bullshit, you're a cynic who has no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T. as in the original ma bell before the breakup. Old Ma Bell used to take extremely good care of employees, before competitors bitched and caused the breakup, and then after that the modern MBA suits (short term profit at any cost, grow grow grow, etc) started becoming the norm around the same time and everything changed.
grandfather worked for em for 30 years as a lineman. he's been retired now for ~35 years. pension and they (him and grandmother both) dont pay a dime in medical costs (negotiated by the union years before, and worth more than the pension itself really).
And they weren't the only one that took care of employees. and they still exist, though they are rarer now (thanks to the MBAs). just cause your company today is shit doesnt mean they all always have been.
most modern skyscrapers are still under 1000 feet tall. It was only the record breakers that really got that high. most high rise buildings (sky scrapers) are between 300 and 800 feet tall, so the comparison is still apt.
Nice, you can link to wikipedia. Now try reading it.
the DCX and DCY were not reusable launchers/stages. they were intended as entirely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicles. By comparison grasshopper is testing many things, but the most important aspect is the concept of a reusable launcher seperate from the actual vehicle put into orbit.
They also had a completely different designed flight profile and capabilities (never tested as the project never got that far). specifically, this:
One desired safety requirement for any spacecraft is the ability to "abort once around", that is, to return for a landing after a single orbit. Since a typical low earth orbit takes about 90 to 120 minutes, the Earth will rotate to the east about 20 to 30 degrees in that time; or for a launch from the southern United States, about 1,500 miles (2,400 km). If the spacecraft is launched to the east this does not present a problem, but for the polar orbits required of military spacecraft, when the orbit is complete the spacecraft overflies a point far to the west of the launch site. In order to land back at the launch site, the craft needs to have considerable cross-range maneuverability, something that is difficult to arrange with a large smooth surface. The Delta Clipper design thus used a nose-first re-entry with flat sides on the fuselage and large control flaps to provide the needed cross range capability. Experiments with the control of such a re-entry profile had never been tried, and were a major focus of the project
Your comparison is like comparing an airplane to a car, and complaining the airplane taxiing down a runway is nothing special because cars already travel down roads. The Delta Clippers were a totally different experiment, a totally different craft, with a completely different intended mission. the delta clipper was a SSTO replacement concept for the shuttle. the grasshopper is a reusable launcher replacement for the current dispoable fuel tanks and giant rockets such as Soyuz and Aries.
Actually the article misses the point. This isnt the reentry vehicle. This is the launcher. The first stage of a multistage vehicle, and it never leaves hte atmosphere. The idea is to create completely reusable launchers and thus lower cost. Now the upper stages could also benefit from this series of experiements and developmental work; this craft is testing multiple things, and a reentry vehicle that simply lands vertically back home has a few advantages (no really big landing field at really high speed like the shuttle, no uncontrolled parachute descent like current capsules).
But the main thrust (pun) of it is reusable launcher stages, with a side benefit of also being able to apply the tech to upper stages and the reentry vehicle as well. So its not a SSTO (single stage to orbit) vehicle like the old DC-X mcdonnel douglas was toying with.
bad comparison. the LM actually operated in reverse. it landed at a site, then took off. that is very different from taking off and then landing back at that exact same site. furthermore, the part that took off was a totally seperate piece with its own rocket engine, so technically it was two craft (or two stages) performing two seperate operations, not one craft performing both. the grasshopper is also far far larger than the LM, and exercising greater degree of control and precision in a heaver gravity and different atmosphere.
and while you alude to the crew capsules landing without fuel, the current crop of LAUNCHERS in use, are disposable single use entities, which means you apparently missed the entire point of this experimental rocket is to validate the concept of a reusable launcher, which would dramatically reduce costs.
warming is caused by many things. no one has ever said that only man causes it.
however all of those things cause warming over a very very long time scale. except man. which is why the very very fast warming we've seen is attributed to man.
i dont think its that they are behind the curve. its not about protectuing us (citizens) from big data. its about protecting "the nation" from data spills/breaches, which means its a combination of both big data, and security, and mitigating the threat of exposure.
essentially big data has a lot of data. we know this. security is never perfect, breaches are going to happen. we also know this.
other countries can profit from these breaches of massive data, because it gives them additional leverage to force the hand of would be collaborators/spies. THIS is what the artical is about, what DARPA is worried about. there are 4 main motivations used by agents to motivate their assets to spy: greed, revenge, idealism, blackmail. more data makes it easier to identify people whom can be targeted and exploited to work on your behalf.
no it doesnt, and enforcement of any laws when there is any question of legality is ALWAYS held in suspension until the legal question is settled. anything else is patently illegal.
Imagine if DOMA required the incarceration and execution of homosexuals. should we have still kept enforcing it even while it was being debated nationwide and in the courts? after all, its his "sacred duty to the enforce the laws regardless"...except its rather hard to un-execute someone.
its an extreme hypothetical, but it clearly illustrates the entire reason why enforcement of laws can, should be, and IS suspended when these questions arise. to do anything else is itself unethical and illegal.
there's a lot more than just NIMBY going on. my uncle is a prominent geological engineer (famous within his field) who was given the task of evaluating Yucca Mtn many years ago.
he said it was a poor site and should not be used. many others agreed with him. that fault line they "discovered" in 2006? he pointed it out in his report in the 70s. (his exact words were: you're crazy and going to get a lot of people killed)
their reports were ignored and the governement kept looking til it got the answer it wanted.
it's not just NIMBY, even though Reid is only opposing it for political reasons. Yucca Mtn has many fundamental flaws that still have not been addressed. The evaluations the governement is "basing its decisions" on are a sham.
the entire thing has become a sham that is now a political football being used by various sides for votes.
But that doesnt change the fact that a stupid law is a stupid law, and just blindly following and enforcing it is a disaster waiting to happen. again: you cannot legislate reality, and no matter what the courts or the Congress say, Yucca Mtn is poor decision that is going to get people hurt.
One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA,
the president is not required to uphold an unconstitutional law, especially while that law is currently under judicial review. in fact its quite illegal to do so, and any such enforcement is typically postponed until the legal question is settled.
or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin,
actually he's deported more illegal aliens in his first four years of office than any other president in history, including all 2 term presidents, and continues to do so at the same rate. soon he'll have deported more than any 2 other president's combined, or more than in the past 20 years. choosing to prioritize enforcement (ie: criminals and people deported 1 or more times previously get higher priority than kids born here living normal lives) is not illegal and actually makes quite a lot of sense.
So that means, Obamacare must be enforced AS IT IS WRITTEN, the government cannot ignore laws that are inconvenient to the agenda. The government has laws and regulations they must follow as they are enacted.
if something isnt ready, it isnt ready. its like legistlating PI to be 3.14....you can "law" all you want, but you legislate reality into being. and the president does actually have the ability to selectively enforce the law, due to the simple fact that resources are limited, and by their very nature some things are more important than others, and thus prioritizing those things about others is perfectly rational.
what isnt rational is ignoring reality and facts which is what you are doing.
Secondly, even if we accept it as true, when the party puts forth people like Bachmann or Perry as major candidates that we're expected to take seriously, the media certainly didnt have to work very hard to "taint" them. those two did most of the work themselves.
to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.
and yet amazingly, while selectively enforcing the immigration laws, he's still had more people deported than any president before him. more criminals repeat deportees are deported, and fewer kids whose lived their whole lives here. sounds good to me. you know what triage is? its a good concept.
as for the coup thing...sure it may be the law. but is it a good law? its not enough to have laws, they also have to make sense and not lead to a worse outcome, which is a very real possibilty in the case of the coup law. blind worship of the law just turns you into Dredd.
you mention distance yet seem to ignore its effects. tides are also not uniform across the planet, nor isntantaneous, but depend on other factors such as local graviation (really big mountain or valley nearby), geography (affecting flow rate, such as wide open shore line vs being way up a long narrow fjord).
tides also are already affected by periodic reinforcement (ie, when sun and moon's gravities align and reinforce each other), so that's probably the biggest effect you would see of sufficient objects of sufficient mass to cause non-zero impacts, however small: higher high's and lower lows.
some places the tidal range is nearly zero, others its 40 feet (record is Bay of Fundy at >53ft). so if something has even 1/100th the pull of the moon, that could in some locations still be 4 to 6 inches. you can use the math from above to reckon the size of an object to have 1/100th the pull of the moon in a near earth orbit (remember distance is related by gravitational force by an inverse square, so proximity counts for a LOT)
one thing you forgot to consider was distance, and the moon si really really far out there.
also, 12 orders of magnitude is 10^12. given that the moon is ~3474km in diameter (1700km radius), compared to a 60m object the moon is only 5.79e+4 times larger....which is no where near "12 orders of magnitude". but the size that we really need to consider isnt dimensional anyway, but mass.
so let's explore:
Remember the formula is F=G*m1*m2 / d^2. The gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two. So we can hold the factors other than d unitary to determine the relative strengths at the following distances (truncated for space): ~380k km (roughly the moon's average distance) = 6.925e-12 ~36000 km (typical geosynchronous orbit, ie, GPS) = 7.716e-10 ~2000 km (medium earth orbit) = 2.5e-7
So an object at MEO has 324x as much pull as the same object at typical geosynchronous distance, and >36000x as much pull as the same object at the moon's distance. So an object the size of the moon at the moons distance can have the same pull as an object 1/36000 the mass of the moon but in MEO*. Given the moon's mass is 7.3477e+22 kg, this gives us an equivalent mass of 2.041e18 kg at MEO, or 2.26e+20 kg at geosynchronous distance**. Then we can take the moons density of ~3346 kg/m^3. This gives us volumes of ~6.0998e+14 m^3 (MEO) and ~6.754e+16 m^3 (GS), which in turn give shperical diameters of 105.22 km (MEO) and 505.27 km (GS).
So we end up with objects only 0.0302 and 0.1454 the diameter of the moon at MEO and GS to have the same effect as the moon, assuming the same density as the moon. If we instead assume say an asteroid largely composed of Iron (density 7,870 km/m^3) we get diameters of ~79 and 380 km. An iridium asteroid is about the densest thing we might find out there, and even then our diameters calculate to ~56 and ~268 km.
So this is neat stuff, and now we get a real sense of what it would take to have an effect equivalent to the moon. But that's not to say there would no effect. while the distance relationship is an inverse square, the effect of mass is directly proportional, so something with half the mass will have half the effect. and while the poster mentioning hundreds of thousands of these things misses the logistical problems, having a sufficient number number of solid or metallic core examples of these things could have a measurable impact, particularly in terms of periodic reinforcement. and now im running out of time for thought experiment math (gotta get back to work).
*(force vector going to center of a theoretical main body, and thus ignoring for now the angles of distributed force vectors in the real situation being far different between an object in MEO and an object at the moons distance as they effect a fluid on the surface of said main body) **(ignoring for now the orbital velocities or distances required for such objects to remain in stable orbit)
that many of them i'd expect them to be largely equally spread out, or near enough to be considered such. as such, the effect would be close to nil, and the net effect would be zero. note also that this entirely ignores the problems of keeping a few thousand (or hundred thousand!!) objects orbiting the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour without colliding, which they surely would, quickly forming a problem many orders of magnitude in excess of the current problems with space junk.
in other words, the tidal effect is both neglible and not the primary concern in that scenario.
when you understand that throughout most of human history, countries' militaries were the refuges of societys dregs and undesirables, of murders and rapists, that combat didnt mean strategically siezing a city with minimal loss of life but raping and pillaging everyone in sight til nothing was left....the rules begin to make more sense.
the UCMJ isnt simply a reflection of societal mores from the 1950s...thats shrot sighted, and ignores that people have liked sex for most of human history. no, the UCMJ is part of the entire concept of the "professional military", the trained attack dog that will hold perfectly still while being harassed, attack absoltelu viciously when ordered, yet also isntantly cease that attack when ordered....as opposed to the "military" as its been known throughout most of human history which can be likened to a rapid dog kept in a cage, and prone to attacking its own "master", that barely submits to any concept of orders or training.
120+ degree heat. Very little water. Very little food. (Plus wearing >50lbs of bady armor and equipment)
It's one thing to grow up in it. It's home, you're conditioned to it, etc. But when you grow up with air conditioning, cars, plenty of food water, etc etc. plus you're under constant restriction anyway (cant leave compound whenever like, cant take advantage of local "good things" even if its just a swimming hole to evade the heat, have to go on partol in said midday heat, etc)..ya "hell hole" is a pretty good description. Plus the compound isn't usually in the "nice" area, but rather the somewhat undesirable (so as to not impact locals badly by taking their "good spot), and is also chosen for tactical reasons, not comfort ones...
Slashdot Mirror
bullshit, you're a cynic who has no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T. as in the original ma bell before the breakup. Old Ma Bell used to take extremely good care of employees, before competitors bitched and caused the breakup, and then after that the modern MBA suits (short term profit at any cost, grow grow grow, etc) started becoming the norm around the same time and everything changed.
grandfather worked for em for 30 years as a lineman. he's been retired now for ~35 years. pension and they (him and grandmother both) dont pay a dime in medical costs (negotiated by the union years before, and worth more than the pension itself really).
And they weren't the only one that took care of employees. and they still exist, though they are rarer now (thanks to the MBAs).
just cause your company today is shit doesnt mean they all always have been.
most modern skyscrapers are still under 1000 feet tall. It was only the record breakers that really got that high. most high rise buildings (sky scrapers) are between 300 and 800 feet tall, so the comparison is still apt.
Nice, you can link to wikipedia.
Now try reading it.
the DCX and DCY were not reusable launchers/stages.
they were intended as entirely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicles. By comparison grasshopper is testing many things, but the most important aspect is the concept of a reusable launcher seperate from the actual vehicle put into orbit.
They also had a completely different designed flight profile and capabilities (never tested as the project never got that far). specifically, this:
One desired safety requirement for any spacecraft is the ability to "abort once around", that is, to return for a landing after a single orbit. Since a typical low earth orbit takes about 90 to 120 minutes, the Earth will rotate to the east about 20 to 30 degrees in that time; or for a launch from the southern United States, about 1,500 miles (2,400 km). If the spacecraft is launched to the east this does not present a problem, but for the polar orbits required of military spacecraft, when the orbit is complete the spacecraft overflies a point far to the west of the launch site. In order to land back at the launch site, the craft needs to have considerable cross-range maneuverability, something that is difficult to arrange with a large smooth surface. The Delta Clipper design thus used a nose-first re-entry with flat sides on the fuselage and large control flaps to provide the needed cross range capability. Experiments with the control of such a re-entry profile had never been tried, and were a major focus of the project
Your comparison is like comparing an airplane to a car, and complaining the airplane taxiing down a runway is nothing special because cars already travel down roads. The Delta Clippers were a totally different experiment, a totally different craft, with a completely different intended mission. the delta clipper was a SSTO replacement concept for the shuttle. the grasshopper is a reusable launcher replacement for the current dispoable fuel tanks and giant rockets such as Soyuz and Aries.
Actually the article misses the point. This isnt the reentry vehicle. This is the launcher. The first stage of a multistage vehicle, and it never leaves hte atmosphere. The idea is to create completely reusable launchers and thus lower cost. Now the upper stages could also benefit from this series of experiements and developmental work; this craft is testing multiple things, and a reentry vehicle that simply lands vertically back home has a few advantages (no really big landing field at really high speed like the shuttle, no uncontrolled parachute descent like current capsules).
But the main thrust (pun) of it is reusable launcher stages, with a side benefit of also being able to apply the tech to upper stages and the reentry vehicle as well. So its not a SSTO (single stage to orbit) vehicle like the old DC-X mcdonnel douglas was toying with.
bad comparison. the LM actually operated in reverse. it landed at a site, then took off. that is very different from taking off and then landing back at that exact same site. furthermore, the part that took off was a totally seperate piece with its own rocket engine, so technically it was two craft (or two stages) performing two seperate operations, not one craft performing both. the grasshopper is also far far larger than the LM, and exercising greater degree of control and precision in a heaver gravity and different atmosphere.
and while you alude to the crew capsules landing without fuel, the current crop of LAUNCHERS in use, are disposable single use entities, which means you apparently missed the entire point of this experimental rocket is to validate the concept of a reusable launcher, which would dramatically reduce costs.
short version: shutup
warming is caused by many things.
no one has ever said that only man causes it.
however all of those things cause warming over a very very long time scale. except man.
which is why the very very fast warming we've seen is attributed to man.
my first thoughts on seeing the headline too.
that and hot lesbian Doctor on Rose on Martha threesome action.
And thus I will be invoking Rule 34.
I like Asimov's take better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokester
i dont think its that they are behind the curve.
its not about protectuing us (citizens) from big data. its about protecting "the nation" from data spills/breaches, which means its a combination of both big data, and security, and mitigating the threat of exposure.
essentially big data has a lot of data. we know this.
security is never perfect, breaches are going to happen. we also know this.
other countries can profit from these breaches of massive data, because it gives them additional leverage to force the hand of would be collaborators/spies. THIS is what the artical is about, what DARPA is worried about. there are 4 main motivations used by agents to motivate their assets to spy: greed, revenge, idealism, blackmail. more data makes it easier to identify people whom can be targeted and exploited to work on your behalf.
mod up.
you dont know what youre talking about, no wonder you're AC.
mod AC up.
mod down high orbit
no it doesnt, and enforcement of any laws when there is any question of legality is ALWAYS held in suspension until the legal question is settled. anything else is patently illegal.
Imagine if DOMA required the incarceration and execution of homosexuals.
should we have still kept enforcing it even while it was being debated nationwide and in the courts?
after all, its his "sacred duty to the enforce the laws regardless"...except its rather hard to un-execute someone.
its an extreme hypothetical, but it clearly illustrates the entire reason why enforcement of laws can, should be, and IS suspended when these questions arise. to do anything else is itself unethical and illegal.
there's a lot more than just NIMBY going on.
my uncle is a prominent geological engineer (famous within his field) who was given the task of evaluating Yucca Mtn many years ago.
he said it was a poor site and should not be used. many others agreed with him.
that fault line they "discovered" in 2006? he pointed it out in his report in the 70s.
(his exact words were: you're crazy and going to get a lot of people killed)
their reports were ignored and the governement kept looking til it got the answer it wanted.
it's not just NIMBY, even though Reid is only opposing it for political reasons.
Yucca Mtn has many fundamental flaws that still have not been addressed.
The evaluations the governement is "basing its decisions" on are a sham.
the entire thing has become a sham that is now a political football being used by various sides for votes.
But that doesnt change the fact that a stupid law is a stupid law, and just blindly following and enforcing it is a disaster waiting to happen. again: you cannot legislate reality, and no matter what the courts or the Congress say, Yucca Mtn is poor decision that is going to get people hurt.
One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA,
the president is not required to uphold an unconstitutional law, especially while that law is currently under judicial review. in fact its quite illegal to do so, and any such enforcement is typically postponed until the legal question is settled.
or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin,
actually he's deported more illegal aliens in his first four years of office than any other president in history, including all 2 term presidents, and continues to do so at the same rate. soon he'll have deported more than any 2 other president's combined, or more than in the past 20 years. choosing to prioritize enforcement (ie: criminals and people deported 1 or more times previously get higher priority than kids born here living normal lives) is not illegal and actually makes quite a lot of sense.
So that means, Obamacare must be enforced AS IT IS WRITTEN, the government cannot ignore laws that are inconvenient to the agenda. The government has laws and regulations they must follow as they are enacted.
if something isnt ready, it isnt ready. its like legistlating PI to be 3.14....you can "law" all you want, but you legislate reality into being. and the president does actually have the ability to selectively enforce the law, due to the simple fact that resources are limited, and by their very nature some things are more important than others, and thus prioritizing those things about others is perfectly rational.
what isnt rational is ignoring reality and facts which is what you are doing.
First off: bulls*it. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/O000167/votes/page129/
Secondly, even if we accept it as true, when the party puts forth people like Bachmann or Perry as major candidates that we're expected to take seriously, the media certainly didnt have to work very hard to "taint" them. those two did most of the work themselves.
to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.
ignorance. you has it.
Only countries can wage wars.
that is a truly ignorant statement.
and yet amazingly, while selectively enforcing the immigration laws, he's still had more people deported than any president before him. more criminals repeat deportees are deported, and fewer kids whose lived their whole lives here. sounds good to me. you know what triage is? its a good concept.
as for the coup thing...sure it may be the law. but is it a good law? its not enough to have laws, they also have to make sense and not lead to a worse outcome, which is a very real possibilty in the case of the coup law. blind worship of the law just turns you into Dredd.
you mention distance yet seem to ignore its effects. tides are also not uniform across the planet, nor isntantaneous, but depend on other factors such as local graviation (really big mountain or valley nearby), geography (affecting flow rate, such as wide open shore line vs being way up a long narrow fjord).
tides also are already affected by periodic reinforcement (ie, when sun and moon's gravities align and reinforce each other), so that's probably the biggest effect you would see of sufficient objects of sufficient mass to cause non-zero impacts, however small: higher high's and lower lows.
some places the tidal range is nearly zero, others its 40 feet (record is Bay of Fundy at >53ft). so if something has even 1/100th the pull of the moon, that could in some locations still be 4 to 6 inches. you can use the math from above to reckon the size of an object to have 1/100th the pull of the moon in a near earth orbit (remember distance is related by gravitational force by an inverse square, so proximity counts for a LOT)
i think you should be taking your own advice.
one thing you forgot to consider was distance, and the moon si really really far out there.
also, 12 orders of magnitude is 10^12. given that the moon is ~3474km in diameter (1700km radius), compared to a 60m object the moon is only 5.79e+4 times larger....which is no where near "12 orders of magnitude". but the size that we really need to consider isnt dimensional anyway, but mass.
so let's explore:
Remember the formula is F=G*m1*m2 / d^2. The gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two. So we can hold the factors other than d unitary to determine the relative strengths at the following distances (truncated for space):
~380k km (roughly the moon's average distance) = 6.925e-12
~36000 km (typical geosynchronous orbit, ie, GPS) = 7.716e-10
~2000 km (medium earth orbit) = 2.5e-7
So an object at MEO has 324x as much pull as the same object at typical geosynchronous distance, and >36000x as much pull as the same object at the moon's distance. So an object the size of the moon at the moons distance can have the same pull as an object 1/36000 the mass of the moon but in MEO*. Given the moon's mass is 7.3477e+22 kg, this gives us an equivalent mass of 2.041e18 kg at MEO, or 2.26e+20 kg at geosynchronous distance**. Then we can take the moons density of ~3346 kg/m^3. This gives us volumes of ~6.0998e+14 m^3 (MEO) and ~6.754e+16 m^3 (GS), which in turn give shperical diameters of 105.22 km (MEO) and 505.27 km (GS).
So we end up with objects only 0.0302 and 0.1454 the diameter of the moon at MEO and GS to have the same effect as the moon, assuming the same density as the moon. If we instead assume say an asteroid largely composed of Iron (density 7,870 km/m^3) we get diameters of ~79 and 380 km. An iridium asteroid is about the densest thing we might find out there, and even then our diameters calculate to ~56 and ~268 km.
So this is neat stuff, and now we get a real sense of what it would take to have an effect equivalent to the moon. But that's not to say there would no effect. while the distance relationship is an inverse square, the effect of mass is directly proportional, so something with half the mass will have half the effect. and while the poster mentioning hundreds of thousands of these things misses the logistical problems, having a sufficient number number of solid or metallic core examples of these things could have a measurable impact, particularly in terms of periodic reinforcement. and now im running out of time for thought experiment math (gotta get back to work).
*(force vector going to center of a theoretical main body, and thus ignoring for now the angles of distributed force vectors in the real situation being far different between an object in MEO and an object at the moons distance as they effect a fluid on the surface of said main body)
**(ignoring for now the orbital velocities or distances required for such objects to remain in stable orbit)
that many of them i'd expect them to be largely equally spread out, or near enough to be considered such. as such, the effect would be close to nil, and the net effect would be zero. note also that this entirely ignores the problems of keeping a few thousand (or hundred thousand!!) objects orbiting the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour without colliding, which they surely would, quickly forming a problem many orders of magnitude in excess of the current problems with space junk.
in other words, the tidal effect is both neglible and not the primary concern in that scenario.
when you understand that throughout most of human history, countries' militaries were the refuges of societys dregs and undesirables, of murders and rapists, that combat didnt mean strategically siezing a city with minimal loss of life but raping and pillaging everyone in sight til nothing was left....the rules begin to make more sense.
the UCMJ isnt simply a reflection of societal mores from the 1950s...thats shrot sighted, and ignores that people have liked sex for most of human history. no, the UCMJ is part of the entire concept of the "professional military", the trained attack dog that will hold perfectly still while being harassed, attack absoltelu viciously when ordered, yet also isntantly cease that attack when ordered....as opposed to the "military" as its been known throughout most of human history which can be likened to a rapid dog kept in a cage, and prone to attacking its own "master", that barely submits to any concept of orders or training.
120+ degree heat.
Very little water.
Very little food.
(Plus wearing >50lbs of bady armor and equipment)
It's one thing to grow up in it. It's home, you're conditioned to it, etc. But when you grow up with air conditioning, cars, plenty of food water, etc etc. plus you're under constant restriction anyway (cant leave compound whenever like, cant take advantage of local "good things" even if its just a swimming hole to evade the heat, have to go on partol in said midday heat, etc)..ya "hell hole" is a pretty good description. Plus the compound isn't usually in the "nice" area, but rather the somewhat undesirable (so as to not impact locals badly by taking their "good spot), and is also chosen for tactical reasons, not comfort ones...