Daily Archives: September 3, 2023

The moment at the start of Fallout 3 when you step out into the wasteland blew some minds back in 2008, but Starfield's intro isn't quite having the same effect. The short narrative sequence that casts you as a miner isn't quite as captivating as growing up in a Vault, and the simplified space travel and somewhat dull first hours that follow has players wrestling with one of Bethesda's most divisive opening acts yet.

The game opens with a surprisingly short intro sequence where your character's mining job is interrupted by a mysterious artifact and a band of space pirates. It all happens so fast that there's barely any time to express the kind of character you want to play as. Many players agree that Starfield's intro falls flat, and veers too far into absurdity with how quickly your character becomes a killing machine regardless of their choices.

"In 30 minutes I've just been given a ship and told to go to [Constellation's] headquarters," TankMain576 wrote in a Reddit post about Starfield's intro. "But then as soon as I'm in orbit it's, 'Oh no, you're going to go alone to exterminate an ENTIRE BASE of pirates before we get to looking at the thing in your head.' Sir, excuse me? I'm a miner."

Several people in the thread point out that Fallout 4 and Skyrim have similarly unrealistic intros where your character becomes a hero in less than an hour. But Starfield's hard sci-fi worldat least in the beginningisn't as removed from our reality as Fallout's nuclear wasteland or the Elder Scrolls' Tamriel. Outside of touching the artifact, nothing magical happens. Even if you choose to be a former chef or professor as your character background, you'll be blasting pirates and flying through space in minutes.

After the intro, Starfield slows to a crawl. You're given a spaceship, a robot companion, and the freedom to travel anywhere you want, but the game doesn't give you a strong reason to visit anything in particular. You join Constellation, the group of explorers at the center of Starfield's main story, and meet a few of its members. The introductory missions aren't all that eventful until you've properly met everyone and things start to go awry. Other activities aren't much better.

Exploring planets isn't exactly as seamless as you might've thought for such a huge part of the experience. You can't land on them without fast traveling, and whether or not you find anything interesting on the surface is completely random. Base building is too resource expensive early on and you won't have many skill points available to unlock basic features like the boost pack.

Meanwhile, enemies will stand on top of objects and freeze in place, and weapon variety takes a while to open up. Not too surprising in a Bethesda RPG, but some longtime fans have said that the combat feels "outdated," "janky," and "slow."

"I appreciate Bethesda for trying to innovate with a new IP, but it feels like, while they want to push boundaries, theyre too afraid to let some aspects of their formula go," 1877cars4kids wrote.

In our Starfield review, Chris had similar criticisms of Starfield's opening hours: "Starfield's introduction is unusually straightforward for a Bethesda RPG, and the first handful of places you visit, including the game's capital city of New Atlantis, are pretty dull."

That was my experience, too. But once you wrap your brain around Starfield's structureexplore cities, bump into various side missions, and fly to mission objectivesand learn what is or isn't worth your time, the game starts to work better. Chris started to enjoy Starfield after 12 hours, and that lines up with when I was finally able to find skills and weapons I liked and missions that felt significant and rewarding.

Traits, like the one that gives you parents who routinely crash your hero's journey, develop over time and inject some charm in a sea of straight-forward side missions. You'll be able to dump more points as you level up into valuable skills, like Stealth and Persuasion, to customize your approach to different situations. More compelling characters show up to give you insight into the world, and the rewards for progressing the main story help answer the question of what makes Starfield different from Bethesda's previous games.

There are still annoyances in Starfield: the lack of local maps is driving everyone mad, bugs are plentiful, and that sneaky bucket trick from Skyrim doesn't work anymore. But other players who've persevered through the dull opening hours are reporting a similar feeling: it gets better after 12 hours.

"OK, 12 hours in, and I love it," Open-Let-1014 wrote. "Disappointed about the space travel, but everything else is top notch."

Read the original here:

Starfield players agree that its first dozen hours are its weakest: 'OK ... - PC Gamer

This article is part of theBuddhism and International Relations article series, edited by Raghav Dua.

It is well known that space travel is an inherently international exercise. The resources required and complications encountered in off-Earth sojourns often demand multinational cooperation for their management. Even when operating alone, though, national space programs like NASA in the United States or JAXA in Japan still employ multinational staffs so that they may enjoy the work of the best and brightest. Rocket launches are common these days and each one is a testament to international cooperation, with a variable helping of international competition thrown in the mix, too.

Less recognized are the environmental problems posed by space travel and their widespread international effects. Human beings with no connection to space programs have been harmed by falling space debris. Additionally, the glut of obsolete hardware in orbit notably fouls the views of both radio and optical astronomers despite the existence of students of the cosmos in every country. Perhaps most dramatically, a gold rush to mine our moon currently unfolds, and just like terrestrial miners, moon miners can level entire mountains. This could result in the erasure of the figure known to Westerners as the Man in the Moon, and every human being forever after will be able to witness this cultural as well as ecological destruction. A number of environmental issues in space, like the orbital debris or lunar mining that I have mentioned, impact all humans and therefore remain inherently international in character and concern.

Unfortunately, as commonly appears, in this case our technological development outstrips our ethical development for using that technology. Hence, despite the severity of space environmental issues that we face, little has been done to provide positive policy guidance that is ethically grounded. Even when scholars have tried to create such guidance, moreover, efforts have been hamstrung by some traditional moral codes that are in many ways unprepared for tackling space age issues, especially environmental issues like how to value and protect non-living things like our companion moon or the startling rings of Saturn.

Recent environmental ethics research undertaken among Buddhists, however, helps us to see space-related moral issues more clearly. Additionally, this research overcomes some obstacles to our development of space travel morality. Along with a control data set from the general public, American Buddhists from across all three major sects of Theravda, Mahyna, and Vajrayna completed a space ethics survey, and the results of this survey, when combined with traditional Buddhist teachings, provide innovative new directions for resolving ethical problems in space. As described in my book Buddhist Ecological Protection of Space: A Guide for Sustainable Off-Earth Travel (2023), Buddhists from the contemporary ethnographic field clarify the appropriateness of our extraterrestrial actions involving the managing of space debris, the proper mining of our moon, the handling of off-Earth microbes that may be discovered in the future, and the overhauling of the climates of planets like Mars as proposed by people like Elon Musk. As I will explain more, Buddhist ethics from the field can help to guide us to a cleaner and more responsible presence away from Earth.

An interesting theme that emerged in the course of the research involves an ad hoc construction of an ethic of nonharm-in-interconnection, and this ethic ended up grounding all Buddhist space moral responses. This ethic of nonharm-in-interconnection, as employed in this case, cannot be found directly in Buddhist scriptures, and it does not seem to be an artefact of the survey instrument. Instead, it arises organically from the collective voices of grassroots Buddhists. That said, this ethic of nonharm-in-interconnection conjoins features of the tradition that long have been prominent among and treasured by Buddhists of different stripes. A philosophical cornerstone of Buddhism, after all, involves the notion of the utter interconnectedness of the physical universe across space and time. Called dependent arising in English or prattya-samutpda in the scriptural language of Sanskrit, dependent arising recognizes that everything phenomenal arises from one or more causes, so that nothing at all is fully independent despite possible appearances to the contrary. A classical Buddhist image of dependent arising involves a tripod made of three sticks that lean against one another. Take one stick away and the tripod disappears, so that the tripod, rather than being an independent entity, arises only because of specific time-and-place interactions between the sticks. The tripod is inherently interconnected with the sticks in terms of time and place. And if we trace the origin of the sticks back to the Big Bang, we see that the tripod is inherently interconnected across time and space with everything else in our phenomenal universe.

Buddhists from the field strikingly married this fundamental Buddhist metaphysical notion of dependent arising repeatedly with the same value; that of non-harm or ahimsa, commonly found in religions from India. Eschewing Buddhist values like compassion and loving-kindness in favor of non-harm, informants specifically wielded non-harm as a value which, with intention, they then blended with ideas of interconnection for approaching each space environmental issue. That is, for these Buddhists, we should extend non-harm to our moon, whether it is living or not because we are interconnected with it. Intriguingly, classically Buddhists employ non-harm with living beings in mind, but innovatively these Buddhists applied non-harm to the nonliving landscapes of our moon and, as we will see more, of Mars as well.

The fraught problem of space debris, which I have mentioned, offers a nice window into the types of ethical contributions engendered by this Buddhist ethic of non-harm-in-interconnection. Since the 1950s we have sent massive amounts of hardware into space, yet not one bit has been cleaned up. What this means is that we currently suffer from a thick layer of space debris that orbits our planet at high speeds. Space debris includes the spent fuel stages that we all have seen rockets eject in tandem with congealed aluminum oxide slag from solid rocket engines. Intentionally placed trash, such as lens caps from cameras or refuse released from a space station, count as debris, as do unintentional elements like parts lost in the construction of the International Space Station. There currently are more than 20,000 large chunks of this debris in orbit. Since tracking objects less than 10 cm in size is difficult, it is estimated that there are more than 100,000 human-fabricated particles in orbit between 1 and 10 cm in size, with tens of millions of fabricated particles that are smaller than 1 cm.

Since pieces of space debris in orbit can travel as fast as 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) per second, a space debris shard as small as a centimeter wide creates the explosive power of a hand grenade on impact. As the space security analyst James Clay Moltz states, A collision between any sizable piece of orbital debris and a spacecraft would likely cause catastrophic damage and, for manned missions, almost certain death. This debris threatens astronauts in the International Space Station in reality, not just in the fiction of the movie Gravity, and also threatens beings on the ground. For instance, upon reentry into the Earths atmosphere, the Russian military satellite Cosmos 954 left a trail of uranium 235 in solid form scattered across a swath of western Canada. This radioactive load threatened water and food supplies for the indigenous Inuit and Ojibwa people who lived near the crash site. As an additional problem, although humans typically describe falls of space debris into the sea as harmless events, the fact is that the ocean floor becomes polluted from sunken space hardware, negatively affecting underwater landscapes and the marine beings who live there.

Buddhists from the field offer us our most complete response to date to these challenges spawned by space debris. They do so specifically by relying on the nonharm-in-interconnection ethic that I mentioned previously. Crucially, Buddhist informants insist that humans must take responsibility for the space junk that they have created. Although this point may seem banal, this sense of responsibility greatly contrasts with the foot dragging and finger pointing that to date have doomed other campaigns to confront space debris. Additionally, these Buddhists demand that moral concern be extended not just to human beings who may suffer negative consequences from debris but also to nonhuman beings as well, such as the whales and sea turtles who have their lairs ruined by poorly managed space hardware. This extension of concern philosophically arises naturally from the way that these Buddhists understand the interconnectedness of dependent arising. But it also leaves their response to space debris in satisfying consonance with the influential notion of environmental justice in terms of the avoidance of intersectional socioecological inequality as delineated by the environmental scholar David Naghib Pellow in Total Liberation: The Power and Promise of Animal Rights and the Radical Earth Movement.

Another space ecological concern of international import involves the mining of our moon, as I have mentioned. The Trump era resulted in the space policy outcome of the Artemis Accords, which the United States government continues to aggressively press. The Artemis Accords join numerous national space programs together with private entities like SpaceX and Blue Origin in order to commercialize the moon today so that it can support human-staffed traffic to Mars tomorrow. Central in the lunar element of this plan is mining for various substances. NASAs Clementine mission discovered water ice, for instance, which exists in some quantities inside permanently dark craters at our moons poles. This water can support human life as well as be turned into rocket fuel. Miners also covet rare Earth metals, especially those of the platinum family. Finally, some miners seek the energy source helium-3. The isotope known as helium-3 in theory produces no nuclear waste when fused with itself, promising clean power to citizens of Earth. Helium-3 exists on our moon but not on Earth, though, so that people who can mine, process, and/or fuse lunar helium-3 may be in line for space riches.

Of course, a problem here is that any mining carries the potential for considerable ecological destruction. The astronaut and helium-3 prospector Jack Schmitt states that the city of Dallas in the United States could be provided with a years 1,000 megawatt power with two square kilometers of large portions of the lunar surface, to a depth of three meters, [which] contains 100 kg of helium-3. The helium-3 must then be processed out of the mineral before it can be collected and shipped, since Schmitt relates that only 100 kg of helium-3 results from grinding 10 million tonnes of regolith.

If we project these numbers in terms of an active helium-3 industry, at the time of this writing worldwide there already are 385 cities at least the size of and with the energy needs or greater of Schmitts example of Dallas. Of course, there also exist innumerable smaller human municipalities. With at least two square kilometers per city processed to a depth of three meters per year, the area mined really adds up, consisting of at least 770 square kilometers destroyed just for Dallas-sized municipalities and just for one years worth of energy.

Making this situation worse, the moon cannot heal itself because it lacks weathering and tectonic dynamics, so that damage to its surface theoretically lasts forever. This danger not only affects the lunar surface, though, because it also affects human cultures and lives. For instance, leveling the Apennine Mountains on the moon through mining would eliminate the nose of the figure historically treasured by the Roman writer Plutarch as the Woman in the Moon or by contemporary Westerners as the Man in the Moon, thus harming human cultures while also spoiling the view from our back yards. How is it fair if a lunar mining company ruins the view as well as the cultural meanings of our moon for everyone else?

Buddhists respond to these lunar ecological conflicts by relying on their own innovative theorizing while adding a dash of Buddhist history. Historically, Buddhists may have been among the first in the world to establish nature sanctuaries, as such appears to have been done during the lifetime of the Buddha in India around 500 BCE, when a follower of the Buddha named Vassakra initiated a reserve to care for monkeys with park rangers. Buddhists in this study tap into that tradition. Notably, they also extend nonharm-in-interconnection to the lunar landscape despite its lifeless nature, thus embracing a more eco-centric orientation than Buddhisms traditionally life-focused ethics. The result is an environmental ethical proposal to establish protected areas on our moon which prohibit mining as well as open areas that allow commercial pursuits. In this way the scientifically important Daedalus Crater on our moons far side, the best place in the inner solar system for a radio telescope, can be preserved from errant mining. Places of ecological magnificence, such as the great peak Mons Malapert, can remain pristine for future generations to behold and the cultural preciousness of the Man in the Moon can remain intact, all the while without an absolute prohibition of mining.

The famous Buddhist cherishing of life manifests differently, if fascinatingly, when it comes to the ethical treatment of potential Martian microbes. Leaving aside pop culture images of little green people, in a hard science vein it seems likely that microbial life may be found somewhere in our solar system, where the ingredients for life are bountiful. Candidate locations include Jupiters moon Europa, Saturns moons Enceladus and Titan, or in a protected location underground on Mars. Hardware is being developed to seek tiny life in these hard-to-explore spots.

Presuming that this search eventually will be successful raises a host of moral questions. Using Mars as an example discovery location, how should we treat living Martian microorganisms? How should we treat their habitats? Can we kill a few microbes so that we can study them and possibly dramatically advance genetic medicine?

Turning to the Buddhist rules for monastics, the Vinaya, provides some intriguing answers to these questions despite the antiquity of the monastic code. One monastic vow involves ahimsa, or non-harm, as we have already seen in this essay. In this case, ahimsa means extending non-harm as much as possible toward any living off-Earth microorganisms that we may find. Another Buddhist monastic rule against using bodies of water that may contain tiny life supplies a platform for extending non-harm not just to microbes but also to their habitats. All this said, the central, anthropocentric stream of Buddhist ethics allows the use of nonhuman resources if such will reduce human suffering, as is the case in a scenario involving the possible advancement of genetic medicine. Thus, one may argue from monastic rules such as those that govern the harvesting of plants that killing some Martian microbes in the name of science is acceptable as long as the harm to microscopic beings is minimized. That is, Buddhist monastic values supply a practical moral code for use by astronaut-scientists that nonharm to microbes and their habitats must be followed as much as possible, but limited scientific harvesting of living beings also is acceptable as long as pursued with a minimum of destructiveness and suffering.

A final way that Buddhist environmental ethics can guide us in space may bother Elon Musk, a founder of SpaceX. Recognizing environmental devastation here on Earth, Musk says that humanity has no choice but to become a two-planet species by moving to Mars. Mars being too cold and radiation-prone to support much human life, though, Musk advocates planet-wide ecological manipulation, also known by the poor moniker terraforming. So goes Musks theory, by detonating nuclear weapons deep in Mars crust, we release frozen CO2 and other greenhouse gases, thus warming Mars wholesale via the greenhouse effect. As related by Christian Davenport in The Space Barons, Musk thinks that over time temperatures will become more reasonable on a human scale, water ice will melt, and the agricultural production of food for settlements can occur, thus making Mars into an ideal ecological lifeboat for humanity.

There are several problems with this view. Sufficient gas does not seem to exist on Mars nor does a technology to extract it if it did. Moreover, Mars will constantly lose its artificially created atmosphere because it still will lack a magnetic field. There is also the obvious retort from the Astronomer Royal of Britain, Sir Martin Rees, that it is better to repair humanitys home planet than it is to give up and flee. Finally, the space ethicist Tony Milligan highlights another difficulty: permissibility. If it is not ethically permissible to manipulate a planets ecology wholesale rather than piecemeal then, morally speaking, Musk must give up his Mars-as-lifeboat plan.

Buddhists from the field interestingly if resoundingly deny Musk this moral permissibility. Two-to-one Buddhists said no to the permissibility of planet-wide ecological manipulation of Mars despite the lack of life on the Martian surface. Buddhists did so by extending their nonharm-in-interconnection sensibility not to living beings but to the structural integrities of Mars features. An environmental ethicist will be fascinated to find that, collectively if in an ad hoc way, Buddhists replaced the commonplace living/nonliving binary of ethical valuation with attention to interconnection instead. In the eyes of these Buddhists, because they are interconnected with Mars, that planet must be protected as it is, so Musk will need a new plan to replace his goal of the planet-wide ecological manipulation of Mars.

In generating these moral perspectives, Buddhists in this study spotlight a beauty of proactive space environmentalism. Due to climate change, no place on Earth can be preserved in a pristine condition, but the vast majority of our off-Earth environment can be left relatively untouched by humans, if we think and plan ahead. Of course, our orbital paths are already fouled by space debris, but Buddhists argue for the sense of responsibility as well as the orbital recycling centers needed to clean up our space junk. On the moon, though, Buddhist moral perspectives may result in protective reserves for lunar places of ecological magnificence or compelling scientific value, thereby proactively preserving them from commercial pursuits. Of interest, Buddhist environmental ethics also can support the scientific search for life through a tripartite ethic of nonharm toward microbes, nonharm toward microbe habitats, but also limited harvesting of microorganisms for science as long as that harvesting is pursued as respectfully and nondestructively as possible. Finally, Buddhists proactively wish to keep Mars as it is today as much as possible whether or not this moral vision provides an obstacle to a notable space mogul. In the end, several environmental issues connected to space travel impact all humans regardless of nation, and the Buddhists in this study supply some satisfying pathways for protecting off-Earth realities for the benefit of all human (and, it is hoped, nonhuman) beings in all countries.

Link:

Buddhists Do Not Want Space Junk to Fall on Your Head - E-International Relations

This illustration depicts astronauts on Mars. Credit: NASA

Mars has called to us since ancient times. To humans across the eons, the red-tinted speck glinting in the night sky has garnered special attention, with myths and legends wound around its possible ties to Earth. As we observed Mars with telescopes, this fondness graduated into a scientific fascination.

Within only about the last half century, as science has continued to advance, we gained the ability toland scientific instruments on the Red Planet. Beginning with the Viking probes in 1976 and continuing through thePerseverance roverand its flying companion, the Ingenuity helicopter drone, this robotic exploration has allowed humans to discover complex secrets of Mars.

But this is far from the end of our ambitions. Indeed, humans have planned crewed missions to Mars since at least as far back as the 1950s. Scientists and CEOs alike have crafted intricate ideas to establish a presence on the Red Planet, ranging from small-scale research outposts to major settlements.Elon Musks plansto put a million people on Mars stand as a particularly bold example.

Yet even with all the money and influence being poured into the goal of putting boot prints in the Martian regolith, there remain considerable doubts that we will ever actually get there. Between economic and ecological problems mounting here on Earth and the major challenges facing even the most basic mission to send humans to Mars, the impetus to spend the money necessary to fund such an initiative has ebbed with the political tides perhaps more so than any other space mission.

Whether it be the dangers of deep-space radiation or the possibility of failure in the equipment that keeps them alive, the astronauts who travel to Mars will have to overcome dangers before, during, and after their trip to the Red Planet. But as the thousands of applications submitted to the now-defunctMars Oneenterprise clearly show, plenty of people would gladly sign up.

What is it about Mars that draws people with such gravitas? It is a barren, desolate place, after all. That much has been clear from theearliest flybys in the 1960s. The days in which dreamers like Percival Lowell and Edgar Rice Burroughs imagined Mars as a flawed but still inviting destination are long gone, replaced by an era in which futurists argue over whether it makes sense to terraform Mars, thereby altering the Red Planet into something more closely resembling Earth. (And essentially no one realistically addresses whether such a thing is actually possible.)

But the fascination remains, and the call of Mars is still as loud as it was to the futurists of the past. There seems to be something of a destiny in this call that makes it all but inevitable that humans will one day step down onto the surface of Mars, much as we once first stepped onto the surface of the Moon.

This history itself is instructive. In the earliest days of the Space Race, many people thought it inevitable that humans would one day set foot on the lunar surface, even if it took decades as opposed to the scant few years promised by visionaries like John F. Kennedy. But the illusion of inevitability is not proof of its existence in fact, as many failed predictions through history have shown.

Even the Moon landings were subject to faulty predictions.TheNew York Times 1920 declarationthat rockets could not fly through space due to the lack of air comes readily to mind. Yet on July 21, 1969, two men from Earth stepped onto the surface of the Moon, proving all but the most determined doubters wrong. Will their spiritual successors at NASA and other space agencies one day follow suit on Mars? The first person to step on Mars likely walks among us now, and their moment in history may be coming soon.

Lets look at things as they are now. Earlier in 2023, NASA and DARPA announced a partnership to design nuclear rockets, which some attest could be the first step toward a Mars mission. Elsewhere, analog habitats funded by organizations like the Mars Society simulate missions to Mars to prepare potential travelers for the journey. And futurists like Robert Zubrin and Elon Musk draw up plans to send people to Mars by as soon as the late 2020s, with Musk claiming he can establish a colony of one million people by 2100.

But does any of this mean that Mars pulls us toward its shores any more intensely now than at the height of Space Age optimism, when visions of grand cities on Mars seemed near to fulfillment? The basic fact is that, when humans set our minds to do something, we see it done much more often than not. The South Pole, the summit of Everest, and of course, the Sea of Tranquility are all evidence of that.

So while the exact details of a future Mars mission are unclearwhere it will take place, who will be the first to step out of the spacecraft, what flag they will bear (if any), and perhaps most importantly, when it will happen? the possibility that it does happen is much larger than the chance we will never set foot on Mars. It may take decades, but even if it takes another century, it seems likely that someone will one day become the Neil Armstrong on the Red Planet. When that one small step takes place is anyones guess, but the high probability that it will happen seems undeniable.

Continue reading here:

Will humans ever go to Mars? | Astronomy.com - Astronomy Magazine

Arssh Kumar In the vast expanse of space, humanity constantly seeks new frontiers to explore. While conventional space transportation methods have served us well, a remarkable innovation is poised to revolutionize our cosmic adventures: Tether Space Transport! Imagine soaring through the heavens, propelled by a dynamic connection to celestial bodies. A tether transport generally refers to a concept in space propulsion involving the usage of a long, strong cable (tether) to transfer momentum between different objects in space using electromagnetic forces. Tether systems are proposed by scientists for various applications, such as generating electricity, deorbiting satellites, and even for propulsion. The concept of tether space transport is as captivating as it sounds. Instead of relying solely on traditional propulsion systems, tethers utilize the forces of gravity and centrifugal motion to propel spacecraft, transforming our understanding of space travel. By harnessing these natural phenomena, we unlock a realm of possibilities for more efficient and cost-effective interstellar journeys. While tether space transport may sound like science fiction, its anything but! Several pioneering experiments have been conducted to test the feasibility of this extraordinary concept. One notable example is the Tethered Satellite System launched by NASA in the 1990s. This ambitious endeavour demonstrated the potential of tether technology, showcasing its ability to generate electricity, stabilize satellites, and even propel spacecraft. The Tethered Satellite System (TSS) consists of a satellite, a conducting tether, and a tether deployment/retrieval system to be flown on the Space Shuttle. The objectives of the TSS-1 mission were to: (1) verify engineering performance of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS); (2) determine and understand the electro-magnetic interaction between the tether/satellite/orbiter system and the ambient space plasma; (3) investigate and understand the dynamical forces acting upon a tethered satellite; and, (4) develop the capability for future tether applications on the Shuttle and Space Station. To comprehend the magic behind tether space transport, we must delve into the intricacies of its operation. Picture this: a long, ultra-strong cable extends from a spacecraft, anchored to a celestial body such as a planet or moon. As the spacecraft moves in orbit, the tethers tension increases, storing energy within the system. By skilfully manipulating the spacecrafts movement, we can harness this stored energy to propel ourselves deeper into space. Tether space transport presents a myriad of advantages that set it apart from traditional propulsion methods. Firstly, the utilization of gravitational forces drastically reduces the need for onboard fuel, significantly lightening the spacecrafts load. This breakthrough translates into enhanced payload capacity, enabling us to carry more scientific instruments, supplies, or even brave explorers on our cosmic voyages. Furthermore, tether systems can enable orbital transfers between celestial bodies with remarkable efficiency. By taking advantage of gravitational slingshots and carefully choreographed manoeuvres, we can traverse vast distances while conserving precious resources. This opens up unprecedented opportunities for future space missions, including crewed missions to distant planets, asteroid mining expeditions, and beyond. As we look to the horizon, the potential applications of tether space transport extend far beyond our wildest dreams. Imagine a network of interconnected tethers crisscrossing our solar system, acting as interstellar highways that revolutionize our ability to explore, colonize, and harvest resources from celestial bodies. This tantalizing vision drives researchers and visionaries alike to push the boundaries of possibility, inching us closer to a new era of space exploration. Tether transport systems, such as space tethers or space elevators, have also been proposed as a potential means of improving access to space and reducing the cost of space travel. While they hold promise for certain applications, their role in space colonization is more complex and multifaceted.Its important to note that space colonization is a complex endeavour that involves a multitude of challenges beyond just transportation. Factors such as life support, habitat construction, resource utilization, and societal adaptation in space environments are equally critical. While tether transport systems could be a valuable component of the overall effort, they are just one piece of the puzzle in the broader context of space colonization. Its important to note that while the concept of tether transport in space is fascinating and has the potential to revolutionize space transportation, there are significant technical challenges that need to be overcome, including material strength, stability, and deployment mechanisms. Some experimental missions and research have been being conducted so far, but widespread practical implementation of tether-based propulsion systems in space is not yet realized. Tether space transport beckons us with its boundless potential, rewriting the rulebook of space travel as we know it. The dynamic interplay between gravity, motion, and cutting-edge technology presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to expand our cosmic horizons. Brace yourself for a future where the stars are no longer out of reach, but rather a destination we can explore and cherish. Let us embark on this extraordinary journey together, as we unlock the secrets of the universe with tether space transport at our side! (The author is a student at JPIS, Jaipur.)

See the original post here:

Unleashing Power of Tether Space Transport - Jammu Kashmir ... - Daily Excelsior

Jake Nichols

Published: 2023-09-02T06:26:43

Updated : 2023-09-02T09:04:47

Starfields launch has been a divisive moment in the gaming community. A growing number of players are voicing their frustration, arguing that the games controversial low review scores are well-deserved due to its glaring shortcomings.

One Reddit user likened their Starfield experience to playing Mass Effect 1 without good writing in a post that has now received over 6,000 upvotes. The user praised the games aesthetics but criticized its lack of meaningful space exploration, clunky combat, and uninspiring writing.

Article continues after ad

Another Reddit post gaining traction expressed disappointment with the games segmented world, separated by loading screens, and its clunky user interface.

Article continues after ad

This user, six hours into the game, felt that the controversial IGN score of 7/10 was fair, a rating that had initially surprised many.

The communitys criticisms often revolve around a few key points. First, the games writing and emotional depth are frequently cited as lacking. Players find the quests and characters to be generic, lacking the compelling narratives that make for an immersive gaming experience.

Article continues after ad

The biggest issue, the issue that really makes everything else hard to ignore, is that the writing/emotional depth isnt there, one player said. Everything is about as generic as you can make it, from the Macguffin they thrust on you in the first ten minutes of the game, to the side quests where youll be tracking down an endless supply of data chits and generic bad guys.

Article continues after ad

Part of the issue is that the body animations are really bad. Everyone feels very static which is another problem that Bethesda seems to have not fixed from previous games.

Article continues after ad

This comes at a time when expectations for RPGs are sky-high, thanks in part to the release of Baldurs Gate 3 in August. Larian Studios decision to motion-capture every piece of dialogue in Baldurs Gate 3 could explain why some players are feeling underwhelmed with the body animations in Starfield.

Ad-lite Mode|Dark Mode|Deals in gaming, TV and Movies, and tech

Second, despite being billed as a space exploration game, players feel that Starfields exploration mechanics are underwhelming. Players are confined to small pockets of space and barren planetary landscapes, with the actual act of space travel reduced to clicking buttons in a user interface.

Article continues after ad

Article continues after ad

Bills itself as a space exploration game, but you dont land or take off from planets Theres a really cool spaceship-building game, but youre building a spaceship that doesnt let you go where you want or matter outside of a shooter mini-game, the player wrote.

Third, the games combat mechanics are described as serviceable at best, with enemy AI making questionable decisions that break immersion.

The player stated, Bethesda still hasnt learned how to make compelling gunplay The guns feel flat and the enemy AI is constantly making terrible [choices] like staring at me for five seconds before firing, running [in] random directions, etc. It feels like their technology hasnt advanced since Fallout 4.

Article continues after ad

Article continues after ad

Some of these community criticisms align with points made by professional reviewers. While some critics praised the games expansive universe and compelling story, players are finding themselves outraged over missing features, such as the lack of seamless space landings.

The Metacritic score for Starfield stands at 87 for Xbox Series X and 88 for PC, but its the lower scores that have caught the communitys eye. These more critical reviews often mention the same issues that players are discussing: a lack of depth in certain gameplay elements and a focus on breadth rather than quality.

Article continues after ad

In the end, the communitys frustrations seem to validate the lower end of the ratings spectrum. While Starfield offers an expansive universe with much to explore, it appears that for some, the journey may not be as fulfilling as they had hoped.

Article continues after ad

See more here:

Frustrated Starfield players say controversial low review scores are ... - Dexerto