would have alerted the Yuzhaan Vong and lead them to attack while the galaxy was in a weak state militarily. Checking Wookieepedia, the "higher force" was the celestials (like the family on Mortis). It was theorized by Imperial scientists that they created the disturbances in hyperspace to protect the galaxy from something either entirely foreign or something they had exiled. EDIT- Didn't realize the meaning of your question.

Canon or Legends? In one Legends novel, it was theorized the Force could have been used to clear a path through the disturbances, and although that expedition was destroyed by Palpatine and my have also been impeded by some higher force that I don't recall at the moment (within the novel that is), it might have worked, or might work, following the end of "the wars" whether that be in Canon or Legends.

I don't think so. The mainstream political narrative is that America is under threat of losing its position as number one in the world, but has not yet lost it. The Sputnik Crisis and the reaction was brought about by the perception the US was behind, so I don't think the US will ever see such a series of events again. Also, that tweet is in reference to China's nuclear arsenal. Not their space program, which American observers like to describe as being behind the US. That said, at least in Oregon and Washington there is already a decent campaign to push STEM. And it was already there before "great power competition" became a thing. Not sure about how the rest of the US is doing though.

I think the reports of decreasing bird nests could use third party confirmation, but I don't think the US Fish and Wildlife Service would fabricate problems.

???

When was the model of the Vostok constructed at the VDNKh? In other words- when did the configuration of the R-7 derived rockets become publicly known?

They are probably going to go there anyways. I recall you mentioning that Project Horizon PDFs are gone, I looked at them a long time ago before Artemis and it mentioned a number of military applications for the Moon lol.

As I said- I am not a wildlife conservationist. When I refer to "concerns", I am not talking about some list of grievances I have next to my computer, I am talking about the fact that there is concern from members of the public over potentially extreme impact on different species. I am not necessarily talking about the law, I am talking about what they can do outside of "they are required to". NASA has no legal obligation to take all of the Stewardship actions they do at KSC to mitigate their impact. They do it because they care about the environment. Likewise, I simply suggest the most humane way to deal with the concerns of the public and improve SpaceX's image would be to do their best to mitigate where possible and invite third party persons or groups to do an assessment of SpaceX's impact so we can see what it actually is beyond "there are fewer bird nests so Starbase bad". There is a solution to this conflict beyond steamrolling. The people concerned have presented a number of justified reasons to be concerned. Examples from this article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-site-boca-chica-texas-60-minutes-plus/ - These are not all random activists by the way. One of the entities concerned is the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, this is not about legal requirements. It is about what they should do beyond what they are required to do, if they wish to solve this problem like human beings. I am not arguing against a tunnel, or further expansion of Starbase- even expansion that would increase environmental impact. I am suggesting a way to ease those concerned over the environmental impact to solve the issue humanely, instead of steamrolling. --------------------------------------- I would like to clarify again all of my criticisms are aimed at SpaceX, not SpaceX fans.

I am not trying to pinpoint run off from parked cars or one particular issue. A spaceport can have a range of effects on the environment. I think it is unfeasible to completely stop all damage, but I suggest that the best method to ease environmentalists' concerns is to try to mitigate damage where possible. This is possible as seen in the report I linked. This is not about BO. If environmentalists start bringing up major issues over the BO site at KSC, then that will be a topic of discussion for the BO thread. Again, this "they did it so it is ok for me to do it" is a poor argument for the defence of SpaceX. It would be much easier to defend SpaceX if they would at least try a little in certain areas. But so long as they completely ignore environmentalists' concerns and appear to occasionally make "mistakes" like using refuge land as a parking lot, there will be reason to protest their activities at Starbase. I am not saying they need to halt development at its current pace and go full on green. They just need to try where they can and perhaps invite some outside professionals to take a look at the impact, which would help ease concerns. Of course, I suggest this on the assumption SpaceX actually cares what the public thinks. If they don't and believe "what I think is right and what others think is not" then they can steamroll and Starbase will probably be completely fine anyways. But the PR will not be good. This is certainly true but I don't think the environmentalists concerned about Starbase really care. They ideally want both no Starbase and no hotels and other tourist structures. Choosing "the lesser of two evils" is likely out of the question for them. They will always be concerned, but by doing the things I suggested and showing they care at least a little, it becomes harder to support the environmentalists position. So long as SpaceX completely ignores them however, public sympathy will lie with the environmentalists, not so much because the public actually cares about the species in danger, but because such "rude moves" are generally frowned upon, regardless of the subjects involved.

But does it really make a difference if they do *a thing* in 2024 vs. 2029?

I agree, but I have seen *a* report by an American institution directly challenging the "totalitarian systems stifle innovation" theory pointing out some areas where the authors of the report believed Russia and China were ahead (or at least on par or nearing on par) with the US, mainly in military-related robotics (in the case of Russia, I can't recall the exact equipment/achievement used as an example) and supercomputing (for China). My post was more so "what I hope happens" rather than what is or might happen, or is likely to happen.

I am sure the environmentalists feel that the most ideal solution to Starbase's environmental impact would be to not build a spaceport in a National Wildlife Refuge (that is, shut down Starbase) in the first place, too. There are valid reasons why China had to build its spaceports in inland locations. Likewise, I recognize there are valid reasons to select Boca Chica as the site of Starbase. It is unrealistic to expect those reasons to be ignored, and for inland Chinese launch centers to be closed or Starbase to shut down. But SpaceX should at least try to mitigate their environmental impact and release a report similar to the one I linked, just as China should try to reduce the area the boosters fall in to prevent it from hitting populated areas. Or space entities can just ignore them, much in the same manner as how other organizations and corporations ignore public concerns for their own self benefit. That option will likely be successful. But it will damage SpaceX's image and make them look more like a "corporation that doesn't care" rather than just an innovative company working for humanity's benefit.

The American interpretation is that there are goals, and each participant in the race tries to achieve the goal first. China does not care about being first, and thus they aren't in a race. But there is no way the Artemis "coalition" can occupy the entire base-suitable areas before China can get something there. Unless they want to withdraw from the OST and claim part of it as territory. NASA says 2024 but even ignoring that political date, there seems to be optimism it will be in the 2020s. This is a good point. Yes, but China is going to do all of that with or without other nations. There isn't really much to lose strategically. China does not need nuclear powered satellites as the nature of their maritime surveillance constellation does not require a satellite of the same specifications as US-A. But it is a technological dead end, while Long March 9 could potentially be semi-reusable. That may be the case, but even if the CSS does have military applications I am not sure how much benefit there would be to access to Western technology. If it was the early 2000s it would be easy to argue that China participating in the ISS could have a wide range of benefits for their military modernization programs, but now, not as much. Especially as time continues. So even if cooperation is off the table in 2021, I hope at least something along the lines of Apollo-Soyuz, or maybe Skylab-Salyut, becomes viable in the future.

Littering does have a positive- the person littering is not burdened with having to find a waste bin. Likewise in the reverse, houses, apartments, and hotels, and a spaceport, are all subjectively positive. Boca Chica does not have a homelessness issue and thus there is little to no requirement for new housing, likewise the supposed "existential threats to humanity" largely exist only within the minds of SpaceX Mars City supporters (and building a city on Mars is hardly the most efficient solution to these existential threats) and therefore there is no need to build a spaceport. Expeditions to Mars (not colonization), the more realistic outcome of the Starship program, are also just a "want" and therefore can be viewed as unnecessary. It does not matter whether something else was going to be built on the grounds of Starbase or not. People with environmental concerns are not trolls trying to turn SpaceX into a boogieman to the point of lying. They don't care whether it is SpaceX or some real estate firm- a thing is there, and environmental protection measures are not evidently being taken, and therefore they are concerned. SpaceX is not the issue- it is their seeming lack of care towards mitigating environmental damage. KSC comparisons do not work as a defence against SpaceX because as noted in the report I linked, part of the reason why KSC does not massively negatively impact the endangered species of the area is because NASA actually tries to mitigate environmental damage where possible. There is zero indication SpaceX is doing the same, and thus environmentalists are rightfully concerned. You might be willing to "roll the dice" on that coastline, but others are not. Again, if SpaceX wants to combine "China speed and then some", with "China ignorance of public concerns", they will probably be fine anyways, but it will be a PR disaster. I simply suggested they engage with the environmentalists in the form of a report similar to the one I linked on KSC. Even if some major damage is unavoidable, that's fine, but they at least need to try to some extent. Not necessarily to the point of slowing development- but they need to try. Heck, at least China is trying to address one public concern (spent boosters falling on populated areas) with parafoils and other measures. SpaceX could at least bother to release a report like the one I linked with outside help, even if it they don't plan to take any further protective measures afterwards. They have to prove that with a report similar to the one I linked on KSC. Until then, environmentalists have right to be concerned. And again, KSC is a very, very poor comparison. KSC is actually vital to national security and the decision to build it there was made when environmental protection measures were non-existent. Just because KSC does it does not justify Musk having the right to do it, especially for something as (in the eyes of other people) fanciful and unnecessary as Mars. In addition, KSC actually takes measures to reduce its impact. There is no sign SpaceX does that. I'm not saying SpaceX has to slow development to a snail's pace and send a guy out there to collect the endangered small animals before each launch like in that one scene from Space Force. They just have to try their best. I suggest they do that as I hope they will find a humane way to address the concerns of different groups about their operations in some form. But again, the moral-less option will likely work as well. ------------------------------------------ I'd like to clarify none of this is directed at any member of the forum. I am criticizing SpaceX, not SpaceX fans.

Yes, that's true, but the people concerned about the environmental impact don't care about what-ifs. They are concerned about what is happening right now. Even if the environmental impact cannot be reduced to the extent that at least some harm to wildlife is prevented, they still should try if they are serious about stopping the "tree hugger issue" like human beings. Not that completely not caring and ignoring them will necessarily not work either. I don't recommend the use of such an argument in defence of SpaceX. It basically sounds like someone being fined for littering and saying "Your Honor, you use the roads too and must know how they look. If I didn't do it, someone else was going to, so I have done no wrong". While I agree these emails appear to be fabricated- and even if they were, they should have no impact whatsoever on how the space industry actually goes about doing stuff, I would like to comment on a couple of things, to offer a different perspective on your "realpolitik"- Spoilered as I do not have an intention of dragging out this aspect of the discussion of the emails.

I'm not sure what level of detail is acceptable... NASA will often choose very simple questions for example... but here is one- "Why does the space station use electric propulsion?" ------------------------------------------------- The Global Times, the English language affiliate of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the CPC, seems to agree with my assessment of the Venator-class [People's] Republic attack cruiser- The Global Times is interesting because unlike RT whose main purpose seems to be to foment chaos, GT screams actual CPC policy to a certain extent, alongside bombastic threats from time to time. ----------------------------------------- This is bad thinking. China itself is not in a Space Race, but simply wants to match US achievements as they go along (in terms of space). They have literally declared multiple times they don't intend to beat the US return to the Moon and instead are planning for crewed landings in the 2030s, maybe the late 2020s. At this point in the game, I am curious what point there is in requiring transparency for cooperation. China doesn't really have anything to learn from US space technology at this point (in fact, SLS would be a step backwards, lol), and if leaks regarding reconnaissance assets are a possibility, it should be noted Russia- which has been described multiple times as "a potential adversary" by the US- would hypothetically (within the US threat assessment) want to do the same and yet has not. Peaceful cooperation in space would be an excellent way to ease tensions. And there aren't a lot of places where that can occur right now. On the other hand, maybe it is good? If the American space industry as whole believes it is in a Space Race, it will force more innovation and result in new spaceflight projects.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261400960_Ecological_Impacts_of_the_Space_Shuttle_Program_at_John_F_Kennedy_Space_Center_Florida This is interesting regarding the "truth" behind the environmental impact of KSC. I put truth in quotation marks because I dislike the use of such a word, and all I mean by "the truth" is something actually based on data instead of "I saw some animals when I went to KSC so it's all good". There are indeed negative affects on wildlife in the area but it is either non-threatening to the affected species as a whole or is mitigated through certain practices. These are also complemented by some positive affects on the area. Due to degradation of the lagoon and the increase of the population elsewhere, the KSC section of the Banana River became a sanctuary for Manatees (an endangered species). ET transport and SRB recovery ops were not known to cause harm to the manatees. That said, these positive effects are not a given- rocketry does not just happen to be nice on the environment. NASA has deliberately worked to reduce its environmental impact, as indicated by these quotes from the paper- This "tree hugger problem" (which is what I would describe it as based on many of the forum members' reaction and SpaceX's silence on the issue) could be solved by SpaceX's openness. If SpaceX, with outside assistance, were to do a report like the above, concerns on both sides would be basically gone. SpaceX would also need to show what they are doing to mitigate their environmental impact. I would very much like them to do so, and it would be good for themselves too, but unfortunately I am skeptical this will ever happen. SpaceX's fast development style does not sound like it mixes with environmental awareness, and "a Musk company"'s previous attempts to mitigate public concerns over its project began on a good note (attempting to reduce the albedo of Starlink satellites) but if I recall correctly, it ended in a Starlink rep saying something to the effect of "it is time for professional and amateur astronomers to cease their sense of entitlement over the night sky". On the other hand, unlike the night sky, wildlife is actually protected by law, so even if SpaceX does nothing, if environmentalists can get the data together, they probably can find some way to halt Starbase operations. And the signs are not good. A quote from a CBS article linked earlier by @JoeSchmuckatelli- SpaceX should engage with these environmentalists and take at least some environmental protection measures now while they can, instead of waiting until there is an obvious "dead zone" around Boca Chica and "missing species" and SpaceX forever has its name tarnished. In addition, there is a good argument against the "because KSC does it it is ok" argument in defence of Starbase. KSC was established when "dilution is the solution to pollution" was a thing and environmental protection laws were virtually non-existent. KSC has become necessary for national security reasons and actually takes measures to reduce its impact on the environment, so nothing can be done about it, but there is no logical reason why SpaceX should be allowed to "do it again" in Boca Chica, especially if it does nothing to minimize its impact on the environment, and especially if it is just a glorified testing center (as of August 2021). SpaceX has to prove they will do their best to minimize their impact, or they may as well be another evil corporation, blatantly disregarding the will of the public and the environment for their own interests.

I don't think it means "law", like "law of physics" (despite that being the word used), they are trying to find a new way to conduct on orbit construction (that new way is what they are referring to with "law"). I think there are some aspects of aircraft design that are also referred to as "laws". I have no idea what their plans are in regards to how to discover such a new method, but given they are launching a small scale SPS demonstrator next year, it would make sense for them to launch small scale orbital assembly test spacecraft too. That is generally what happens on forums of all kinds. There are some good PLA-CNSA watching forums in regards to technical data and news, but they are filled to the brim with political statements and rants in between (on the "opposite end", if you get what I mean), which makes it hard discern info.