The thread for space cadets!

If the distance between two events is longer than the time (multiplied by the speed of time) between two events (regardless the reference system), you can always find a reference system in which the events happen at the same time. So past, present and future are defined in terms of causality: an event can be affected by past events, it can affect future events, and cannot have any causal relationship to present events.

The interesting thing being that that leaves events which have no causality link more or less free floating in time, and since the vast majority of events have no apparent causal links with each other time itself becomes pretty nebulous in terms of measurement...outside, of course, the typical "if humans can't have seen it then it hasn't happened yet" perspective.
 
tsk , tsk . The Su-57 gets into some test of debris pattern , because America might export them Russians them F-35 flares that cost 3000 bucks each and we would like never know if it was a hit or miss and the Russian seat is indeed a star . So , the very next day an Iranian test plane goes down and they don't have them Zvesdas on their own . Do Russians not know , or act as if they don't and strongly imply their allies should stop this , whatever it is ? Yeah , on the very days they can be like supposedly fighting New Turkey in Libya . Whose Muslim Brotherhood types even declare a coalition of Algeria and Tunisia and New Turkey , with New Turkey confused and willingly adding Qatar to the mix . It has already been denied by Tunisia but let's say it anyhow , for the benefit of Democrats and stuff who have taken charge in the Magreb :

that New Turkey has never written a check that it will pay itself , you would be allied to New Turkey and nothing of the sort that will pay in your name and Russians show what exactly what the Whites do when things go Black . Hitting their allies , that's .

edit : Reading the Betelguise stuff , ı discover you sorry people have never watched a real Sci-fi movie ! When the star in Romulus goes off , the whole Romulan Star Empire dies and they even go to a new universe where -uhm- Spak kisses Uhura .

and Spak is correct , learn Turkish to read Spock ...
 
That's right, I mean for reference systems we commonly use on Earth, the interval of "now" should be much narrower than 1400 years (few days perhaps?). We can only travel at slow speeds.

Yes, you could introduce some kind of earth-centric definition of now, but what would be the point? You would need to know the relative velocity of every star you want to reference and then arrive at some definition of "now". But there would be no practical use, since you cannot have any interaction with any events happening in either this narrow definition or the normal, much broader definition.

The interesting thing being that that leaves events which have no causality link more or less free floating in time, and since the vast majority of events have no apparent causal links with each other time itself becomes pretty nebulous in terms of measurement...outside, of course, the typical "if humans can't have seen it then it hasn't happened yet" perspective.

Well, there does not have to be an actual causal link, but only a hypothetical causal link. But yes, a huge portion of the events in the universe are not covered by this.

There are still definitions how to measure time, but you have to think in terms of 4-dimensional space-time and cannot ignore the distance between events.
 
I don't follow most of this post.
It's about the properties of spacetime in special relativity, usually illustrated with light cones picture.

Time axis is vertical, space is horizontal and the central point is "here and now". "Future" is upper part of the cone - all events which you can theoretically influence. "Past" are all events which could influence the "here and now" point. You as observer, have the "Present" hyperplane, all events in the Universe which are happening "now" from your point of view. But different observer will have different "Present" hyperplane, if he is moving relative to you, his plane will be inclined and angle will depend on how fast he moves.

Uppi was talking about the fact that technically any event outside of your past and future cones is your present, because there always exists a reference system according to which this point and your "here and now" point are lying in the same present hyperplane, in other words happening simultaneously.

If we are considering very remote location, such as Betelgeuze, then even moving at small speed will cause significant time shift of the "present" moment. If observer A is moving towards Betelgeuze at the speed close to the speed of light and observer B is moving away from Betelgeuze at the same speed, their present moments will be about 1400 years apart.

Yes, you could introduce some kind of earth-centric definition of now, but what would be the point? You would need to know the relative velocity of every star you want to reference and then arrive at some definition of "now". But there would be no practical use, since you cannot have any interaction with any events happening in either this narrow definition or the normal, much broader definition.
No practical use, I'm only trying to make some sense out of "Now at Betelgeuze" notion. If we are going to see the explosion 700 years later, we can say it's happening more or less "now", relative to the Sun, for instance :)
 
Last edited:
From this conversation.

To be clear, I have absolutely zero problem with you taking issues with it, and I have no opinion on any stance you have on Sanders (because by all means they're entirely reasonable). Bias perhaps, but I'd never expect anything but good faith disagreement from you.

There are a few angles at play here, and I'm really not up my on class theory, so this could be embarrassing, but at least in a funny way. Anyhow.
  1. Any kind of space-related industry can synergise with working and lower middle-class job markets. However, this isn't the only way you could invest in those markets, and they're intensely related to geography. I'm not up on the geography of the US in its particulars, so this could just be a wild guess. But I do know (similar to Australia) there's a large concetration along the coastlands and moderately inland from there, and population density across the innermost areas is very variable (on the lower end of things). Less extreme than in Australia, for sure.
  2. We don't need more satellites, specifically. We're actually approaching an issue with having too many in the sky to the point where it could interfere with astronomy (and related fields), mainly around Starlink (by SpaceX) admittedly. There's obviously a need for national infrastructure too, but the issues we need to be considering more are both ethical and also technical in a problem-solving manner. They're not welding jobs, or labour-intensive jobs in general. And they're also by dint of their nature, intensely political (as much as I'd love for them not to be). I'm not arguing the benefit of technologies invested in because of NASA, or the field of space-related sciences in general. It is however important to note that we already have these benefits. They have been discovered, applied and implemented. There are more immediate priorities, even ones specific to the US (cough gerrymandering cough).
  3. A lot of things are unfortunately class struggles, because of how the working class (and working poor in general) are pitted against themselves and their slight betters in the hope that anyone can "make it". This isn't unique to the US. What might not be a class struggle in theory can absolutely translate to one in practise. That's why the interests of the working class need protecting, why their future needs safeguarding, in far more immediate terms than something (as crude as) Space Force (I know, that's not the whole thing, it's just an easy example). We're entering an age of very obvious and repeated "mask off" scenarios where it is shown to us that the ultra-rich really don't give much of a damn about anything but them and theirs. Especially given the political setup in the US (and the way the UK has gone), this means that their interests shape the nation's interests in more ways than one. The longer climate change is a debated "issue", the greater the suffering. The longer wealth inequality is a debated "issue", the greater the suffering. I'm not saying that a political platform can't hold more than one interest, or aim to fund more than one thing, but these are big problems to solve, and they already have a lot of money both against them and for them.
At the end of the day, if it puts you off Sanders in some small (or greater) way, it is what it is. Nobody is going to agree fully on a US political candidate (not least a Brit, hiya, hah), and I'm not interested in making that happen. I just wanted to understand your reasoning, and I do. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from too.
On 1), the geographic concentration is tied to launch sites and national R&D centers in the US. That used to be the case anyways, however that is undergoing a radical shift with recent manufacturing advancements. Satellites are being built in ordinary business parks and rockets in light industrial zones (though the testing tends to still happen at the launch or national R&D centers). The same is actually happening over in the UK as well as your national policies are being re-aligned to a post-Brexit situation. The potential loss of access to major pan-European space projects has pushed the UK to build on and support its small satellite and rocket manufacturing industry. I get the sense that the industry over there is less geographically centralized than here but that is one aspect I haven't paid a lot of attention to.

Anyways, in the US, quite a lot of government money was spent to establish major space industry centers in the rural deep south. It's not really the case that these are coastal elite type jobs - not that you're really implying that moniker. The Space Shuttle was famously (and unfortunately, as it cost a ton) built in parts shops in all 50 states. The government here has directly interfered with the job market through strong incentives and direct spending to spread the industry around. It is still clustered, for sure, but there's always been a push to make the industry broadly-based and now entirely commercial factors are reinforcing that trend as it is now no longer a requirement to be in Cape Canaveral or Houston to manufacture satellites and rockets. You can do it in a business park in Boise, Idaho instead and lots of companies are doing just that.

On 2), We actually do need more satellites, and a lot of them. The global fleet is aging, particularly on the science observation (both toward Earth and deep space) side. The comms fleet is similarly aging as well but is regularly refreshed.

Satellites are built by welders! A lot of them, actually. Same with rockets. It's actually one of the most manually-intensive labor engineering fields because it does not scale well for automation. We aren't to the point where we're building 10 rockets a week so production runs are slow and heavy-handed with labor. There are also a ton of electronics technicians and more general-assembly laborers. The industry is more top-heavy with engineers as a rule compared to say the auto industry but even this is changing as the industry itself shifts to lower-cost rocket and satellite platforms more suited to mass production. At some point it may tip over and become fully automated with concurrent job losses but that's decades in the future at best.

On 3), I do not see a conflict between our national priorities with respect to caring for the poor and space policy. The call out to gerrymandering in 2) particular is befuddling to me.

Aside from direct employment in a cush, high-status industry, there is also a ton of indirect employment through long webs of contractors and suppliers. When SpaceX started construction of their Starship prototype, they hired a bunch of guys that normally weld water towers to put it together. And finally, we can and have improved the lives of the poor with the goods and services that can only exist because of the space industry. There are no good, ground-based, wholesale replacements for weather satellites, communications satellites, GPS and other services. We should want to build vibrant economies that have interesting, low-skilled jobs available rather than strive for Wal Mart monoeconomies. Bernie is the first to say we need more and better jobs than having everyone work at Wal Mart and yet here is exactly the kind of good-paying, long-lasting jobs that he champions and yet he acts as if it's wasteful spending to support.

We're also rich enough that we don't have to really choose between feeding the poor or providing healthcare or college education and building our space infrastructure. We might not *choose* to do that under current leadership, but I do not think it is necessary that things be that way.
 
Last edited:
It's just a bit bonkers to me that the guy who is out there championing the need for new, high-paying, high-tech and un-offshorable jobs is treating the space industry - which is all of those things and then some - as wasteful spending. How else is he going to achieve the kind of wage and job growth he envisions if he leaves major American strengths like that on the table? This is one of the last industries the US has a commanding lead in and it's highly resistant to offshoring by its very nature.
 
Last edited:
From this conversation.

On 1), the geographic concentration is tied to launch sites and national R&D centers in the US. That used to be the case anyways, however that is undergoing a radical shift with recent manufacturing advancements. Satellites are being built in ordinary business parks and rockets in light industrial zones (though the testing tends to still happen at the launch or national R&D centers). The same is actually happening over in the UK as well as your national policies are being re-aligned to a post-Brexit situation. The potential loss of access to major pan-European space projects has pushed the UK to build on and support its small satellite and rocket manufacturing industry. I get the sense that the industry over there is less geographically centralized than here but that is one aspect I haven't paid a lot of attention to.

Anyways, in the US, quite a lot of government money was spent to establish major space industry centers in the rural deep south. It's not really the case that these are coastal elite type jobs - not that you're really implying that moniker. The Space Shuttle was famously (and unfortunately, as it cost a ton) built in parts shops in all 50 states. The government here has directly interfered with the job market through strong incentives and direct spending to spread the industry around. It is still clustered, for sure, but there's always been a push to make the industry broadly-based and now entirely commercial factors are reinforcing that trend as it is now no longer a requirement to be in Cape Canaveral or Houston to manufacture satellites and rockets. You can do it in a business park in Boise, Idaho instead and lots of companies are doing just that.

On 2), We actually do need more satellites, and a lot of them. The global fleet is aging, particularly on the science observation (both toward Earth and deep space) side. The comms fleet is similarly aging as well but is regularly refreshed.

Satellites are built by welders! A lot of them, actually. Same with rockets. It's actually one of the most manually-intensive labor engineering fields because it does not scale well for automation. We aren't to the point where we're building 10 rockets a week so production runs are slow and heavy-handed with labor. There are also a ton of electronics technicians and more general-assembly laborers. The industry is more top-heavy with engineers as a rule compared to say the auto industry but even this is changing as the industry itself shifts to lower-cost rocket and satellite platforms more suited to mass production. At some point it may tip over and become fully automated with concurrent job losses but that's decades in the future at best.

On 3), I do not see a conflict between our national priorities with respect to caring for the poor and space policy. The call out to gerrymandering in 2) particular is befuddling to me.

Aside from direct employment in a cush, high-status industry, there is also a ton of indirect employment through long webs of contractors and suppliers. When SpaceX started construction of their Starship prototype, they hired a bunch of guys that normally weld water towers to put it together. And finally, we can and have improved the lives of the poor with the goods and services that can only exist because of the space industry. There are no good, ground-based, wholesale replacements for weather satellites, communications satellites, GPS and other services. We should want to build vibrant economies that have interesting, low-skilled jobs available rather than strive for Wal Mart monoeconomies. Bernie is the first to say we need more and better jobs than having everyone work at Wal Mart and yet here is exactly the kind of good-paying, long-lasting jobs that he champions and yet he acts as if it's wasteful spending to support.

We're also rich enough that we don't have to really choose between feeding the poor or providing healthcare or college education and building our space infrastructure. We might not *choose* to do that under current leadership, but I do not think it is necessary that things be that way.
1. That's good to hear, it's not something I'm knowledgable about :)

2. I disagree here, though. The fleet might be aging, but how close to being decommissioned? And how does this play into private contracting (like with SpaceX, for example)? I think this feeds into the third point, to be honest.

3. I'm arguing it comes down to really short term investments, here. Presidential terms are four years. You have to run with a platform that's arguably achievable in that timeframe (I'd assume), right? It's how the Brexit thing got us - people just want it done, people don't see what's going to happen half a decade, or a decade from now. A similar battle of public opinion happens every election cycle in the US. I'm very aware I'm not saying groundbreaking new things here, though.

Peoples' attention is a limited resource, as is the energies of the people trying to pass law itself. If Sanders did win in 2020, and had four years to do as much as he and his staff could do (given that the Republicans are more than happy to just stonewall legislation, or even government function itself), you absolutely have to pick and choose your battles. It's not just a matter of the basic economics involved. It involves political capital.

And more than that, any class struggle in America will not be solved in four years, even if everything went Sanders' way. Not a chance in hell. You have to lay groundwork. This is my layman's opinion, and I'm very welcome to be proven wrong, but I don't see space-related industry labour as being vital to that. At the very least, it is something that can wait a few years before it needs prioritising (assuming it needs prioritising, more than just maintening the same level of funding).

-------------

I have avoided, to this point, the separate argument of not focusing on space-related expenditure is in no way a claim to cutting current expenditure, because it takes me away from the class-related discussion I wanted to have. That said, I am also aware that that doesn't necessarily do anything to settle folks' fears either (which is another reason I didn't want to raise it).

PS: I appreciate the breakdown and info here. I like rockets, but I barely know anything about rockets! Definitely one of the things that marks me as a Civilisation player more than any actual real-world grounding on the subject :D
 
1. That's good to hear, it's not something I'm knowledgable about :)

2. I disagree here, though. The fleet might be aging, but how close to being decommissioned? And how does this play into private contracting (like with SpaceX, for example)? I think this feeds into the third point, to be honest.

3. I'm arguing it comes down to really short term investments, here. Presidential terms are four years. You have to run with a platform that's arguably achievable in that timeframe (I'd assume), right? It's how the Brexit thing got us - people just want it done, people don't see what's going to happen half a decade, or a decade from now. A similar battle of public opinion happens every election cycle in the US. I'm very aware I'm not saying groundbreaking new things here, though.

Peoples' attention is a limited resource, as is the energies of the people trying to pass law itself. If Sanders did win in 2020, and had four years to do as much as he and his staff could do (given that the Republicans are more than happy to just stonewall legislation, or even government function itself), you absolutely have to pick and choose your battles. It's not just a matter of the basic economics involved. It involves political capital.

And more than that, any class struggle in America will not be solved in four years, even if everything went Sanders' way. Not a chance in hell. You have to lay groundwork. This is my layman's opinion, and I'm very welcome to be proven wrong, but I don't see space-related industry labour as being vital to that. At the very least, it is something that can wait a few years before it needs prioritising (assuming it needs prioritising, more than just maintening the same level of funding).

-------------

I have avoided, to this point, the separate argument of not focusing on space-related expenditure is in no way a claim to cutting current expenditure, because it takes me away from the class-related discussion I wanted to have. That said, I am also aware that that doesn't necessarily do anything to settle folks' fears either (which is another reason I didn't want to raise it).

PS: I appreciate the breakdown and info here. I like rockets, but I barely know anything about rockets! Definitely one of the things that marks me as a Civilisation player more than any actual real-world grounding on the subject :D
tl;dr -
I can believe that what he put on the website is really just empty virtue signaling and that's largely why my opinion/ranking of him didn't move after seeing it. But it's not a good look and I'm going to call out how dumb I think it is.

------------


The short-term nature of presidencies has caused NASA a lot of headache over the years. Every administration comes in and makes sweeping changes to NASA's direction, often wiping out significant progress in the offings. But that's really not my bone of contention here.

I don't really expect my presidential candidates to play favorites with particular programs or even push strongly in a particular direction for the agency or industry at large. I only ask that they support NASA and the other space efforts (including commercial activity) in general. If you do not have a president that believes the space industry is important, you do not get mandates to clear the skies of space junk, or regulations that prevent private entities from recklessly launching rockets over civilian areas, etc. If you are not supporting the industry with these sorts of directives and interest, there won't be as strong growth going forward as we've seen this past decade. We're experiencing a remarkable period of growth - it's already being bandied as a golden age of exploration - and I really want to see the country play on those strengths going forward.

I have favorite programs and things I want done in space policy, of course. But I know that it is a more niche policy area and I cannot and do not expect candidates to have highly-tailored platforms catering to every aspect of the space industry and exploration efforts.

But when a candidate says they will only help NASA after 'taking care of people on Earth first', that sends a deeply troubling message to me. It shows disinterest and potential future conflict should that candidate judge the needs of 'people on Earth' are in contention with the needs of the industry. I reject that framing of the issue entirely.


Spoiler space spam about space junk :
There is another problem with aging and decommissioned fleets that I forgot about. Most objects placed into space do not come back down in reasonable time frames; some never comes back. There are now some marginally effective laws in the US tasking manufacturers with coming up with ways to de-orbit within 25 years if placed into a low Earth orbit, but a lot of what is up there will persist as space junk for decades. Both Europe and the United States are actively pursuing research for cleaning up space junk and there is an acknowledgement at all levels that something should be done. Growth of the industry will exacerbate this issue in the short term as new stuff is added. In the long term, continued growth of the technology base coupled with strong regulations has the potential to actually begin reversing the problem of space junk through active removal.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to say how much I appreciate you all being a receptive outlet for my space ramblings. I recognize I have been in quite a narrow headspace lately and have unconsciously tied many conversations back into space and I apologize for the frequent, obsessive derails. My focus and obsession with space sort of waxes and wanes but at this moment I'm really deep down the rabbit hole for whatever reason.
 
But when a candidate says they will only help NASA after 'taking care of people on Earth first', that sends a deeply troubling message to me. It shows disinterest and potential future conflict should that candidate judge the needs of 'people on Earth' are in contention with the needs of the industry. I reject that framing of the issue entirely.

Hmm, there would be some merit to the argument, because space exploration is somewhat of a luxury. But to be a valid argument, the people making it would have to actually take care of the people on Earth, which I am not seeing much. Instead the resources are wasted on other things.

I'd like to say how much I appreciate you all being a receptive outlet for my space ramblings. I recognize I have been in quite a narrow headspace lately and have unconsciously tied many conversations back into space and I apologize for the frequent, obsessive derails. My focus and obsession with space sort of waxes and wanes but at this moment I'm really deep down the rabbit hole for whatever reason.

Well, this is the thread for space ramblings, isn't it?
 
few Air Internationals seen ... Like grew on them as an "engineer" and they were like super back in the day . Their current owner has so many magazines , so nothing historical , airline companies are boring and like how many new combat aircraft projects anyhow ? Was pleasantly surprised to see it had no blazing headlines that F-35 is god , though . That's 3 letters , mind you , not 4 ...

and can't tell which is which . All of them Tornados bombing Middle East , inevitable F-35 piece and my , everybody tells of how they fly in cold weather , you would think they were studying German records of women's fur coats were not good enough for spending the winter in Russia . Despite the silly nose , ı can at least like the Flanker , so there you are .

the point being there was this Roper guy again . Without the scent of blasphemy rising from the pages or the screen . "How they dare to think to buy another!" style . It makes a mention of it took 26 years to develop the F-35 to be in combat and there is nothing of Pentagon buying on a 10 year cycle , 2 years development , 5 years service and Congress cuts the funds for 3 years for it to be replaced . It's more like they want to know new production methods ! The magazine makes a mention of BAe's artillery spotter was designed like fully to Roper's precepts [and like Pentagon should buy a few squadrons.]

and , well , MIT is at it . Making electro-propulson a reality . so apparently people told other people that it would never work but MIT people surprisingly made it real . Forward of the wing air is charged , ions move to the other pole aft of the wings and it gets better if the plane gets faster , because ionized particles will hit mllions more air particles . So , being a stupid dude of the kind that ı think it was Nostradamus warned to keep clear of his tome , doesn't the ionized particle loose some power each time it collides so that the overall output can never be larger that input ? Being a simpleton who has been to other stars ı am confused on whether this is the American invention of the unity engine , efficiency more that 100% . Which America had invented back in 1980s and then again in 1990s and then again in 2000s ...

r16 rants DO get better . As also a different magazine perfectly scanned , except the very pages where you could possibly be reading some sentences against the Lightning , of the RAF . The one this old guy in his F-84 would immediately turn tail and abandon reconnaissance of Cyprus as soon as he saw one coming ... Has had a couple against F-14 , you know , clearing the engine maker but not Grumman , because one is still alive while the other was bought by Northrop or whatever and there is a microscobic hole and you pour power on and hot gas leaks out and you go Ka-boom without a trace . Or how F-14s fired missiles on a Phantom drone , without warheads and failed to bring it down when the drone went rogue during testing , but they might or might not have hit the central drop tank , because like obivously it fell down on its own ...
 
There has been a boom over the last decade of airports and municipalities across the country establishing new space ports to capture some of the growth in the industry. To date, most of these spaceports have not hosted a single launch of any kind and many outside observers have seen that as a bust for the industry. This article by a Space News journalists points out how that's not actually an accurate depiction of what has been going on. Sure, these spaceports have had to give up on their dreams of hosting space launches but have still become centers for aerospace industrial activity which was their real purpose all along.

https://spacenews.com/foust-forward-how-to-succeed-in-spaceports-without-really-launching/

I'm in the very early stages of planning out a trip to New Mexico sometime maybe this year or next. I want to see the Trinity nuclear test site and one of the nuclear villages that the government built for testing. The other thing I want to do is see Spaceport America which is featured in the artilce and have lunch with @Birdjaguar .
 
There has been a boom over the last decade of airports and municipalities across the country establishing new space ports to capture some of the growth in the industry. To date, most of these spaceports have not hosted a single launch of any kind and many outside observers have seen that as a bust for the industry. This article by a Space News journalists points out how that's not actually an accurate depiction of what has been going on. Sure, these spaceports have had to give up on their dreams of hosting space launches but have still become centers for aerospace industrial activity which was their real purpose all along.

https://spacenews.com/foust-forward-how-to-succeed-in-spaceports-without-really-launching/

I'm in the very early stages of planning out a trip to New Mexico sometime maybe this year or next. I want to see the Trinity nuclear test site and one of the nuclear villages that the government built for testing. The other thing I want to do is see Spaceport America which is featured in the artilce and have lunch with @Birdjaguar .
Lunch will be on me! To get to the Virgin Space port in southern NM you need to fly to Albuquerque. Plan time for a nice lunch. :)

Spaceport America is probably a 3-4 hour drive from Albuquerque (SE of Truth or Consequences). IIRC the Stallion Gate is about 2 hours away. Both are south of Albuquerque, but Trinity is about an hour out of the way (east of Socorro).
The Trinity site is only open two days a year. The Stallion Gate is the best entrance.

Tour the Trinity Site
Spoiler :
Touring the Trinity Site is free but it's only opened to the public twice a year, on the first Saturday in April and October. Thousands of visitors enter the site from either the Stallion Range Gate or the Tularosa Gate.

Entering the site from the Tularosa Gate entails joining your vehicle in a caravan at Tularosa High School football field parking lot, 1305 Eight St., in Tularosa. This caravan enters the site at 8 a.m. and is led by military police. From the Tularosa Gate, it's a 75-mile drive to the site and there are no gas stations on the route or at the site.

Everyone 18 and older must show a valid driver's license, pass port or DoD issued identification. All vehicles are subject to search and should be carrying proof of insurance and current registration papers. No weapons of any kind are allowed on the installation.

Entering the site from the Stallion Range Gate is a 17-mile trip and visitors are allowed to drive in and out of the site unescorted from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. The Stallion Range Gate is located five miles south of U.S. Highway 380 and the turnoff is 12 miles east of San Antonio and 53 miles west of Carrizozo.

Both roads are paved and marked. The site closes promptly at 3:30 p.m.

At the site, visitors can take a quarter-mile walk to ground zero where a small obelisk marks the exact spot where the bomb was exploded. Historical photos are mounted on the fence surrounding the area. Visitors also can ride a missile range shuttle bus two miles to the Schmidt/McDonald ranch house. The ranch house is where the scientists assembled the plutonium core of the bomb.
 
If I go full time in the next couple of months, I'll plan to go out around April but October is more likely. Thanks for posting the dates it is open! I'll stay in touch as plans firm up, right now it's in the idea phase.
 
Question: is it possible to completely seal off a planet (one with about our level of technology) from space with debris? Like, throw satellites filled with millions of sharp objects into orbit and blow them up? If all the debris already in orbit is just a side-effect, a deliberate attempt might be orders of magnitude more efficient.

Another reason why planet-bound civilizations would be much more vulnerable than spacefaring ones.
 
You could make it very difficult to launch something off the planet but probably could not completely seal it. You'd never be able to congest super low orbit because everything gets dragged in so quickly (on the order of hours). So someone on the planet could stage a launch to an atmosphere-skimming altitude and continually reboost to stay there until there is a clearing to exit to a higher orbit. But that would take an enormous amount of fuel and would make mission planning next to impossible.

You would also have a hard time congesting anything above low orbit since space is so huge, you'd need an impossible amount of junk.

But if you do manage to congest low orbit, you have effectively sealed off the planet because it will be very tough to get to a higher orbit from a congested lower one.
 
fighting a war with a planet because you would certainly be in war to close off the orbit to that planet , would be more efficient if you were to place a battle station or whatever to shoot stuff down . Or ı don't know , because of the tech that would require , you might plant a curtain at a given distance from the star , to block or limit sunrays and stuff ?

unless of course there's some sort of Prime Directive that requires you hurt people or stop them from spreading their vermin across the galaxy , but then ı would still say battle station .
 
Top Bottom