So to maintain stable orbit (from my understanding) you will need to counteract that with a constant antinormal force, or else you’ll get pushed out of L1 and then go flying off.

You’re absolutely right, assuming the craft is on the L1 saddle point. The craft can, however, sit slightly sunward of the saddle point in a halo orbit. It wants to fall towards the sun (and enter a solar orbit) due to being on that side of L1, but you set it in the position it needs to be to balance the force of sunlight. There will be quasi-stable points in a halo orbits around the sun-facing side of L1 which could sustain a whole lot of these buggers.

KSP is great, but it only does two body physics (unless you’re using the Principia mod – never tried it). So you cannot simulate things like lagrange points there. The patched conics are a great first order teaching tool though, and KSP is great for that!

Solar sailing doesn’t require fuel, and can be truly solar powered. The IKAROS probe is a great example of this, and it was launched quite a while ago already. My favourite part of this probe was the liquid crystal panels that could change brightness and darkness electrically in order to steer by creating a differential absorption/reflection of sunlight. Clever stuff. It’s basically a steerable continuous thrust system that tacks against sunlight.

There’s also some untested methods that could potentially work here, like eletric tethers in the sun’s magnetic field – this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether – although I’m not aware of anyone that has done this calculation in the context of sunshields. And further outside the box, magnetic sails: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail or even this craziness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet#Dyson_swarm-based_stellar_engine_(Caplan_thruster)

Probably you’d still want some RCS thrusters for faster reaction times in a pinch. And reaction wheels are “free” in terms of fuel, so there is likely some upper bound to lifetime. But not as bad as normal spacecraft.

Long short: RCS thrusters are probably still useful, but may not necessarily need to be the primary means of station keeping.

not all of our population has adapted to this

“The future is already here – it’s just not evenly distributed.” – William Gibson

Yes, I even once got a B+ in thermodynamics, decades ago. I was proud of that B+ – one of the hardest courses I’ve ever taken.

Yes, AC. It uses energy, adds heat into the total system, and you cannot fight entropy. However, you can mitigate heat gain in other places. You trade local effects for net zero global effects.

Simple example: AC running off of solar. It increases heat by decreasing albedo (solar panels are dark), but if you paint another area white, you can have a neutral effect in terms of total energy captured by the earth. But you can have a net zero heat gain and still have AC.

Obviously you’ll have a harder time balancing this equation if you’re using non-renewable energy sources.

Right – cause rain to fall here, cause a drought elsewhere. Etc. Could probably be weaponised if clever about it.

Sure, it’s just another tarball to compile and install, right? What do you mean lots of dependencies? Oh, well, I guess there is Krita :)

That article is light on implemention details. It talks a lot about the legislation itself, and ways in which it might be implemented.

Looks cool. But it’s no Mako

Very cool!

Pot – kettle

If we’re in string freeze, it’s probably within a few weeks. They’re in bug squashing and translations mode now. I’d take that bet.

Keeper of the tools of gardening.

Yes, but how. The details matter

More info: https://www.americanartarchives.com/reilly.htm

However, there’s no indication anywhere online that I can find of the location of the original if you wanted to see it. And this appears to be the highest quality version online anywhere.

Engagement, huzzah! Okay, the funding issue is an issue. Ironically, it requires companies like SpaceX (or their competition as they come online) to get the launch prices down. It’s doable though. Back of envelope: The largest solar sail launched so far has been a paltry 14x14m, if my memory serves correctly. In order to reduce the incoming sunlight by 0.1%, you would need something like 60x1000 km of solar sails. Assuming you can make them 1 sq km each, you’re looking at 60k solar sails. But they can be very very lightweight. Wikipedia proposes 0.02 g/m2 as a lower limit… let’s use 0.05 g/m2 so we have some leeway and don’t need exotic materials. Thus a 1km2 solar sail would weigh only 50kg (of sail material). Add another 200kg for some tensile frame and some control electronics and you’re looking at something like a Starlink mass to get 1km2. Sure you’d need 60k of these things, but launching Starlink swarms that size is doable (to LEO – you’d need a bigger rocket than the F9 for L1). Let’s suppose Starship (or similar) is launching them in batches of 60 for $10M/launch… That’s 1000 launches. Currently SpaceX is launching about every three days, so assuming Starship is online and capable, that would be three years of launches at the same rate as Starlink (but with a bigger rocket) and ten billion dollars. Okay, even if costs go up by an order of magnitude, we can do this, now, today, for about the cost of purchasing twitter. Musk really fucked up didn’t he ;)

Okay, that’s a lot of methane to launch the rockets. Back of the envelope, assuming one launch uses ~300t of methane. The per capita use of natural gas (globally) is about 50 cubic feet per person per day. A cubic foot of natural gas is about 35 grams, so the per capita usage in mass is about 1750g/day/person. So a single rocket launch uses about the same amount of natural gas 171,428 people would for one day. It’s actually very small, comparatively. Even if I got my estimates wrong by two orders of magnitude (on total number of launches), it’s still very small compared to the total amount of gas burned globally every day.

Okay, other options: we put the solar sails in a very high earth orbit (above the comms satellites) – doable, but you’ll require many many more of them as they won’t site between the Earth and the Sun during most of their orbit. LEO would cause problems with collisions with comms satellites. You can’t put them very low due to atmospheric drag. Plus, the closer they are, the more likely they are to create where little eclipses as their shadows pass by. L1 really is probably the best option.

Blimps flying around could do it. But you’d need like 60k blimps flying around in the upper atmosphere and each blimp would have to be an engineering marvel to get to that size. Probably not doable.

There’s cloud seeding, as you suggest. But that becomes a political hot potato (blimps would too) due to where the clouds are created. What if China seeded some clouds which cause a torrential rainfall and flooding in Mexico as the atmospheric currents move those clouds. Etc.

A light nuclear winter sounds like a disaster – what do we do, nuke a few volcanoes to set them off prematurely? That doesn’t sound sustainable. Burn all the forests to release ash? Nope, that’s our carbon sink that’s burning…

Ironically, raising our albedo might be a decent local option – just mandate white roofs everywhere. Just under 3% of our surface is urban and white roofs would also help with the urban heat island issue. You can probably paint 0.2% of the surface white. Not as good as blocking sunlight, but useful. The bad part is, solar panels are all dark, and moving to solar decreases our albedo. So maybe this will just offset changes in our average albedo due to solar panels.

Your last option reminds me of: Kill all the poor!

Almost all non-african countries are projected to shrink or plateau in population by 2100, according to UN estimates. (These estimates cannot account for the unexpected, obviously.)

Image shamelessly stole from: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1evz9a7/oc_un_prediction_for_most_populous_countries_eu/

In no way am I condoning Russian behaviour by the following mathematical statements. People are not numbers, but sometimes you have to look at numbers.

They stole upwards of a few thousand children from eastern Ukraine. They have lost hundreds of thousands to combat. That equation would only have worked for them if they had won in three days and moved through Ukraine unimpeded. And even then, only temporarily.

If you need to use conquest to prop up your economy, it usually means you’re in a spiral where continuous conquest is required to keep feeding the machine. See also: Alexander.

Just need to build a lab in a graveyard then. Checkmate lichens!

Wait until they find they don’t have 2nd amendment rights there

This would be the most circuitous immigration route they could take to get to Europe… go to russia, head to front lines (and survive), surrender, become a POW, claim refugee status (and avoid being deported), land in a western country and start from scratch.