header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: OT Artemis II

 (Read 484 times)

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2026, 10:06:10 PM »
This concept shows how much comically larger SS is compared to Orion. 


SFBadger96

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2600
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2026, 11:52:18 AM »
How would you feel if instead of the Stars and Stripes being planted by an American astronaut it’s the red flag with yellow stars?  Maybe to some, it would be just another day.  But overall, even if nothing else changes, there would be a subliminal feeling that it’s over for us. Some kind of deep rooted psychological effect.
I agree with this. It would be a further sign that we are no longer as far in the lead (or in the lead at all) on technological development. In the grand scheme of things, it puts the question to whether our system of government is better than their system of government. That's a big question and a little silly to base on a single aspect of space exploration, but the psychological impact is real.

Also, space exploration has--and I presume continues to--pushed overall scientific/engineering advancement forward. In the 1950s and 1960s that could be directly correlated to defense (i.e., how good were we at launching rockets that could carry big payloads to precisely where we wanted them to go); in the 1970s through the 1990s at least, it still was, with the increasing importance of connectivity to satellites (a huge amount of current warfighting technology relies on--or at least is much more effective with--GPS and early warnings/tracking we get from our satellites). One of the key reasons for Space Force--whether a separate military branch was necessary or not--is that we foresee a military future where satellites have to fight for their survival during an armed conflict (and, likewise, will likely attempt to disable opposition satellites). So the national defense aspect of space exploration can't be ignored, even if the government rarely highlights its importance when talking to the public about NASA. 

SFBadger96

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2600
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #59 on: January 27, 2026, 11:53:53 AM »
I will add: exploration is a fundamental human trait. We are explorers. Our planetary exploration is now primarily in the oceans and subterranean. To borrow from Star Trek, space is the obvious other frontier.

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 11763
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #60 on: January 27, 2026, 12:07:29 PM »
I agree with this. It would be a further sign that we are no longer as far in the lead (or in the lead at all) on technological development. In the grand scheme of things, it puts the question to whether our system of government is better than their system of government. That's a big question and a little silly to base on a single aspect of space exploration, but the psychological impact is real.
I agree, +1
with the increasing importance of connectivity to satellites (a huge amount of current warfighting technology relies on--or at least is much more effective with--GPS and early warnings/tracking we get from our satellites). One of the key reasons for Space Force--whether a separate military branch was necessary or not--is that we foresee a military future where satellites have to fight for their survival during an armed conflict (and, likewise, will likely attempt to disable opposition satellites). So the national defense aspect of space exploration can't be ignored, even if the government rarely highlights its importance when talking to the public about NASA.
I've believed this to be true for as long as I've thought about it.  

I think the near perfect historical analogue is aviation in WWI.  When the war started aviation was in it's infancy and the original, as you put it, "warfighting" use for the primitive aircraft available was simply reconnaissance.  Planes that looked more like glorified kites (sheets wrapped wrapped around wooden spars) were sent up to see where the enemy was and to spot for artillery.  It didn't take long before pilots started shooting at each other and soon the purpose-built fighter was born.  

I foresee roughly the same development here.  Blinding our opponents by taking out their satellites and protecting ourselves from being blinded by protecting our satellites would be a MAJOR theatre in any future great power conflict.  

I think there are treaties that prohibit this but there were also treaties that prohibited unrestricted submarine warfare and the use of gas and well, we all know how that worked out.  

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 88443
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #61 on: January 27, 2026, 12:10:10 PM »
The use of gas in war has been sparse since treaties were enacted.

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #62 on: January 27, 2026, 12:16:12 PM »
thanks for sharing, @Gigem ... 

one thing I learned dealing with gov't, contracts, black budgets, etc, over the years while id did so was not to ask a lot or even a few questions unless you were intentionally read in.  that doesn't mean you don't have some SA of things going on in the peripheral of your lane.   honestly and factually, i always believed the space program to be a slush fund - one mighty cozy to the military and other smaller groups such as DARPA and DTRA.  Add to that the interests intersect in some occasions making overt pursuit of something reasonable. 

as a for instance, we can identify a radioactive isotope from a very far distance by pointing a laser at it.  we can also point into a plume aka cloud and identify not only if there are biologicals in it but what size they are, and how they react under introduced conditions- identifying, with certainty, the presence of potentially harmful and purposeful biological agents... again, from a vast distance.  

there is a thing called the 'hazmat ID' and later the 'hazmat360' which is a computer/device in a pelican box with a little glass tray, and which has a crystal under it a laser is scattered through... anything positioned on that tray can be analyzed and identified in seconds.... the chemistry of it's structure, that is.  These things came out of funding, at least, through the 'space program'.  

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #63 on: January 27, 2026, 12:30:12 PM »
The technology resulting from space advancements is tremendous. 

MikeDeTiger

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5774
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #64 on: January 27, 2026, 12:37:30 PM »
Just caught up on this fascinating thread.

So when are we getting the first Warp Core Reactor and hitting WF9 so we can solve every science problem by reversing the polarity?  

Make it so.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 11763
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #65 on: January 27, 2026, 05:00:22 PM »
The use of gas in war has been sparse since treaties were enacted.
Yes but through the use of a massive deterrent.  

Hitler famously was gassed in WWI and the allies made it known that we had gas and would use it if they did.  They held back largely because they knew there was no advantage to be gained.  Early in the war they didn't need to and late in the war when they needed a gamechanger their once feared Luftwaffe was mostly destroyed so they knew that if they used gas against us we would use it against them and unlike them, we actually had the ability to deliver it.  

The Japanese didn't use gas against Americans that I am aware of but they did use it against others.  The obvious difference here being the ability or inability to retaliate in kind.  Also, at least later in the war they faced the same delivery problem that the Germans faced.  Frankly the invasions of Okinawa and Iowa Jima and eventually the home islands (had that been necessary) would have been a LOT easier if we had been able to gas all the defenders before going in.  We didn't because of the treaties, they didn't because they KNEW that gas inherently favors the attacker so trying to use it defensively against an enemy with a MUCH larger ability to produce it and a MUCH better ability to deliver it would be suicidal (granted the Japanese made a lot of stupid and suicidal decisions).  

I see taking out satellites very differently.  For one thing nobody would be killed which substantially reduces the likelihood of War Crimes Prosecution / Execution post-war if you lose.  For another our military is probably a lot more dependent on technology whereas the Chinese are more dependent on numbers so if shooting down satellites results in both sides being blinded I would guess that would be an advantage for the Chinese.  

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2026, 09:31:47 PM »
Just caught up on this fascinating thread.

So when are we getting the first Warp Core Reactor and hitting WF9 so we can solve every science problem by reversing the polarity? 

Make it so. 
The irony is that we have faster means of propulsion, technically speaking.  Nuclear ships, fusion drives, all sorts of ways to get faster. They need to be built and used in space, you can’t do it on earth because of the environment. In space, it’s already radioactive, and no police to stop you. 

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2026, 10:57:41 PM »
The irony is that we have faster means of propulsion, technically speaking.  Nuclear ships, fusion drives, all sorts of ways to get faster. They need to be built and used in space, you can’t do it on earth because of the environment. In space, it’s already radioactive, and no police to stop you.
Care to explain how those foo fighters move? :) 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25759
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #68 on: Today at 12:30:28 AM »
Care to explain how those foo fighters move? :)
Infinite improbability drive.

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13740
  • Liked:
Re: OT Artemis II
« Reply #69 on: Today at 05:28:52 AM »

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.