@theartofmadeline
gracie abrams
Sade Olutola
macklin celebrini has autism
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
if i look back, i am lost
No title available
$LAYYYTER
One Nice Bug Per Day
EXPECTATIONS
ojovivo
tumblr dot com
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Fai_Ryy
NASA
d e v o n
Keni
seen from Brazil
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Russia
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from Finland
seen from Australia
seen from Ecuador
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from Lithuania
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Africa
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
@sobbingdistantnoises
HELLO, this is sideblog where I say things. Main blog I don't really use is @distantsobbingnoises, reblog blog that I Really use is @noisesdistantsobbing
Asks preferably go to this blog! (Though no one will die if they go elsewhere, I'll just reblog them over)
Old pinned post here, please do have a nice day :)
You're allowed to say there are 24 hours in a sol. But Watch Out! This means there are 23.36 hours in a day.
It's super easy to approximate conversions between EIC and IMC now that I think about it. An Earth year is about 0.53 Martian years and a Martian year is about 1.88 Earth years.
Just multiplying/dividing by 2 can get you in the ballpark, but you can also add a correction step to get even closer.
IMC ≈ EIC/2, plus a year for every 30 EIC (or 31)
EIC ≈ 2 IMC, minus a year for every 8 IMC (or 10, or 8.3)
The EIC -> IMC approximation is accurate to the whole number until about 1000 or until about 4000 with 31. The IMC -> EIC approximation is less accurate, but it's not terrible. The 8 approximation works to the whole number until about 250 (or to an error of 2 until 500), the 10 approximation works to the whole number until about 40, and the 8.3 approximation works to the whole number until about 2700.
Another wip may be an awful idea, but THIS time I'll finish. Trust Me.
8 excerpts done, only 20+ to go. This is actually a much more optimistic number than I thought, oh snap. AND my tech (my work skin) works on ao3, I just need to do some debugging to make the keyboard look-and-feel better on mobile. Winning :)
Another wip may be an awful idea, but THIS time I'll finish. Trust Me.
Simon wearing shirt that says "fish want me" and looking very scared
“My son, those stars are already dead. Mere ghost light.”
Okay. So. Long post so most of this will be under a cut (I’m not completely cruel), but I wanna talk about this, because it’s something that I frequently see people get wrong about the Iron Lung universe, and like I’ve said before, space is the one thing that will forever put me in “UHM ACKSHULLY ☝️🤓” mode, so that’s what I’m about to do. And you all have to listen or I’m going to be very upset.
THE STARS ARE NOT “GONE” FROM THE NIGHT SKY IN IRON LUNG.
(Tumblr won’t let me reply to comments so I gotta do this lol-)
@ctrl-shift-alt-9 yes, absolutely!!! I’d be honoured 🥰🥰🥰
It's here...
The Ghost Lights Disappearance Timeline
Ever wanted to know exactly which nearby stars went out and when?
(spoiler: it's all of them.)
What gets me is that the sky will look relatively unchanged, at least in regards to the stars.
(The planets and some moons are some of the brightest things in the sky, but they are being disregarded in this post because their light will disappear within the first few hours of the Quiet Rapture anyway. If you want to see where they rank, look at this post. There's also two galaxies which land around #15 and #50 in the list of brightest natural objects in the sky, but they are also being disregarded in this post, for no good reason this time.)
From Earth, there are about 9096 distinct stars that can be seen with the naked eye (this is adding up both hemispheres, so closer to about 4500 at any single place and time). This is assuming the best possible viewing conditions you can get on Earth, but it's even a lowball estimate for what they'd be seeing from space—in space, you don't have to worry about an atmosphere scattering starlight, so you see more stars and they're a little bit brighter. (Also, apparently they don't twinkle the way they do on Earth, but that's diverging from the point.)
To create a very generous estimate of just how few stars are visibly gone from the sky even 20 years after the Quiet Rapture, 22 visible stars / 9096 visible stars = 0.00241864556, so just 0.24% of them are visibly missing. That's already a very small number, but how many of these 22 visible stars are even bright enough to be easily discernible?
Just 6. And to the naked eye, 2 of them look like one star, so it's really just 5 if we're going about it visually.
The Sun - the brightest star in the sky, 8 light minutes away
Sirius (Sirius A) - the brightest star in the night sky, 8.6 light years away
Alpha Centauri (Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B) - 3rd brightest star (system) in the night sky, 4.34 light years away
Procyon (Procyon A) - 8th brightest star in the night sky, 11 light years away
Altair - 12th brightest star in the night sky, 17 light years away
The other 16 stars visible to the naked eye within 20 light years don't even make the list of the 94 brightest star systems in Earth's sky. Unless you really know what you're looking for, you probably wouldn't be able to tell at a glance that they're even gone.
It will actually take a really long time for every one of the 94 brightest star systems to disappear. About 60% of them are over 100 light-years away, and the the farthest and 20th brightest—Deneb—is about 2600 light years away. Here's a graph showing this off; note that after 30 light years, I use variable increments.
And here's a timeline view of how far the 32 brightest star systems are:
So what does this mean?
For the most part, you wouldn't even be able to visually see that the Quiet Rapture happened: the sky would look more or less the same as it did before, even 20 years in. However, it would be possible to see that 5 of the current 13 brightest star systems are missing with the naked eye.
Here's also a couple interesting events in the timeline that I've noticed by compiling this data:
For the first 11 years after the Quiet Rapture, one of the brightest star systems in the sky will disappear every 3-4 years: the sun, Alpha Centauri, Sirius, and Procyon. Each of these are in the top 9 brightest stars currently and in the top 6 brightest stars at the time of their disappearance
Then, there's a 6 year break in this pattern until it's broken by Altair disappearing in the 17th year after the Quiet Rapture. Altair is currently the 13th brightest and will be the 9th brightest when it disappears.
8.6 years after the Quiet Rapture, Sirius, the second brightest star in our sky after the sun, will disappear. It's between the 5th and 7th brightest natural object in our sky today, but it will be the brightest natural object in the sky after the solar system's light disappears (not considering the IL-universe-only moons, but they probably aren't brighter anyway).
After Sirius, the brightest star in the sky will become Canopus, which is half as bright as Sirius was and currently the 3rd brightest star in the sky. It's also a whole 310 light years away, so it's not going away anytime soon. I imagine this would be a significant moment, an end of an era.
Only 5 stars from this list will have ever been bestowed with the title of brightest star in the sky: the sun, Sirius, Canopus, Rigel, and Deneb. Not counting the sun, Rigel is our current #7 brightest and Deneb is our current #19 brightest. Rigel is about 860 light years away; Deneb is about 2600.
On the 25th year after the Quiet Rapture, 4 years after the events of Iron Lung, 2 of of the brightest stars in the sky—Vega and Fomalhaut—will disappear around the same time, within 3 months of each other. Today, they are the 5th and 18th brightest stars in the night sky, but just before they disappear, they'd be the 3rd and 14th brightest natural bodies. (3.14! Pi! Total coincidence.)
After Vega and Fomalhaut disappear, it will be another 9 years until the next star, Pollux, disappears from the sky in the 34th year after the Quiet Rapture, the longest gap between disappearances of stars making up the 94 brightest star systems until that point.
And that's what I've observed :)
If anyone else would like to see this data, here is my spreadsheet! Feel very free to clone it, modify your clone, distribute that clone, anything. I'd love to hear any insight anyone obtains from this data.
If you notice anything blatantly incorrect (especially if it's not the data itself but my spreadsheet doing bad things with it), please do inform!! I am in no way an expert, this is all Wikipedia knowledge.
Here is a little approximate comparison of how the notable celestial bodies within our solar system (mostly planets) look from Earth and Mars :)
From Earth, the following bodies are the ___ brightest in the sky:
Sun - 1st
Moon - 2nd
Venus - 3rd (looks like the brightest star in the sky)
Jupiter - 4th
Mars - 5th max, 19th average
Mercury - 6th max, 13th average
Saturn - 9th max, 16th average
Uranus - 352nd max, 351st average
Neptune - not visible with the naked eye
From Mars, the following bodies are the ___ brightest in the sky:
Sun - 1st
Phobos - 2nd
Deimos - 3rd (looks like a bright star, brighter than Venus from Earth)
Venus - 4th max, potentially 5th average (dimmer than for Earth)
Jupiter - 5th max, potentially 4th average (bit brighter than for Earth)
Earth - 6th (about half as bright as Venus from Mars)
Earth's moon - 7th-ish (about as bright as Sirius, the brightest star after the sun)
Mercury - 8th-ish max, unknown average (bit brighter than Saturn)
Saturn - 10th-ish max, 17th-ish average (bit brighter than for Earth)
Uranus - 353rd-ish max, 352nd-ish average
Neptune - not visible with the naked eye
Earth's numbers were taken entirely from the table on this Wikipedia article.
Mars' numbers are a bit funky because it's a list I compiled myself, so there are more than likely inaccuracies because I have zero expertise in this topic. Good enough for a tumblr post with no stakes in it. Most of my claims are made with the information on pages 124 and 146 from Astronomy for Entertainment by Yakov Perelman, which I found from this website using it for their claims. This reddit thread was also a reference.
More info about how I got Mars' numbers below the cut.
I raise you one better: PHM/IL crossover where they're all fictional to one another.
Grace canonically likes video games, and he's a middle school teacher. It is plausible that if he doesn't already know Iron Lung, he and Rocky would play and/or watch it on the journey.
Simon's a pretty hopeful guy, even with the Quiet Rapture. I'd think he'd appreciate the hope in Project Hail Mary's narrative.
So they meet, somehow, and they think "wow, this guy/these people are suspiciously similar to My Blorbo(s)". But you can't just SAY that out loud to when you just met, so instead of talking it over, they undergo a comedy of errors about it.
Trying very hard to science Iron Lung. It is not working, but at least I'm coming out of this knowing several more things than I did before
A COI-language word I've come up with: "cot", meaning something meant for temporary usage, something potentially not all that well tested, something quick to deploy with a rapidly approaching expiration date, something not critical.
As an adjective: "Oh, that vessel is cot, don't worry."
As a noun: "We just finished the cot to send out next month."
It derives from COTS, or Commercial Off-The-Shelf, which doesn't have a single definition, but in the context of aerospace, a COTS component is a component that isn't expressly designed for spaceflight that's being used for spaceflight anyway.
To actually use COTS in space, you have to go test it yourself because the manufacturer likely can't give you all the information you need (like how the part handles extreme temperatures, pressure changes, radiation, etc), and there could be manufacturing differences between individual units. The manufacturer also isn't at your behest or anything, so if you want to use specific COTS component, you will probably need to order it in bulk to ensure the manufacturer doesn't change their manufacturing methods between your testing and your launch.
Currently, COTS is limited to mostly shorter duration missions in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), the closest earth orbit possible, though some COTS components have been further out. It's already rare to find a COTS part able to withstand the conditions there, and practically no general purpose manufacturer is designing for deep space on accident.
The big motivator for using COTS stuff is price and availability, seeing as COTS parts can be 10 or 100 times cheaper than parts specifically designed for space (this does not factor in the cost of testing). They're also mostly used by commercial NewSpace agencies (as opposed to Old Space agencies, like NASA), who want to send stuff into orbit faster and cheaper, usually at the cost of reliability and longevity.
In the Iron Lung universe, at some point, vessels built using COTS parts and the NewSpace mindset became cots vessels, and cots got shortened to cot. Then, on board space stations and adjacent environments, cot became a general purpose word.
"A cot experiment" for an scientific experiment that may or may not yield anything but was trivial to run
Someone who recently moved house saying the mattress on the bedroom floor is "cot for now"
A student's big project being referred to as "a cot" derogatorily
I think the historical connotation of cot in the Iron Lung universe would depend on the history of what motivated humanity to go into space. Specifically, whether it was driven more by governments or companies, and whether the focus was on rapid iteration or safety/reliability.
There's room for multiple interpretations, but I personally think that at least the space stations were built with reliability in mind, with very limited if any use of COTS parts. NewSpace agencies fail a Lot, in part because the margin for error is much smaller than what Old Space allocates. On the contrary, the space stations left behind after the Quiet Rapture have stayed functional in conditions no one could have predicted, in an environment they were not built for (orbit vs deep space), with none of the exterior contact and supplies expected. And they've lasted for years. Thus, I'd say the space stations, at least the manned ones, were built for reliability.
So, historically, the connotation of something being cot started out as neutral, just a descriptor that meant it was built fast and isn't meant to withstand more than it was made to withstand. Then, that evolved into a word with a more negative meaning due to the trend of favoring reliability over fast and quick iteration, especially when people live in space stations and lives are on the line.
Of course, then the Quiet Rapture happens, and there begins a growing pressure for the COI to conserve resources, push for time, yet still succeed. Losses become acceptable as long as there are other successes.
This ideology has its similarities with the mindsets of NewSpace agencies and the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" (FBC) approach adopted for a period of time by NASA in the 1990s. Both NewSpace and FBC encouraged the usage of COTS parts in missions.
Now, the COI obviously doesn't have general purpose manufacturers, so there's no actual Commercial-Off-The-Shelf going on, but they do salvage and repurpose other material, which has very similar drawbacks and benefits as COTS. Salvaging something is faster and cheaper energy-wise than making a dedicated part, but there's not the same level of testing and reliability that's possible with something dedicated.
I make this comparison to argue that the demands of the Quiet Rapture create another shift in the connotation of cot, pushing it back closer to what it meant before. Before the Quiet Rapture, if something was cot, it's because reliability was being sacrificed to cut costs. After the Quiet Rapture, if something is cot, it's because it needs to be cot. The SM-13 is a cot as much as the SM-13 is a hemorover; that's what it was made to be.
(Of course, depending on what Eden is doing, they might not see it the same way. To them, the SM-13 might just be a cot piece of junk.)
The final thing I wish to speak on is the usage of cot when referring to a person. So far, I've only been using cot to refer to objects because I think that's where the majority of cot's usage would be, similar to how we use words like "sacrifice" or "disposable". A person can be a sacrifice, and a person can be disposable, but there's something cynical, perhaps unsavory, in calling someone that. A "disposable person" doesn't come up in conversation as often as a "disposable napkin" does.
But what do you call someone who you expect to die at some point, who you don't really trust, who you can send into an ocean of blood without worrying too much about because it's not mission critical that this one returns?
At some point, I think the COI would start using cot to describe its prisoners in addition to the vessels it sends them out in. I wouldn't say it's quite an insult, but there's still something vaguely dehumanizing about calling someone cot.
I'M LISTENING INTENTLY
so if i were to summarise this, it'd go something like this
"cot" as a descriptive adjective meaning:
→ "expendable" (unimportant & replaceable)
→ "makeshift" (temporary & unreliable)
after "cots vessels", ships made cheap and fast from unofficially tested components. used for other objects to imply unreliability for long-term use; evolved negative connotations that the Quiet Rapture renders defunct due to resource scarcity and higher acceptance of material loss to make progress in surviving.
i absolutely LOVE that you brought it into slang and as a reference to people. it makes sense that if it's become a common word for "expendable", it would be used demeaningly towards Edenite prisoners to further their dehumanisation. they are expendables to them, tools/objects to be discarded once they've been used up.
(all i can see now is simon finding a bitter kinship between the SM-13 and himself, both barely holding it together and called "cot" / "an expendable tool" by the COI. i like ctrl-shift-alt-9's headcanons about simon being the future scifi equivalent of a "car guy" and getting attached to the starships he used to pilot for Eden, and he's so dubious about the quality control of the sub ("you did test this thing, right?") but he still pats its dash in apology when he gets angry at it and crashes out. like a really infuriating horse you can't help but be endeared to)
there's so much depth to this!!!! you really did your research and i am Not this smart about space & science stuff so I'll be notetaking and skirting having to explain too much lol.
i hope i can find a way to work this into simon's dialogue, because i think this is one of those words grace would have a HELL of a time trying to translate. it's hard enough finding equivalencies when you have a direct translation, but when there's a word like this that has evolved through slang and several definitions, i think the best he can do is work out a few synonyms and call it a day. that is if he can get simon to sit through giving a history lesson on such a common part of his vocabulary that he probably doesn't even know its origin. "it's just one of those things, y'know. cot. it means cot. no i don't fucking know where it originated do i look like a textbook"
thank you thank you thank you
Yes yes, you've nailed it with your summary!!
LOVE LOVE LOVE your incorporation of Simon Car Guy into this!! I am in love with that headcanon, and "bitter kinship" is SUCH a good way to describe the way Simon feels towards the SM-13, especially with both being considered cot by the COI. I wrote down that the SM-13 is considered cot and that Simon is considered cot, but I somehow failed to realize that they're both considered cot, so you have opened my eyes, haha.
Super glad I come off as well researched!! Most of the things I said here are based on a space-related workshop I attended recently and some quick internet searches for confirmation, so my knowledge is pretty surface level, but I'm pretty sure I'm not spreading misinformation on the internet :P
(Of course, if anyone who knows more than me wishes to correct me or expand on anything, that would be super cool and appreciated !! I heart learning)
I do like how there aren't any direct translations, yes!! And I empathize completely with Grace, haha. I spent a little while trying to think of a single word replacement, and I think makeshift is semi sufficient, but it lacks the same intentionality (?) present in cot. If something is makeshift, it would be great if it was better, but there's nothing that can be done for now. If something is cot, it's supposed to be cot, end of story. That's the vibe I get from these words, at least.
"cot. it means cot." GIGGLING as I imagine this
i NEED to find a way that makes it possible for simon express dissatisfaction with the synonyms they do come up with. because i totally get you with makeshift being like,, adjacent to the word but missing a sublayer of context that really changes the tone. makeshift is like the object is a placeholder for a better version, but cot is like it's purpose is to be used until it wears down and breaks. we don't want something better if it's getting thrown away anyway, and resources are expensive
intentionally makeshift??? cot object was killed by [Intentional Game Design] lol
it gets used for a while until it's literally falling apart and they probably make a new one from its remains (reduce reuse recycle!)
for the sake of my tooltip hover translations when i actually get to posting a fic, im not sure how much detail I'll include in the main text. so i might have to take shortcuts for translation and readability, and just *asterisk a word like cot and explain it in the end notes. it could be a "*intentionally makeshift/expendable" type deal in this case. for a lot of things i think it'll just be a link and "go read it in the doc if you care", cus my author's notes would be pages otherwise lol. direct, if less accurate, translations of simon's dialogue lines should be easier to read and not disturb the flow of the scene too badly i Hope
HMM, I can see Simon trying to name some cot things to try explain, but I imagine that still wouldn't be easy due to the knowledge barrier between them. Project Hail Mary the mission really spared no expense, so it's almost the antithesis of being cot, so Simon might not even know where to start with explaining...hm.
Just off the top of my head, an example of something cot Grace would understand would be a school assignment, but you have limited time/energy to spare, so you intentionally do it bad and declare it "good enough". Even if your work is pretty shoddy, it fulfills its purpose and doesn't really matter in the long term. Whether Simon would understand this example probably depends on Simon's own schooling
Intentionally makeshift would probably work as a tooltip! It feels different in vibe, maybe because it's seven times the syllables, but I think it more or less fits the definition on paper, so it does ultimately do what a tooltip should do
What I've seen one fic (second chapter linked since it has the first example of what I'm talking about) that had a lot of jargon in it do was use jump links/anchor links to provide a quick way to jump down to the relevant author's note, then back up. I thought it worked pretty well in maintaining the work's flow since the links were both quick and optional, so maybe that system could work for your fic? Hmm
(Do beware that ao3 scrubs ids from html elements from user generated content, so the way to declare a return point for a jump link is to have an <a> element with a name="something" attribute instead of an id="something" attribute like the internet would suggest. Let me know if you end up doing this and need help!)
sorry i have to. simon naming cot things and pointing at himself. WHO SAID THAT
yeah, even in a ship setting the best simon could really transmit through charades would be pointing at the Hail Mary and going "this shit? not cot". maybe things that rocky or grace have handcrafted? im thinking of grace's shitty duct-taped laptop translator device, but im not sure it qualifies on account of it working so well and the sheer surviving power of a dell lol.
do it shitty do it scared! yeah the "done is better than perfect" concept could be a good gateway into explaining the term. 7 times the syllables LOL that tracks we're inefficient.
thanks for the reference link! i like the idea of that as well for additional info. considering the frequency of his dialogue lines i wouldn't wanna make everyone hopscotch back and forth every time just to understand, but it'd work well for more in-depth explanation of the linguistics. tooltips for dialogue lines, anchor links for etymology & cultural details
(i am very fearful of ao3 html, and have evienyx to thank for giving me the baby version of how-to-tooltip, so if i ever have to take you up on that it'd be much appreciated lol)
OWWWW???? YOU ARE HURTING ME. SIMON CALLING HIMSELF COT IS DELICIOUS. I feel like, depending on the context, it could actually hinder Grace's ability to understand the meaning of cot. Especially if he's going around pointing at things calling them not cot, it would almost be easy to interpret cot as a synonym for "alive"? Or if Grace and Rocky are included in the "not cot" list, something like "injured"? SO many possibilities
Now that you mention it, I think Grace's translator would definitely count as cot, even if it does work so well!! I can imagine Simon thinking something along the lines of "even their cots are better than anything than what we have" about it
A COI-language word I've come up with: "cot", meaning something meant for temporary usage, something potentially not all that well tested, something quick to deploy with a rapidly approaching expiration date, something not critical.
As an adjective: "Oh, that vessel is cot, don't worry."
As a noun: "We just finished the cot to send out next month."
It derives from COTS, or Commercial Off-The-Shelf, which doesn't have a single definition, but in the context of aerospace, a COTS component is a component that isn't expressly designed for spaceflight that's being used for spaceflight anyway.
To actually use COTS in space, you have to go test it yourself because the manufacturer likely can't give you all the information you need (like how the part handles extreme temperatures, pressure changes, radiation, etc), and there could be manufacturing differences between individual units. The manufacturer also isn't at your behest or anything, so if you want to use specific COTS component, you will probably need to order it in bulk to ensure the manufacturer doesn't change their manufacturing methods between your testing and your launch.
Currently, COTS is limited to mostly shorter duration missions in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), the closest earth orbit possible, though some COTS components have been further out. It's already rare to find a COTS part able to withstand the conditions there, and practically no general purpose manufacturer is designing for deep space on accident.
The big motivator for using COTS stuff is price and availability, seeing as COTS parts can be 10 or 100 times cheaper than parts specifically designed for space (this does not factor in the cost of testing). They're also mostly used by commercial NewSpace agencies (as opposed to Old Space agencies, like NASA), who want to send stuff into orbit faster and cheaper, usually at the cost of reliability and longevity.
In the Iron Lung universe, at some point, vessels built using COTS parts and the NewSpace mindset became cots vessels, and cots got shortened to cot. Then, on board space stations and adjacent environments, cot became a general purpose word.
"A cot experiment" for an scientific experiment that may or may not yield anything but was trivial to run
Someone who recently moved house saying the mattress on the bedroom floor is "cot for now"
A student's big project being referred to as "a cot" derogatorily
I think the historical connotation of cot in the Iron Lung universe would depend on the history of what motivated humanity to go into space. Specifically, whether it was driven more by governments or companies, and whether the focus was on rapid iteration or safety/reliability.
There's room for multiple interpretations, but I personally think that at least the space stations were built with reliability in mind, with very limited if any use of COTS parts. NewSpace agencies fail a Lot, in part because the margin for error is much smaller than what Old Space allocates. On the contrary, the space stations left behind after the Quiet Rapture have stayed functional in conditions no one could have predicted, in an environment they were not built for (orbit vs deep space), with none of the exterior contact and supplies expected. And they've lasted for years. Thus, I'd say the space stations, at least the manned ones, were built for reliability.
So, historically, the connotation of something being cot started out as neutral, just a descriptor that meant it was built fast and isn't meant to withstand more than it was made to withstand. Then, that evolved into a word with a more negative meaning due to the trend of favoring reliability over fast and quick iteration, especially when people live in space stations and lives are on the line.
Of course, then the Quiet Rapture happens, and there begins a growing pressure for the COI to conserve resources, push for time, yet still succeed. Losses become acceptable as long as there are other successes.
This ideology has its similarities with the mindsets of NewSpace agencies and the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" (FBC) approach adopted for a period of time by NASA in the 1990s. Both NewSpace and FBC encouraged the usage of COTS parts in missions.
Now, the COI obviously doesn't have general purpose manufacturers, so there's no actual Commercial-Off-The-Shelf going on, but they do salvage and repurpose other material, which has very similar drawbacks and benefits as COTS. Salvaging something is faster and cheaper energy-wise than making a dedicated part, but there's not the same level of testing and reliability that's possible with something dedicated.
I make this comparison to argue that the demands of the Quiet Rapture create another shift in the connotation of cot, pushing it back closer to what it meant before. Before the Quiet Rapture, if something was cot, it's because reliability was being sacrificed to cut costs. After the Quiet Rapture, if something is cot, it's because it needs to be cot. The SM-13 is a cot as much as the SM-13 is a hemorover; that's what it was made to be.
(Of course, depending on what Eden is doing, they might not see it the same way. To them, the SM-13 might just be a cot piece of junk.)
The final thing I wish to speak on is the usage of cot when referring to a person. So far, I've only been using cot to refer to objects because I think that's where the majority of cot's usage would be, similar to how we use words like "sacrifice" or "disposable". A person can be a sacrifice, and a person can be disposable, but there's something cynical, perhaps unsavory, in calling someone that. A "disposable person" doesn't come up in conversation as often as a "disposable napkin" does.
But what do you call someone who you expect to die at some point, who you don't really trust, who you can send into an ocean of blood without worrying too much about because it's not mission critical that this one returns?
At some point, I think the COI would start using cot to describe its prisoners in addition to the vessels it sends them out in. I wouldn't say it's quite an insult, but there's still something vaguely dehumanizing about calling someone cot.
I'M LISTENING INTENTLY
so if i were to summarise this, it'd go something like this
"cot" as a descriptive adjective meaning:
→ "expendable" (unimportant & replaceable)
→ "makeshift" (temporary & unreliable)
after "cots vessels", ships made cheap and fast from unofficially tested components. used for other objects to imply unreliability for long-term use; evolved negative connotations that the Quiet Rapture renders defunct due to resource scarcity and higher acceptance of material loss to make progress in surviving.
i absolutely LOVE that you brought it into slang and as a reference to people. it makes sense that if it's become a common word for "expendable", it would be used demeaningly towards Edenite prisoners to further their dehumanisation. they are expendables to them, tools/objects to be discarded once they've been used up.
(all i can see now is simon finding a bitter kinship between the SM-13 and himself, both barely holding it together and called "cot" / "an expendable tool" by the COI. i like ctrl-shift-alt-9's headcanons about simon being the future scifi equivalent of a "car guy" and getting attached to the starships he used to pilot for Eden, and he's so dubious about the quality control of the sub ("you did test this thing, right?") but he still pats its dash in apology when he gets angry at it and crashes out. like a really infuriating horse you can't help but be endeared to)
there's so much depth to this!!!! you really did your research and i am Not this smart about space & science stuff so I'll be notetaking and skirting having to explain too much lol.
i hope i can find a way to work this into simon's dialogue, because i think this is one of those words grace would have a HELL of a time trying to translate. it's hard enough finding equivalencies when you have a direct translation, but when there's a word like this that has evolved through slang and several definitions, i think the best he can do is work out a few synonyms and call it a day. that is if he can get simon to sit through giving a history lesson on such a common part of his vocabulary that he probably doesn't even know its origin. "it's just one of those things, y'know. cot. it means cot. no i don't fucking know where it originated do i look like a textbook"
thank you thank you thank you
Yes yes, you've nailed it with your summary!!
LOVE LOVE LOVE your incorporation of Simon Car Guy into this!! I am in love with that headcanon, and "bitter kinship" is SUCH a good way to describe the way Simon feels towards the SM-13, especially with both being considered cot by the COI. I wrote down that the SM-13 is considered cot and that Simon is considered cot, but I somehow failed to realize that they're both considered cot, so you have opened my eyes, haha.
Super glad I come off as well researched!! Most of the things I said here are based on a space-related workshop I attended recently and some quick internet searches for confirmation, so my knowledge is pretty surface level, but I'm pretty sure I'm not spreading misinformation on the internet :P
(Of course, if anyone who knows more than me wishes to correct me or expand on anything, that would be super cool and appreciated !! I heart learning)
I do like how there aren't any direct translations, yes!! And I empathize completely with Grace, haha. I spent a little while trying to think of a single word replacement, and I think makeshift is semi sufficient, but it lacks the same intentionality (?) present in cot. If something is makeshift, it would be great if it was better, but there's nothing that can be done for now. If something is cot, it's supposed to be cot, end of story. That's the vibe I get from these words, at least.
"cot. it means cot." GIGGLING as I imagine this
i NEED to find a way that makes it possible for simon express dissatisfaction with the synonyms they do come up with. because i totally get you with makeshift being like,, adjacent to the word but missing a sublayer of context that really changes the tone. makeshift is like the object is a placeholder for a better version, but cot is like it's purpose is to be used until it wears down and breaks. we don't want something better if it's getting thrown away anyway, and resources are expensive
intentionally makeshift??? cot object was killed by [Intentional Game Design] lol
it gets used for a while until it's literally falling apart and they probably make a new one from its remains (reduce reuse recycle!)
for the sake of my tooltip hover translations when i actually get to posting a fic, im not sure how much detail I'll include in the main text. so i might have to take shortcuts for translation and readability, and just *asterisk a word like cot and explain it in the end notes. it could be a "*intentionally makeshift/expendable" type deal in this case. for a lot of things i think it'll just be a link and "go read it in the doc if you care", cus my author's notes would be pages otherwise lol. direct, if less accurate, translations of simon's dialogue lines should be easier to read and not disturb the flow of the scene too badly i Hope
HMM, I can see Simon trying to name some cot things to try explain, but I imagine that still wouldn't be easy due to the knowledge barrier between them. Project Hail Mary the mission really spared no expense, so it's almost the antithesis of being cot, so Simon might not even know where to start with explaining...hm.
Just off the top of my head, an example of something cot Grace would understand would be a school assignment, but you have limited time/energy to spare, so you intentionally do it bad and declare it "good enough". Even if your work is pretty shoddy, it fulfills its purpose and doesn't really matter in the long term. Whether Simon would understand this example probably depends on Simon's own schooling
Intentionally makeshift would probably work as a tooltip! It feels different in vibe, maybe because it's seven times the syllables, but I think it more or less fits the definition on paper, so it does ultimately do what a tooltip should do
What I've seen one fic (second chapter linked since it has the first example of what I'm talking about) that had a lot of jargon in it do was use jump links/anchor links to provide a quick way to jump down to the relevant author's note, then back up. I thought it worked pretty well in maintaining the work's flow since the links were both quick and optional, so maybe that system could work for your fic? Hmm
(Do beware that ao3 scrubs ids from html elements from user generated content, so the way to declare a return point for a jump link is to have an <a> element with a name="something" attribute instead of an id="something" attribute like the internet would suggest. Let me know if you end up doing this and need help!)
A COI-language word I've come up with: "cot", meaning something meant for temporary usage, something potentially not all that well tested, something quick to deploy with a rapidly approaching expiration date, something not critical.
As an adjective: "Oh, that vessel is cot, don't worry."
As a noun: "We just finished the cot to send out next month."
It derives from COTS, or Commercial Off-The-Shelf, which doesn't have a single definition, but in the context of aerospace, a COTS component is a component that isn't expressly designed for spaceflight that's being used for spaceflight anyway.
To actually use COTS in space, you have to go test it yourself because the manufacturer likely can't give you all the information you need (like how the part handles extreme temperatures, pressure changes, radiation, etc), and there could be manufacturing differences between individual units. The manufacturer also isn't at your behest or anything, so if you want to use specific COTS component, you will probably need to order it in bulk to ensure the manufacturer doesn't change their manufacturing methods between your testing and your launch.
Currently, COTS is limited to mostly shorter duration missions in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), the closest earth orbit possible, though some COTS components have been further out. It's already rare to find a COTS part able to withstand the conditions there, and practically no general purpose manufacturer is designing for deep space on accident.
The big motivator for using COTS stuff is price and availability, seeing as COTS parts can be 10 or 100 times cheaper than parts specifically designed for space (this does not factor in the cost of testing). They're also mostly used by commercial NewSpace agencies (as opposed to Old Space agencies, like NASA), who want to send stuff into orbit faster and cheaper, usually at the cost of reliability and longevity.
In the Iron Lung universe, at some point, vessels built using COTS parts and the NewSpace mindset became cots vessels, and cots got shortened to cot. Then, on board space stations and adjacent environments, cot became a general purpose word.
"A cot experiment" for an scientific experiment that may or may not yield anything but was trivial to run
Someone who recently moved house saying the mattress on the bedroom floor is "cot for now"
A student's big project being referred to as "a cot" derogatorily
I think the historical connotation of cot in the Iron Lung universe would depend on the history of what motivated humanity to go into space. Specifically, whether it was driven more by governments or companies, and whether the focus was on rapid iteration or safety/reliability.
There's room for multiple interpretations, but I personally think that at least the space stations were built with reliability in mind, with very limited if any use of COTS parts. NewSpace agencies fail a Lot, in part because the margin for error is much smaller than what Old Space allocates. On the contrary, the space stations left behind after the Quiet Rapture have stayed functional in conditions no one could have predicted, in an environment they were not built for (orbit vs deep space), with none of the exterior contact and supplies expected. And they've lasted for years. Thus, I'd say the space stations, at least the manned ones, were built for reliability.
So, historically, the connotation of something being cot started out as neutral, just a descriptor that meant it was built fast and isn't meant to withstand more than it was made to withstand. Then, that evolved into a word with a more negative meaning due to the trend of favoring reliability over fast and quick iteration, especially when people live in space stations and lives are on the line.
Of course, then the Quiet Rapture happens, and there begins a growing pressure for the COI to conserve resources, push for time, yet still succeed. Losses become acceptable as long as there are other successes.
This ideology has its similarities with the mindsets of NewSpace agencies and the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" (FBC) approach adopted for a period of time by NASA in the 1990s. Both NewSpace and FBC encouraged the usage of COTS parts in missions.
Now, the COI obviously doesn't have general purpose manufacturers, so there's no actual Commercial-Off-The-Shelf going on, but they do salvage and repurpose other material, which has very similar drawbacks and benefits as COTS. Salvaging something is faster and cheaper energy-wise than making a dedicated part, but there's not the same level of testing and reliability that's possible with something dedicated.
I make this comparison to argue that the demands of the Quiet Rapture create another shift in the connotation of cot, pushing it back closer to what it meant before. Before the Quiet Rapture, if something was cot, it's because reliability was being sacrificed to cut costs. After the Quiet Rapture, if something is cot, it's because it needs to be cot. The SM-13 is a cot as much as the SM-13 is a hemorover; that's what it was made to be.
(Of course, depending on what Eden is doing, they might not see it the same way. To them, the SM-13 might just be a cot piece of junk.)
The final thing I wish to speak on is the usage of cot when referring to a person. So far, I've only been using cot to refer to objects because I think that's where the majority of cot's usage would be, similar to how we use words like "sacrifice" or "disposable". A person can be a sacrifice, and a person can be disposable, but there's something cynical, perhaps unsavory, in calling someone that. A "disposable person" doesn't come up in conversation as often as a "disposable napkin" does.
But what do you call someone who you expect to die at some point, who you don't really trust, who you can send into an ocean of blood without worrying too much about because it's not mission critical that this one returns?
At some point, I think the COI would start using cot to describe its prisoners in addition to the vessels it sends them out in. I wouldn't say it's quite an insult, but there's still something vaguely dehumanizing about calling someone cot.
I'M LISTENING INTENTLY
so if i were to summarise this, it'd go something like this
"cot" as a descriptive adjective meaning:
→ "expendable" (unimportant & replaceable)
→ "makeshift" (temporary & unreliable)
after "cots vessels", ships made cheap and fast from unofficially tested components. used for other objects to imply unreliability for long-term use; evolved negative connotations that the Quiet Rapture renders defunct due to resource scarcity and higher acceptance of material loss to make progress in surviving.
i absolutely LOVE that you brought it into slang and as a reference to people. it makes sense that if it's become a common word for "expendable", it would be used demeaningly towards Edenite prisoners to further their dehumanisation. they are expendables to them, tools/objects to be discarded once they've been used up.
(all i can see now is simon finding a bitter kinship between the SM-13 and himself, both barely holding it together and called "cot" / "an expendable tool" by the COI. i like ctrl-shift-alt-9's headcanons about simon being the future scifi equivalent of a "car guy" and getting attached to the starships he used to pilot for Eden, and he's so dubious about the quality control of the sub ("you did test this thing, right?") but he still pats its dash in apology when he gets angry at it and crashes out. like a really infuriating horse you can't help but be endeared to)
there's so much depth to this!!!! you really did your research and i am Not this smart about space & science stuff so I'll be notetaking and skirting having to explain too much lol.
i hope i can find a way to work this into simon's dialogue, because i think this is one of those words grace would have a HELL of a time trying to translate. it's hard enough finding equivalencies when you have a direct translation, but when there's a word like this that has evolved through slang and several definitions, i think the best he can do is work out a few synonyms and call it a day. that is if he can get simon to sit through giving a history lesson on such a common part of his vocabulary that he probably doesn't even know its origin. "it's just one of those things, y'know. cot. it means cot. no i don't fucking know where it originated do i look like a textbook"
thank you thank you thank you
Yes yes, you've nailed it with your summary!!
LOVE LOVE LOVE your incorporation of Simon Car Guy into this!! I am in love with that headcanon, and "bitter kinship" is SUCH a good way to describe the way Simon feels towards the SM-13, especially with both being considered cot by the COI. I wrote down that the SM-13 is considered cot and that Simon is considered cot, but I somehow failed to realize that they're both considered cot, so you have opened my eyes, haha.
Super glad I come off as well researched!! Most of the things I said here are based on a space-related workshop I attended recently and some quick internet searches for confirmation, so my knowledge is pretty surface level, but I'm pretty sure I'm not spreading misinformation on the internet :P
(Of course, if anyone who knows more than me wishes to correct me or expand on anything, that would be super cool and appreciated !! I heart learning)
I do like how there aren't any direct translations, yes!! And I empathize completely with Grace, haha. I spent a little while trying to think of a single word replacement, and I think makeshift is semi sufficient, but it lacks the same intentionality (?) present in cot. If something is makeshift, it would be great if it was better, but there's nothing that can be done for now. If something is cot, it's supposed to be cot, end of story. That's the vibe I get from these words, at least.
"cot. it means cot." GIGGLING as I imagine this
A COI-language word I've come up with: "cot", meaning something meant for temporary usage, something potentially not all that well tested, something quick to deploy with a rapidly approaching expiration date, something not critical.
As an adjective: "Oh, that vessel is cot, don't worry."
As a noun: "We just finished the cot to send out next month."
It derives from COTS, or Commercial Off-The-Shelf, which doesn't have a single definition, but in the context of aerospace, a COTS component is a component that isn't expressly designed for spaceflight that's being used for spaceflight anyway.
To actually use COTS in space, you have to go test it yourself because the manufacturer likely can't give you all the information you need (like how the part handles extreme temperatures, pressure changes, radiation, etc), and there could be manufacturing differences between individual units. The manufacturer also isn't at your behest or anything, so if you want to use specific COTS component, you will probably need to order it in bulk to ensure the manufacturer doesn't change their manufacturing methods between your testing and your launch.
Currently, COTS is limited to mostly shorter duration missions in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), the closest earth orbit possible, though some COTS components have been further out. It's already rare to find a COTS part able to withstand the conditions there, and practically no general purpose manufacturer is designing for deep space on accident.
The big motivator for using COTS stuff is price and availability, seeing as COTS parts can be 10 or 100 times cheaper than parts specifically designed for space (this does not factor in the cost of testing). They're also mostly used by commercial NewSpace agencies (as opposed to Old Space agencies, like NASA), who want to send stuff into orbit faster and cheaper, usually at the cost of reliability and longevity.
In the Iron Lung universe, at some point, vessels built using COTS parts and the NewSpace mindset became cots vessels, and cots got shortened to cot. Then, on board space stations and adjacent environments, cot became a general purpose word.
"A cot experiment" for an scientific experiment that may or may not yield anything but was trivial to run
Someone who recently moved house saying the mattress on the bedroom floor is "cot for now"
A student's big project being referred to as "a cot" derogatorily
I think the historical connotation of cot in the Iron Lung universe would depend on the history of what motivated humanity to go into space. Specifically, whether it was driven more by governments or companies, and whether the focus was on rapid iteration or safety/reliability.
There's room for multiple interpretations, but I personally think that at least the space stations were built with reliability in mind, with very limited if any use of COTS parts. NewSpace agencies fail a Lot, in part because the margin for error is much smaller than what Old Space allocates. On the contrary, the space stations left behind after the Quiet Rapture have stayed functional in conditions no one could have predicted, in an environment they were not built for (orbit vs deep space), with none of the exterior contact and supplies expected. And they've lasted for years. Thus, I'd say the space stations, at least the manned ones, were built for reliability.
So, historically, the connotation of something being cot started out as neutral, just a descriptor that meant it was built fast and isn't meant to withstand more than it was made to withstand. Then, that evolved into a word with a more negative meaning due to the trend of favoring reliability over fast and quick iteration, especially when people live in space stations and lives are on the line.
Of course, then the Quiet Rapture happens, and there begins a growing pressure for the COI to conserve resources, push for time, yet still succeed. Losses become acceptable as long as there are other successes.
This ideology has its similarities with the mindsets of NewSpace agencies and the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" (FBC) approach adopted for a period of time by NASA in the 1990s. Both NewSpace and FBC encouraged the usage of COTS parts in missions.
Now, the COI obviously doesn't have general purpose manufacturers, so there's no actual Commercial-Off-The-Shelf going on, but they do salvage and repurpose other material, which has very similar drawbacks and benefits as COTS. Salvaging something is faster and cheaper energy-wise than making a dedicated part, but there's not the same level of testing and reliability that's possible with something dedicated.
I make this comparison to argue that the demands of the Quiet Rapture create another shift in the connotation of cot, pushing it back closer to what it meant before. Before the Quiet Rapture, if something was cot, it's because reliability was being sacrificed to cut costs. After the Quiet Rapture, if something is cot, it's because it needs to be cot. The SM-13 is a cot as much as the SM-13 is a hemorover; that's what it was made to be.
(Of course, depending on what Eden is doing, they might not see it the same way. To them, the SM-13 might just be a cot piece of junk.)
The final thing I wish to speak on is the usage of cot when referring to a person. So far, I've only been using cot to refer to objects because I think that's where the majority of cot's usage would be, similar to how we use words like "sacrifice" or "disposable". A person can be a sacrifice, and a person can be disposable, but there's something cynical, perhaps unsavory, in calling someone that. A "disposable person" doesn't come up in conversation as often as a "disposable napkin" does.
But what do you call someone who you expect to die at some point, who you don't really trust, who you can send into an ocean of blood without worrying too much about because it's not mission critical that this one returns?
At some point, I think the COI would start using cot to describe its prisoners in addition to the vessels it sends them out in. I wouldn't say it's quite an insult, but there's still something vaguely dehumanizing about calling someone cot.
Big news: apparently some people DO wear their glasses like Ryland Grace
Was standing right outside a research lab building, talking with some acquaintances when some middle aged guy comes outside for a smoke break, looking incredibly tired. First thing he overhears us say is "We have to go to a furry convention." Cue 10-15 minutes of him standing a few meters away and occasionally glancing at us judgmentally over his shoulder. Then, he goes inside, and I just barely notice that his glasses are hanging off his cheek on one side. Brilliant experience.
Big news: apparently some people DO wear their glasses like Ryland Grace
Perhaps it's really funny that my two PHM/IL long-concept WIPS are "Simon gets put on the Hail Mary, except also Elli is here" and "Simon gets put on the Hail Mary, except also Ava is here". Perhaps there is a trend here.
ALSO I'm putting this snippet from the Elli fic here because EYE think it's really funny + it is very likely nothing I write is seeing the light of day otherwise
