Bill,
grip on reality. First let me say that you don't get milk from a cow
by threatening to shoot it, you certainly don't by actually shooting
it. North Korea maintains an official policy of self-sufficiency, it
doesn't work now and has never worked in the past and let's face it,
things aren't really all that great over there at the moment, are
they? A large habitat may just be able to do better, they would have
a lot more to work with and I hope intellect to use it but I think
that, at lest in the beginning, habitats will want to have
information exchange, trade and a flow of people, either as tourists
or as immigrants with the Earth. This will be a little hard if you
are at war, which I hope will always be the absolute last resort, I'd
rather fight in court than in battle. Now having said that you have
a few problems with the way you want to go about it.
BT:
You want a war from space.
First you take out the full satellite network. No exceptions. That
will ground pretty much all military and commercial airtrafiic. A 10 m
concave mirror and a good telescope could do this.
DB:
Yes, a good mirror, a telescope and a few hours will certainly kill
the comsats and all the others. Of course this does raise a small
problem, are you going to kill all the sats or just the ones
belonging to the nation you are at war with and what about commercial
units that belong to a neutral third party that your foe can buy time
on? Killing every satellite in orbit is just going to add to the
list of people who want you sunk or are you going to compensate them
for the loss, if so I hope you have very deep pockets. By the way,
no exceptions, does that include weather satellites? A lot of ships
and aircraft are dependent on them and GPS as well.
Perhaps I can offer you a better option. The satellites are not your
problem, the information they transmit is, so you stop the
information from getting out. Given that you are already in orbit,
this shouldn't be a big problem. Consider, a small plastic (little
or no radar signature) rocket or even a manned craft, you launch it
and it matches orbit and pull a big, conductive bag over the thing.
No signal in or out. If it is an optical spy sat, how about paint on
the lens or not, those are strictly military so killing them is a
legitimate action. The bagged targets could be let out at the end of
the conflict. Don't like the idea of big plastic bags, how about a
cloud of copper needles around each, the cloud would disperse after a
few weeks/months.
BT:
Then you start lobbing rocks at the major cities. Take out 20-30% of
the population straight away. Next target industrial area using the
same method. Take out 2/3 of the economy.
DB:
Lobbing rocks, sigh, I thought I'd been through this already. Is it
possible to drop big rocks on people from a high place? Yes it is.
Is it easy? No, it isn't! If the rock is small, then it might not
get to the ground and all you would do is give them a really nice
light show. Granted, you could put a heat shield on the rock and
that would let it get to the ground but now you have another
problem. Go and read some accounts of people who have seen a real
meteorite fall, they report that the rock didn't , repeat, didn't
blow a huge hole in the ground and that it wasn't, repeat, wasn't hot
to touch when they picked it up, warm but not hot. This is a result
of a thing called terminal velocity, something every skydiver finds
out about quickly. A small, the exact size depends on composition,
rock will slow to a low speed and it with a modest impact. Of course
the impact energy will depend on the initial velocity and mass of the
object but if you are directing it then I will have to assume it will
not be huge. You could get around this problem by increasing either
or both, the speed and mass of your projectile. Here you will soon
discover that in order to generate a reasonable impact energy you
will need a large/fast rock. What size exactly, well I must confess,
I've never sat and worked out the numbers but I can offer a rough
estimate, that means that nobody should take them as anything other
than a guess. The Apollo missions showed us that the lunar surface
is covered in craters on every scale down to as small as the eye
could make out, our atmosphere acts as a kind of bar, and allows no
crater below a set limit, what is it? Your guess is as good as mine
but I don't know of any crater on Earth less than a kilometre or two
wide, so that is as good a line as any. With that as the cut off
point, you are going to need a lump of nickel iron massing a few
tonnes at lest. So what you are have an army where the smallest
weapon you have is the equal of a tactical nuc. Not bad but not very
discriminating. Of course you did say that you were going to take
out 20-30% of the population and the major industries. So you
believe in total war? By the way, how do you stop the effects from
crossing the national borders?
BT:
If they haven't asked for surrendered at this point start targeting
their strategic allies with the same. Make the rest of the world
pressure them into surrender.
DB:
I see, if the first cow doesn't give milk, you shoot her and then the
rest of herd, just to be certain. If you have no intention of ever
having anything to do with the rest of the human race, it would be
simpler to just move your habitat out of the solar system and forget
everything you leave behind. What you are saying here is, if the US
refused to acknowledge your ownership of a space rock, you would kill
off about 90 million people, destroy its industrial base (starting a
world wide depression at the same time), disrupt world weather
pattens, blanket Canada and Mexico in dust and then you would start
bombing us here in Australia and half of Europe. Then when it was
all over, if it ever was, you would expect us to forget what you have
just done and open normal trade with you! Really? Tell me, if your
neighbour has dispute with you do you shoot his dog, burn down his
house and then do the same to everybody else in the street, until
they make him agree with you?
BT:
You see you only need troops on the ground if you plan to conquer and
stay. If you plan to annihialate without regard to ever taking over a
country their is no reason to keep ground troops.
DB:
Or if you want to stop him from building something to hit back at you
with and of course you have now given him reason to really want to
and to hell with the consequences. I recall a conversation years
ago, when the possibility of a neutron bomb was first raised and how
it shared a common trait with bio weapons. Nobody really wanted to
ever face an enemy that knows it is going to die in the next few
days/weeks because they have nothing to lose. You have something
like that with the country you bomb back to the stone age, they would
have nothing to lose. If you didn't keep a very close eye on things
you may just find some kind of suicide attack. What would it take to
send an infected tourist into you habitat?
BT:
This of course assumes a fair bit of independance in space.
DB:
Well, this is the biggie isn't it? At the moment there are a handful
of nations that can place things into orbit, given time move will
have the ability and then there is what ever methods you are using.
You can't launch a few thousand fist sized rocks at a ground target
because they will never reach the ground before burning up. However
there is nothing to stop one orbital habitat from launching thousands
or millions of small, marble to fist sized projectiles at your
habitat. How many holes can you patch at once? How easy would it be
to attach a small nuc to the outside of your shell? It would be much
better to be a polite neighbour. Cheaper to fight in court.
Darren Brown
There is another problem concerning launching rocks Earthside that you
guys overlooked. To have a satisfactory impact, you were right, it must
be launched at a reasonably high velocity. Now in space, every action
has a very equal and opposite reaction, and you turn your colony into a
large mass driver, and slowly drive yourself out of orbit anyways? Oh
sure you could correct your orbit, but that requires fuel, which costs
money, and incidentally , will in all likelyhood have to come from
Earth, who probably won't give you any more supplies anyways. Maybe
political allies could, but they themselves would take a chance of
retaliation by their neighbors. It all boils down to energy. Why not
just take that propellant you would use and make a bomb instead, and
drop that?
expenditure. But still, you would have to furnish propellant to just
aim it, for one thing, and you also would have to use propellant to
fight the effects of the solar wind, which would be considerable on it,
for it would have to be a gigantic structure to really do the job
properly. I say, having to use all that material, and all that fuel.
war in space would not be cheap......
Off the subject, speaking of solar collectors, I converted my old
satellite dish into a solar collector. I will finish the project this
weekend, which is simply adjusting the dish to track the sun. I am
never home during daytime during the weekdays, so I have to wait. Then
it will probably rain all weekend, and there I'll be...eh?
Why not promote tourism instead? Convert all tourists into space
fanatics, and slowly gain power through the masses until all who see
you will hear and obey your every command....
All this assumes that Earth, full of extremely warlike people with milleniaof military experience, just sits there and takes it. Just a guess,but a 8,000 mile diameter planet is probably a wee bit tougher than youraverage few-kilometer sized colony. There are many ways to destroya space colony. A few thousand steel balls in retrograde orbit woulddo just fine. Even if the habitat was hardened, the solar arraysand thermal radiators would be destroyed. Keeping up the attack fora few days would doom any colony -- no power and no thermal radiation. Besides being wasteful and stupid, war between space colonies and Earthwould ruin your whole day.
Darren Brown wrote:
Bill,
Time for a deep breath, wipe the sweat off your hands and change your
grip on reality. First let me say that you don't get milk froma cow
by threatening to shoot it, you certainly don't by actually shooting
it. North Korea maintains an official policy of self-sufficiency,it
doesn't work now and has never worked in the past and let's face it,
things aren't really all that great over there at the moment, are
they? A large habitat may just be able to do better, they wouldhave
a lot more to work with and I hope intellect to use it but I think
that, at lest in the beginning, habitats will want to have
information exchange, trade and a flow of people, either as tourists
or as immigrants with the Earth. This will be a little hard ifyou
are at war, which I hope will always be the absolute last resort, I'd
rather fight in court than in battle. Now having said that youhave
a few problems with the way you want to go about it.
BT:
You want a war from space.
First you take out the full satellite network. No exceptions. That
will ground pretty much all military and commercial airtrafiic. A 10m
concave mirror and a good telescope could do this.
DB:
Yes, a good mirror, a telescope and a few hours will certainly kill
the comsats and all the others. Of course this does raise a small
problem, are you going to kill all the sats or just the ones
belonging to the nation you are at war with and what about commercial
units that belong to a neutral third party that your foe can buy time
on? Killing every satellite in orbit is just going to add tothe
list of people who want you sunk or are you going to compensate them
for the loss, if so I hope you have very deep pockets. By theway,
no exceptions, does that include weather satellites? A lot ofships
and aircraft are dependent on them and GPS as well.
Perhaps I can offer you a better option. The satellites are notyour
problem, the information they transmit is, so you stop the
information from getting out. Given that you are already in orbit,
this shouldn't be a big problem. Consider, a small plastic (little
or no radar signature) rocket or even a manned craft, you launch it
and it matches orbit and pull a big, conductive bag over the thing.
No signal in or out. If it is an optical spy sat, how about painton
the lens or not, those are strictly military so killing them is a
legitimate action. The bagged targets could be let out at theend of
the conflict. Don't like the idea of big plastic bags, how abouta
cloud of copper needles around each, the cloud would disperse aftera
few weeks/months.
BT:
Then you start lobbing rocks at the major cities. Take out 20-30% of
the population straight away. Next target industrial area using the
same method. Take out 2/3 of the economy.
DB:
Lobbing rocks, sigh, I thought I'd been through this already. Is it
possible to drop big rocks on people from a high place? Yes itis.
Is it easy? No, it isn't! If the rock is small, then it mightnot
get to the ground and all you would do is give them a really nice
light show. Granted, you could put a heat shield on the rockand
that would let it get to the ground but now you have another
problem. Go and read some accounts of people who have seen areal
meteorite fall, they report that the rock didn't , repeat, didn't
blow a huge hole in the ground and that it wasn't, repeat, wasn't hot
to touch when they picked it up, warm but not hot. This is aresult
of a thing called terminal velocity, something every skydiver finds
out about quickly. A small, the exact size depends on composition,
rock will slow to a low speed and it with a modest impact. Ofcourse
the impact energy will depend on the initial velocity and mass of the
object but if you are directing it then I will have to assume it will
not be huge. You could get around this problem by increasingeither
or both, the speed and mass of your projectile. Here you willsoon
discover that in order to generate a reasonable impact energy you
will need a large/fast rock. What size exactly, well I must confess,
I've never sat and worked out the numbers but I can offer a rough
estimate, that means that nobody should take them as anything other
than a guess. The Apollo missions showed us that the lunar surface
is covered in craters on every scale down to as small as the eye
could make out, our atmosphere acts as a kind of bar, and allows no
crater below a set limit, what is it? Your guess is as good asmine
but I don't know of any crater on Earth less than a kilometre or two
wide, so that is as good a line as any. With that as the cutoff
point, you are going to need a lump of nickel iron massing a few
tonnes at lest. So what you are have an army where the smallest
weapon you have is the equal of a tactical nuc. Not bad but notvery
discriminating. Of course you did say that you were going totake
out 20-30% of the population and the major industries. So you
believe in total war? By the way, how do you stop the effectsfrom
crossing the national borders?
BT:
If they haven't asked for surrendered at this point start targeting
their strategic allies with the same. Make the rest of the world
pressure them into surrender.
DB:
I see, if the first cow doesn't give milk, you shoot her and then the
rest of herd, just to be certain. If you have no intention ofever
having anything to do with the rest of the human race, it would be
simpler to just move your habitat out of the solar system and forget
everything you leave behind. What you are saying here is, ifthe US
refused to acknowledge your ownership of a space rock, you would kill
off about 90 million people, destroy its industrial base (startinga
world wide depression at the same time), disrupt world weather
pattens, blanket Canada and Mexico in dust and then you would start
bombing us here in Australia and half of Europe. Then when itwas
all over, if it ever was, you would expect us to forget what you have
just done and open normal trade with you! Really? Tellme, if your
neighbour has dispute with you do you shoot his dog, burn down his
house and then do the same to everybody else in the street, until
they make him agree with you?
BT:
You see you only need troops on the ground if you plan to conquer and
stay. If you plan to annihialate without regard to ever taking overa
country their is no reason to keep ground troops.
DB:
Or if you want to stop him from building something to hit back at you
with and of course you have now given him reason to really want to
and to hell with the consequences. I recall a conversation years
ago, when the possibility of a neutron bomb was first raised and how
it shared a common trait with bio weapons. Nobody really wantedto
ever face an enemy that knows it is going to die in the next few
days/weeks because they have nothing to lose. You have something
like that with the country you bomb back to the stone age, they would
have nothing to lose. If you didn't keep a very close eye onthings
you may just find some kind of suicide attack. What would ittake to
send an infected tourist into you habitat?
BT:
This of course assumes a fair bit of independance in space.
DB:
Well, this is the biggie isn't it? At the moment there are ahandful
of nations that can place things into orbit, given time move will
have the ability and then there is what ever methods you are using.
You can't launch a few thousand fist sized rocks at a ground target
because they will never reach the ground before burning up. However
there is nothing to stop one orbital habitat from launching thousands
or millions of small, marble to fist sized projectiles at your
habitat. How many holes can you patch at once? How easywould it be
to attach a small nuc to the outside of your shell? It wouldbe much
better to be a polite neighbour. Cheaper to fight in court.
Darren Brown
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failurerate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels willneed to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroidare
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand spacecolonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need theircolony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearbystars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
Well there is always a light sail 10 000 km in diamter set up between
the earth and sun just far enough to be able to protect it from launch
craft. 2 weeks of darkness will break the photosynthetic chain killing
50-75% of the plant life. The ripple effect should allow 2-3 billion
people to starve. The colony doesn't even have to win the war at that
point. The causuality rate will be so high on earth that the colony
will be the only technological super-power left.
Are you starting to ask the question when these scenerios were dreamed
up?
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
I'd far rather discuss the proposition that only in an era of space resource
use, orbital construction, and orbital settlements would we be able to build
a much smaller sun shield which might reverse the catastrophic effects of a
runaway greenhouse effect, if we can't manage to get CO2 emissions under
control in time. Or alternately, if the climatologists are dead wrong and
in fact we're heading into another ice age, one could then talk about
orbital mirrors.
scenario as the economic motivation for industrializing and settling space,
but now I can't find it.
It's possible that if we want to continue having the kind of climate which
we consider "normal", development of space construction infrastructure might
be the only way to achieve that. At the very least, SPS would be an aid in
helping to reduce CO2 emissions.
Regards,
Mike Combs
(903)-868-6314
From: bill t [mailto:qwerty172@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:23 PM
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: War in orbit???
Well there is always a light sail 10 000 km in diamter set up between
the earth and sun just far enough to be able to protect it from launch
craft. 2 weeks of darkness will break the photosynthetic chain killing
50-75% of the plant life.
I was thinking I had seen a student design project which used the former scenario as the economic motivation for industrializing and settling space, but now I can't find it.
It's possible that if we want to continue having the kind of climate which we consider "normal", development of space construction infrastructure might be the only way to achieve that. At the very least, SPS would be an aid in helping to reduce CO2 emissions.
Regards,
Mike Combs
(903)-868-6314
From:
bill t [mailto:qwerty172@...]
Sent:
Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:23 PM
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: War in orbit???
Well there is always a light sail 10 000 km in diamter set up between
the earth and sun just far enough to be able to protect it from launch
craft. 2 weeks of darkness will break the photosynthetic chain killing
50-75% of the plant life.
This is a bit of an aside, but the Earth has been *cooling* for about 50
million years. Recently (100,000, 1,000,000?) years ago we started
having ice ages. If the cooling trend continues we could be headed for
a snowball Earth. This has apparently happened in the past. The Earth
gets covered with a couple hundred meters of ice. Kills everything
except a few bacteria. Perhaps our greenhouse gasses are a way to
reverse the cooling trend before its too late :-).
> I'd far rather discuss the proposition that only in an era of space
> resource use, orbital construction, and orbital settlements would we
> be able to build a much smaller sun shield which might reverse the
> catastrophic effects of a runaway greenhouse effect, if we can't
> manage to get CO2 emissions under control in time. Or alternately, if
> the climatologists are dead wrong and in fact we're heading into
> another ice age, one could then talk about orbital mirrors.I was
> thinking I had seen a student design project which used the former
> scenario as the economic motivation for industrializing and settling
> space, but now I can't find it.It's possible that if we want to
> continue having the kind of climate which we consider "normal",
> development of space construction infrastructure might be the only way
> to achieve that. At the very least, SPS would be an aid in helping to
> reduce CO2 emissions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
> (903)-868-6314
>
> From: bill t [mailto:qwerty172@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:23 PM
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: War in orbit???
>
> Well there is always a light sail 10 000 km in diamter set
> up between
> the earth and sun just far enough to be able to protect it
> from launch
> craft. 2 weeks of darkness will break the photosynthetic
> chain killing
> 50-75% of the plant life.
>
Personalize your companys name. Choose the domain name
below and press SEARCH!
>
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need
to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
How much push would the solar wind have on a solar parasol? Basically
it is a solar sail, so to keep it stationary in its distance to the sun,
in the Lagrange point, of Earth, it would require enormous amounts of
energy for thrust.
All,
respect to the theoretical flat disk one would expect that it follows
around the sun, and that when it is out of it's usual path, that
dust, which is captured by the earth's atmosphere, shields the earth
thus helping to trigger an ice age. There is some evidence of
increased deposits of solar dust in association with ice ages,
although this is very new research.
So, perhaps global warming will be our lifesaver?
Cheers,
Tom Tucker
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
> This is a bit of an aside, but the Earth has been *cooling* for
about 50
> million years. Recently (100,000, 1,000,000?) years ago we started
> having ice ages. If the cooling trend continues we could be headed
for
> a snowball Earth. This has apparently happened in the past. The
Earth
> gets covered with a couple hundred meters of ice. Kills everything
> except a few bacteria. Perhaps our greenhouse gasses are a way to
> reverse the cooling trend before its too late :-).
>
> "Combs, Mike" wrote:
>
> > I'd far rather discuss the proposition that only in an era of
space
> > resource use, orbital construction, and orbital settlements would
we
> > be able to build a much smaller sun shield which might reverse the
> > catastrophic effects of a runaway greenhouse effect, if we can't
> > manage to get CO2 emissions under control in time. Or
alternately, if
> > the climatologists are dead wrong and in fact we're heading into
> > another ice age, one could then talk about orbital mirrors.I was
> > thinking I had seen a student design project which used the former
> > scenario as the economic motivation for industrializing and
settling
> > space, but now I can't find it.It's possible that if we want to
> > continue having the kind of climate which we consider "normal",
> > development of space construction infrastructure might be the
only way
> > to achieve that. At the very least, SPS would be an aid in
helping to
> > reduce CO2 emissions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike Combs
> > (903)-868-6314
> >
> > From: bill t [mailto:qwerty172@e...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:23 PM
> > To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> > Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: War in orbit???
> >
> > Well there is always a light sail 10 000 km in diamter set
> > up between
> > the earth and sun just far enough to be able to protect it
> > from launch
> > craft. 2 weeks of darkness will break the photosynthetic
> > chain killing
> > 50-75% of the plant life.
> >
> Personalize your companys name. Choose the domain name
> below and press SEARCH!
>
> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@m..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident.
> Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>
> I think we should:
>
> 1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
> goal of
> reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01%
failure
> rate.
> This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will
need
> to
> develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary
technologies.
>
> 2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest
asteroid
> are
> sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about
500
> times
> greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
> colonies,
> each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
>
> 3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need
their
> colony
> to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in
the
> tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby
stars.
You are assuming that the colony is close enough to earth. You are
also assuming the colony is a O'neil style habitat, instead of a
hollowed portion of an asteroid. You are assuming the colony is not
equipped with earth survelliance systems capable of detecting
launches, in fact you are assuming the colony is in orbit around the
earth, instead of an orbit parallel to the earths.
enemy. We can't defend that satellites it puts up now even from
terrestrial foes.
As for the ball bearing idea, you would literally need billions before
it becomes a significant problem. One of the problems studied at AIMS
and found to be insignificant was the 'artificial' meteors created by
the mass drivers. All the mass used to move material from the moon to
the colony would end up as earth orbiting debris that could be a
hazard for the colony. The results showed that with a billion tonnes
orbiting the earth, you will get one broken window every 3 years.
There is no simple way to destroy a space colony. The earth military
is not equipped to send troops, and any automated system could be
intercepted and destroyed weeks before it becomes a danger. To do it
successfully the earth would have to bring the war to the colony, that
means literally setting up a sizable presence in space, and be able to
counter-move what the colony is doing.
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
Bill wrote:
> As for the ball bearing idea, you would literally need billions before
> it becomes a significant problem. One of the problems studied at AIMS
> and found to be insignificant was the 'artificial' meteors created by
> the mass drivers. All the mass used to move material from the moon to
> the colony would end up as earth orbiting debris that could be a
> hazard for the colony. The results showed that with a billion tonnes
> orbiting the earth, you will get one broken window every 3 years.
>
The AIMS study is for unaimed debris. In a conflict, the ball bearings
would be aimed. The study's assumtions are invalid.
>
> There is no simple way to destroy a space colony.
Nonsense. As mentioned before, even a hollowed out asteroid will have
large, fragile power and/or thermal systems which can be destroyed by
well-aimed 'debris' and kept down by repeated attack. No colony can survive
without power and/or thermal control for long (a few days, perhaps).
> The earth military
> is not equipped to send troops, and any automated system could be
> intercepted and destroyed weeks before it becomes a danger. To do it
> successfully the earth would have to bring the war to the colony, that
> means literally setting up a sizable presence in space, and be able to
> counter-move what the colony is doing.
Since the colony originally came from Earth, my WAG is that Earth would have
significant space capabilities. It's true that today's Earth would have a
hard time fighting tomorrow's colony, but tomorrow's Earth might not be such
a pushover. Of course, today's colony has no military capability whatsoever
(actually, it doesn't even exist). Finally, when faced with a threat, the
10 billion+ people of Earth will probably come up with effective weapons,
they have consistently done so for thousands of years.
>
> Bill
>
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
> >
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
> >
> > As for the ball bearing idea, you would literally need billions
before
> > it becomes a significant problem. One of the problems studied at
AIMS
> > and found to be insignificant was the 'artificial' meteors created
by
> > the mass drivers. All the mass used to move material from the moon
to
> > the colony would end up as earth orbiting debris that could be a
> > hazard for the colony. The results showed that with a billion
tonnes
> > orbiting the earth, you will get one broken window every 3 years.
> >
> The AIMS study is for unaimed debris. In a conflict, the ball
bearings
> would be aimed. The study's assumtions are invalid.
>
aimed, the colony can also be moved out of the way. A colony even in
earth orbit would have to be in high earth orbit. Any missle, debris,
etc would have a one week flight time from earth take off to hit the
colony. By that time, counteractions could easily be made. And if we
are taking about debris, sending them in a spiral orbit to earth is a
lot easier then the other way around.
The reality is that any conflict with a space based power would
quickly escalate to nuclear levels. As far as I know the human race
has never fought and survived a full scale nuclear war. For a colony
destroying the surface of the planet is a real option, because they
don't live there.
>
> Nonsense. As mentioned before, even a hollowed out asteroid will
have
> large, fragile power and/or thermal systems which can be destroyed
by
> well-aimed 'debris' and kept down by repeated attack. No colony can
survive
> without power and/or thermal control for long (a few days, perhaps).
>
That is the kind of systems that would have real defense systems from
random debris even if they are at peace.
> Since the colony originally came from Earth, my WAG is that Earth
would have
> significant space capabilities. It's true that today's Earth would
have a
> hard time fighting tomorrow's colony, but tomorrow's Earth might not
be such
> a pushover. Of course, today's colony has no military capability
whatsoever
> (actually, it doesn't even exist). Finally, when faced with a
threat, the
> 10 billion+ people of Earth will probably come up with effective
weapons,
> they have consistently done so for thousands of years.
>
You are now talking about an earth with significant space
capabilities. The original assumption was can a small group with there
own space capabilities effectively wage war against the earth. I have
argued that they can hide the capabilities long enough to establish a
colony, and could be a real threat to TODAYS earth.
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill" wrote:
> > >
> > > As for the ball bearing idea, you would literally need billions
> before
> > > it becomes a significant problem. One of the problems studied at
> AIMS
> > > and found to be insignificant was the 'artificial' meteors
created
> by
> > > the mass drivers. All the mass used to move material from the
moon
> to
> > > the colony would end up as earth orbiting debris that could be a
> > > hazard for the colony. The results showed that with a billion
> tonnes
> > > orbiting the earth, you will get one broken window every 3
years.
> > >
> > The AIMS study is for unaimed debris. In a conflict, the ball
> bearings
> > would be aimed. The study's assumtions are invalid.
> >
> The assumptions still hold. Even though the debris in question can
be
> aimed, the colony can also be moved out of the way. A colony even in
> earth orbit would have to be in high earth orbit. Any missle,
debris,
> etc would have a one week flight time from earth take off to hit the
> colony. By that time, counteractions could easily be made. And if we
> are taking about debris, sending them in a spiral orbit to earth is
a
> lot easier then the other way around.
>
> The reality is that any conflict with a space based power would
> quickly escalate to nuclear levels. As far as I know the human race
> has never fought and survived a full scale nuclear war. For a colony
> destroying the surface of the planet is a real option, because they
> don't live there.
>
> > Nonsense. As mentioned before, even a hollowed out asteroid will
> have
> > large, fragile power and/or thermal systems which can be destroyed
> by
> > well-aimed 'debris' and kept down by repeated attack. No colony
can
> survive
> > without power and/or thermal control for long (a few days,
perhaps).
> >
> That is the kind of systems that would have real defense systems
from
> random debris even if they are at peace.
>
> > Since the colony originally came from Earth, my WAG is that Earth
> would have
> > significant space capabilities. It's true that today's Earth
would
> have a
> > hard time fighting tomorrow's colony, but tomorrow's Earth might
not
> be such
> > a pushover. Of course, today's colony has no military capability
> whatsoever
> > (actually, it doesn't even exist). Finally, when faced with a
> threat, the
> > 10 billion+ people of Earth will probably come up with effective
> weapons,
> > they have consistently done so for thousands of years.
> >
> You are now talking about an earth with significant space
> capabilities. The original assumption was can a small group with
there
> own space capabilities effectively wage war against the earth. I
have
> argued that they can hide the capabilities long enough to establish
a
> colony, and could be a real threat to TODAYS earth.
>
> Bill
Detonate a nuclear weapon within a few tens of kilometers and the EM
spike would fry all their electronics. Something like that could be
launched using today's technology, and could probably be launched
within a few hours, given the need.
ed
Nonsense, the normal radiation sheilding the colony has would be more
than adequate sheilding. Even if it wasn't, the colony has one week
notice minimum that a launch has taken place. Given that kind of time
scale, a colony could easily redirect the missle.
You are making the classic mistake: compare today's Earth with tomorrow's
colony. By the time a colony is built the Earth will have MUCH greater
space capabilities. Forget your week's notice. And there won't be one
missle, there will be thousands (or more). They will attack from different
directions. There will be countermeasures to confuse sensors, etc., etc.,
etc.
> Nonsense, the normal radiation sheilding the colony has would be more
> than adequate sheilding. Even if it wasn't, the colony has one week
> notice minimum that a launch has taken place. Given that kind of time
> scale, a colony could easily redirect the missle.
>
> Bill
>
> > It wouldn't even take a direct hit of the colony to kill it.
> > Detonate a nuclear weapon within a few tens of kilometers and the EM
> > spike would fry all their electronics. Something like that could be
> > launched using today's technology, and could probably be launched
> > within a few hours, given the need.
> >
> > ed
>
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
You can't launch a missile today without the GPS satellite networks.
The whole satellite network would be taken out.
that can move 300 000 km in less than a week.
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
> You are making the classic mistake: compare today's Earth with
tomorrow's
> colony. By the time a colony is built the Earth will have MUCH
greater
> space capabilities. Forget your week's notice. And there won't be
one
> missle, there will be thousands (or more). They will attack from
different
> directions. There will be countermeasures to confuse sensors, etc.,
etc.,
> etc.
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> > Nonsense, the normal radiation sheilding the colony has would be
more
> > than adequate sheilding. Even if it wasn't, the colony has one
week
> > notice minimum that a launch has taken place. Given that kind of
time
> > scale, a colony could easily redirect the missle.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > It wouldn't even take a direct hit of the colony to kill it.
> > > Detonate a nuclear weapon within a few tens of kilometers and
the EM
> > > spike would fry all their electronics. Something like that
could be
> > > launched using today's technology, and could probably be
launched
> > > within a few hours, given the need.
> > >
> > > ed
> >
> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@m..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident.
>
> Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>
> I think we should:
>
> 1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
goal of
>
> reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01%
failure
> rate.
> This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will
need to
> develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary
technologies.
>
> 2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest
asteroid are
> sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about
500 times
>
> greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
> colonies,
> each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
>
> 3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need
their colony
>
> to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in
the
> tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby
stars.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill" wrote:
>
> You can't launch a missile today without the GPS satellite networks.
> The whole satellite network would be taken out.
>
> The weeks notice is real unless you can convince me there is
something
> that can move 300 000 km in less than a week.
>
> Bill
>
Or better yet, how about 290000km/s? A particle accelerator could be
turned into a fairly good weapon, if the only goal is to fry
electronics.
I really can't see large-scale warfare between the earth and an
independent orbiting facility being practical for anybody. If a
human presence in space is commonplace, a more plausible warfare
scenario is good old-fashioned piracy.
:) ed
A colony has to deal with a particle accelerator a billion times more
powerful than any we can dream of building ever on a routine basis.
Its called the sun. We can't produce a particle accelerator that
powerful.
The reality is that the defenses a colony needs against its natural
hazards, meteor collision, cosmic radiation, solar flares, etc... will
make a colony almost immune from long distance attack. On the other
hand, earth is entirely open to such attacks.
No one knows how many meteors even hit the ground. Many times even the
large ones are unnoticed for years if they hit sparsely populated
areas.
Unless the earth decides to launch troops into orbit to protect the
orbital space a colony has pretty much a free reign. If troops are
launched, you have the supply chain problem.
Bill
>
> How about 300000km/s? There are some pretty nasty lasers out
there.
> Or better yet, how about 290000km/s? A particle accelerator could
be
All,
ownership, and that everyone be acessed a tax to pay for a single
police force authorized to neutralize any violators :-). Space, just
like the frontier of old, will have it's bandits and nationalistic
forces to contend with. Eventually, perhaps we will have robots to
protect us from ourselves as one scifi writer once proposed long,
long, ago, but until now, a police force that is answered to a
committee of states is the best answer. Naturally, lets leave the
pathetic UN out of it, OK?
Regards,
Tom Tucker
Olympia WA
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Ed Minchau" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill" wrote:
> >
> > You can't launch a missile today without the GPS satellite
networks.
> > The whole satellite network would be taken out.
snip
How effective will such a police force be in the asteroid belt?
target and you have a gun. Point it opposite the direction you
want to go and you have an engine.
The laws in space will be made by the people that living there. And
if they believe that everyone should carry an m16, that's what
will happen.
I personally would be the first to start shooting back at a police
force 'authorized to neutralize any violators'. I live in a country
were people are innocent until proven guilty, and violators of the law
have their day in court. They are not shot down like animals or run
over by tanks.
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@y..., tntucker@c... wrote:
> All,
>
> I propose that weapons in space be banned from private or state
> ownership, and that everyone be acessed a tax to pay for a single
> police force authorized to neutralize any violators :-). Space,
just