For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[Shpaget]

International treaties have always been little to no more than a pinky promise.

[kerbiloid]

They are a serious gentlemen's agreement to not troll each other with childish ideas before they have gotten mature.

Or when they are too expensive for everyone.

Edited November 1, 2021 by kerbiloid

[TheSaint]

5 hours ago, ARS said:

I wanna ask some stuff about Outer Space Treaty:

1. If country A build a moonbase, then country B landed a rocket nearby and also build their own moonbase. Both (technically) didn't violate each other's territory since it was a neutral territory to begin with (and as long as they behave peacefully with each other)

2. Since the OST only specify WMDs and nukes that's prohibited to be placed in orbit, that means regular ballistic weapon (cannons, railguns, autocannons) and non-WMD weapons (missiles) are still allowed right?

3. If a country didn't participate in the OST (non-parties), does it mean they are exempt from the WMD rule? (aka, they can place nukes and WMDs in orbit)

4. What actually constitutes as contaminating space? Does a spent shell casings, discarded booster rockets, defunct satellites and missed railgun shot that continually travels out of solar system count as 'contaminating' it?

5. If we take a sci-fi tech such as phase technology (i.e technology that allows phasing between realspace and phasespace) and place a nuke in phasespace, technically it isn't a violation of OST right? (since the nuke isn't in realspace (actual space))

1. Yes. Signatories are not allowed to claim territory on celestial bodies. So they can build moonbases immediately adjacent to each other without violating each other's territory, because there is no territory to violate. In practice I am sure that they will talk to each other and establish zones of legal jurisdiction, traffic control protocols, etc, that will all look astonishingly similar to claims of sovereignty. But there is no formal ownership.

2. Yes. Non-WMD weapons are not banned or in any way regulated by the OST. My guess is because, at the time, nobody had thought of any practical use for non-WMD space weapons. Remember, in 1967 everyone was still pretty sure that the next war was going to last 18 minutes.

3. "Exempt". Sure. While they may not be in violation of the OST, if some non-signatory power were to even start going through the motions of placing WMDs in orbit you can bet that the major powers are going to take drastic measures to keep that from happening, and then write up the paperwork to justify it afterwards.

4. This one I'm not 100% sure on. I think that, as originally conceived, it was concerned with bio-contamination, and possibly radioactive contamination, but I'm not sure if it has been reinterpreted to include Kesslerization.

5. The treaty is concerned with outer space. If you can get the signatories to define "outer space" to include other dimensions, then the treaty will cover them. But my guess will be no. Now, if the only way to get to your phasespace is by placing something in orbit first, then the treaty will be binding.

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, ARS said:

4. What actually constitutes as contaminating space? Does a spent shell casings, discarded booster rockets, defunct satellites and missed railgun shot that continually travels out of solar system count as 'contaminating' it?

For example, putting tens of thousands of comsats in LEO.

And then another such Omniorbital Technojunk Spot.

And another one.

And several more just planned.

5 hours ago, ARS said:

5. If we take a sci-fi tech such as phase technology (i.e technology that allows phasing between realspace and phasespace) and place a nuke in phasespace, technically it isn't a violation of OST right? (since the nuke isn't in realspace (actual space))

They will forbid the range of resonant frequencies of vacuum for private usage.

Then divide it among major players.

[Gargamel]

Coworker asked if I knew about the plans to send up Big Bird on the Challenger.   I have vague recollections of this, especially since there was an educational push on that mission.  Couple articles I saw also confirmed this, but with vague sources.     Can we confirm this?

 

I can only imagine the trauma I would have felt if 8 year old me had watched Big Bird burn up live on TV. 

[Admiral Fluffy]

8 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Can we confirm this?

It appears so. I looked up 'Big Bird on the Challenger' and there are many results. He was supposed to be the educator on it. His costume was too big and complicated, apparently.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Admiral Fluffy said:

It appears so. I looked up 'Big Bird on the Challenger' and there are many results. He was supposed to be the educator on it. His costume was too big and complicated, apparently.

I'd be suspicious of this: Jim Henson could have come up with a simple puppet and allowed the educator to voice the (zero G indicator) puppet with some creative filmmaking.

IOW - its a solvable problem that a very creative guy could have done without hardly thinking twice.

Thus: I'm leaning toward rumor or 'something that was proposed but never seriously considered'.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

It just dawned on me that the 'dark side' of the moon is the only part that can actually be truly dark.  Given that when the dark side is in full sunlight (during the new moon) the moon is in our daytime skies. Meaning the face we see is never truly in darkness - because of Earthshine. 

So how bright is Earthshine on the moon?  Bright enough to read by? 

[kerbiloid]

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Луна?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=nui

Quote

The earth's disk hangs almost motionless in the sky of the moon. The reasons for the small monthly fluctuations of the Earth in height above the lunar horizon and in azimuth (about 7 °) are the same as those of librations . The angular size of the Earth when observed from the Moon is 3.7 times ^[25] larger than the lunar size when observed from the Earth , and the area of the celestial sphere covered by the Earth is 13.5 times ^[26] larger than that covered by the Moon. The degree of illumination of the Earth, visible from the Moon, is the opposite of the lunar phases visible on the Earth: at a full moon, an unlit part of the Earth is visible from the Moon, and vice versa. Illumination by the reflected light of the Earth should theoretically be about 41 times ^[27]stronger than moonlight on Earth, but in practice only 15 ^[28] times more; the largest apparent magnitude of the Earth on the Moon is approximately −16 ^m [29] .

 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

It just dawned on me that the 'dark side' of the moon is the only part that can actually be truly dark.  Given that when the dark side is in full sunlight (during the new moon) the moon is in our daytime skies. Meaning the face we see is never truly in darkness - because of Earthshine. 

So how bright is Earthshine on the moon?  Bright enough to read by? 

Yes, sure at an location who is light colored, remember in the army you could see pretty well with full moon and snow all around you. 
And earth reflect much more light than the moon and is much larger so I say a yes if the paper is oriented correctly. 

The moon is visible during an total moon eclipse, the visible area get smaller and smaller like speed up moon cycles but then all gone its show up as pale red brown but very visible. 
 

[DDE]

Dumb question in need of a serious answer: who designed the SLS?

It's my reading of the Wiki that technically NASA put the thing together themselves - even if under, ahem, watchful guidance. So was it Marshall SFC that actually designed the thing? Seems they played the same role for Saturn V.

[FleshJeb]

20 minutes ago, DDE said:

Dumb question in need of a serious answer: who designed the SLS?

Congress and lobbyists.

I'm kidding. It's a good question that I'd like to know the answer to as well.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

For those in love with inflation... 

https://scitechdaily.com/blowing-up-the-universe-bicep3-tightens-the-bounds-on-cosmic-inflation/

 

[SOXBLOX]

2 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

I'm kidding. It's a good question that I'd like to know the answer to as well.

They prefer to remain anonymous, in order to hide from angry space fan lynch mobs. 

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, DDE said:

Dumb question in need of a serious answer: who designed the SLS?

Probably, Cui Prodest.

SLS is a way to keep manufacturing: RS-25 - Rocketdyne, Orange Tank and Orion- LockMart, SRB - ATK (bought the Thiokol) and P&W.

Or do you mean, who has rearranged the shuttle parts in KSP?

***

So, probably Pentagon helped its steady supplies.

***

The question is who supports the anti-ULA SpaceX? Probably, somebody who competes with the military.

Say, intelligence.

The PR hype around SpaceX also makes to think this.

Like U-2 in its time, but SpX now, and with the intention to grab the whole space business from the military hats.

Edited November 5, 2021 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

11 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Congress and lobbyists.

So here I was desperately trying to avoid this answer...

Spoiler

 

[Shpaget]

22 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The moon is visible during an total moon eclipse, the visible area get smaller and smaller like speed up moon cycles but then all gone its show up as pale red brown but very visible. 

But that is due to the sunlight being refracted in atmosphere, not reflected.

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, Shpaget said:

But that is due to the sunlight being refracted in atmosphere, not reflected.

Obviously its not reflection from earth as the Earth blocks light reaching moon. 

 

[DDE]

The miniature grid fins on the docking probe are so cute.

[Shpaget]

Reading the tweet I imagined something more Jamesy Bondy - the thing flying through the cargo door after skydiving to intercept the Hercules, but this works fine too, I suppose.  Cute wing tuck.

 

[magnemoe]

7 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Reading the tweet I imagined something more Jamesy Bondy - the thing flying through the cargo door after skydiving to intercept the Hercules, but this works fine too, I suppose.  Cute wing tuck.

 

Its a lots of turbulence around a large plane, this was an major problem with the goblin mini jet designed to use an B-36 as an carrier, worse with an small UAV.
So stating with something who is a lot like mid air refueling but winch in the UAV and then grab it is safer.  Wonder if the grind finned docking probe can also refuel?
If you are monitoring an area over time you might have the UAV fly for extended time and only bringing them in for service or if they used weapons or similar.  

[SOXBLOX]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

If you are monitoring an area over time you might have the UAV fly for extended time and only bringing them in for service or if they used weapons or similar.  

This is the plan. The initial Gremlins should be re-flyable in under 24 hrs, and the eventual goal is to have them serviced on board the carrier plane while it's flying. 

[DDE]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Wonder if the grind finned docking probe can also refuel?

It's a rather thin wire. Nothing prevents retrofitting that feature in theory, but that's an unwelcome complication if you're capturing the drone anyway.

[SunlitZelkova]

What’s up with the use of the term “space colonization”? Did whoever first came up with the term really think it through (I suppose it may have been in the 1800s, when colonization/colonialism was an acceptable thing), or was it just the word that made sense at the time?

I prefer the term “planetary dispersal”, derived from oceanic dispersal (the term used for when organisms raft upon the ocean to reach a new landmass).

*glares at the people who came up with the term* Like, seriously, calling your habitats colonies is basically setting yourself up for sovereignty issues a couple hundred years in the future (if you call it a colony, it will create legal issues about the rights of its inhabitants, which can morph into physical issues, which can lead to conflict).

[kerbiloid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonus_(person)

A colony is a set of {willing / told / forced / hired} persons, performing a productive usage of some territory in the interests of the {metropoly / dominating region / homeland / suzerain} .
Sometimes splitting from, sometimes founded as splitted from (say, Carthago), sometimes staying a colony or turning into a peripheral region of the metropoly.

At this forum some English-speaking users insist that it needs a population reproduction to be a colony rather than a base or an outpost, but according to its original sense and the modern realities, the Ancient Romans and the Modern Russians agreed that this condition is not actually required. The colony labourers can happily get born in other places and brought to the colony.

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Like, seriously, calling your habitats colonies is basically setting yourself up for sovereignty issues a couple hundred years in the future

In Russian - an absolutely normal colloquial term for any separated (usually - on island) productive settlement existing in connection with Big Land.
(Officially - a settlement, or so.)

(Also used as common term for penitentiary camps because they are usually in some places separated from the habitated land, and perform some kind of production).

Edited November 7, 2021 by kerbiloid