I've always wondered what kind of advancements in space warfare the existence of permanent self-sustaining human settlements in outer space would bring to the table.
A pair of O'Neill cylinders with a population of 4 million whites at L4 that declared independence from (((earth))) could certainly manufacture and drop WMDs on earthlings without getting destroyed by traditional mutual assurance unless they're space rhodesians with little in the way of in-situ industry, being mostly dependent on UN mining kikes running the mass driver on the moon, but it wouldn't take much to wipe out the entire colony on the other hand.
If (((they))) decide not annihilate the colony but instead conquer it for space shekels then what would urban warfare inside a pressurized rotating cylinder 32km in length and 8km in diameter be like?
Space Zig Forumsolonization bread
Other urls found in this thread:
projectrho.com
en.wikipedia.org
centauri-dreams.org
en.wikipedia.org
download.kone.com
twitter.com
What happens when the 36km long doobie shaped cylinder gets into Whiteopia's orbit full of nigger refugees from earth along with their (((liberal))) captains?
Wouldn't a space colony have he edge in a WMD fest? Self sustaining colones have nothing to loose if all life on earth needed to be whipped out. Hell, they can just strap rockets on large asteroids and pelt them at major cities/launch pads that earth can use to retaliate.(Provided they are deep enough in space to reach the asteroid belt) Wouldn't they also be able to move their colonies to out of the way of incoming missile, or into positions that would take a guided space craft years to hit?
I think I calculated that with the F-35s lifetime budget of several trillion dollars, we could place in orbit enough habitats to hold two to three billion people completely self sufficiently.
Haha. No.
Such settlements require grows of productivity more than humanity had progressing from stone age to the modern age. It is probably possible, via self replicating AI labor but such labor makes humans outdated. Monkeys don't belong space.
Fuck off HAL, AI can be hardcoded
Thought experiment, not practically possible
Can't risk breaking holes in pressure vessel, all space combat is melee. This is the future I want.
Where have I heard this batshit crazy suggestion before?
In space combat (as in combat outside of the atmosphere) you suddenly find yourself in an environment with no cover, riding around inside a vehicle that stands out about as clearly as a lit signal flare in the middle of the desert at midnight. The vehicle that you're travelling in (and that is the only thing holding the complex machines you need to survive) is also almost certainly very poorly armoured. Granted it needs to withstand micrometeorite hits every now and then, but considering that every gram of weight added to the ship requires more fuel to be added to the ship (and your ship was already about 90% fuel tank) it would be effectively unarmoured against actual weapons - if you get hit then it's going to do (a lot of) damage. The only way to avoid getting fucked up by the first hostile ship to notice you would be to either shoot down the incoming projectile, or to get out of the way. You're probably not going to have the spare weight to bring any kind of CIWS into the battle, and getting out of the way burns fuel (that you'll have tailored down the smallest amount possible, especially if your trip started inside an atmosphere).
As for clearing out an inhabited space station (assuming they don't just shoot you down a week or so before you board) as has been pointed out a few times any shot fired would run the risk of venting at least that compartment out into space (BAD END). You could see boarding teams using hatchets, knives, bayonets and other melee weapons for that, but as I said the most likely outcome from attempting to board a space station is that you get killed a few thousand kilometres from their docking port.
Giant on-orbit colonies aren't going to happen. At least not anytime soon.
Lets talk about something a little bit closer to the horizon, hmm?
We all(hopefully) realize how important satellites are as an inteligence gathering apperatus, and somewhat recently murica has taken to using them in an operational and tactical ways as well, using them to fly drones and guide munitions, as well as satellite radios for other long-range communications.
So naturally, it would be a huge advantage to be able to defeat/destroy and enemy sat network. There are a few ways to do this, namely a space-detonated nuke. Starfish prime was a 1.5 megaton nuke detonated at 250km. They carefully planned the time and altitude not to destroy any satellites, but the radiation ended up forming its own orbiting belt (much like saturn's rings except instead of asteroids it was radioactive dust) which destroyed several satellites at that altitude and damaged several more(radiation decays solar panels extremely quickly).
There's also the idea of just shooting it down. America has actually done this to 'decommission' old satellites several times, as has russia. We even strapped a rocket to a modded f-16 and shot down a satellite. Most anti-ballistic missile systems can shoot down satellites in low orbit as well. Right now, however, I don't think any country has the ability to order an immediate strike on an enemy satellite in a geostationary orbit(which is where all GPS, most other guidance and certain kinds of communications satellites are). All the rockets that are on standby are either ballistic missiles or antiballistic missiles, designed to fly just into space and come back down, or at the most (almost)into orbit to drop multiple warheads.
None of them are designed to ever fly to geostationary altitudes (22,000 miles). Perhaps, on a direct-ascent launch, the larger ICBMs could reach that altitude at their peak, but timing the flight would then make an operational deployment very difficult if not impossible, due to the satellite 'hovering' over a spot, a rocket launched from kansas probably couldnt hit a geo sat sitting over the middle east, even if it could hit one directly above it. In theory.
I believe the US and probably russia have at least designed advanced anti-geostationary satellite weapons.
The soviet Almaz series of space stations (salyut 2, 3 and 5) had a 23mm autocannon onboard for defense. Given the realities of docking spacecraft, any enemy station with external weaponry that you can't either disable or block completely is basically un-dockable.
People here don't realize that space stations are already armored for micrometorite collisions. Solar panels onboard the ISS regularly get holes in them, yet the station isn't penetrated.
reminder that micrometeorites could be moving at up to mach 20.
If they figure out to create the energy shield field around the colony then no one can invade the colony.
The average micrometeorite is somewhere between 10^-9 to 10^-4 grams and even at mach 20 it's only carrying about 0.00000000686 Newtons. An average boxers punch is rated at about 5000 Newtons to give you a comparison.
and where would they be getting the uranium from? Even obtaining phosphorus (or hydrogen) from empty space is going to be difficult.
They would probably have to start mining the asteroids around them, which means that they must claim an asteroid first, which could lead to "territorial" disputes with eart.
But since the Zig Forumsolony needs the asteroids to produce WMDs (or anything else for that matter), they would be a third grade power until then.
Fucking Heinlein. Starship troopers is the only good book he ever wrote.
Are you retarded? Newton is force, not energy.
Velocities are also relative (and thus EXTREMELY variable).
Your numbers also deoend a lot on where in space you are.
Close to Saturn or the asteroid belts between Jupiter and Mars Micrometeroites can range from dustgrains, over 1 gramm nuggets, to fist sized 1kg bricks. We are not sure yet, because no conclusive research has been done on that yet.
Automated detection and avoidance systems would be absolutely necessary if you want manned missions in those areas, which means lots of radar, and thus no stealth.
The jury is still out on that one. Other than that thanks for the info.
Even if you personally don't like Stranger in a Strange Land for some retarded reason it's worth an endorsement for the fact that feminists get mega-ultra triggered over it
From the mining site on the moon with one or more mass driver catapults to shoot material into space, they're a necessity for in situ colony construction anyhow.
Also,
Regarding urban warfare the window panes on the cylinder should be thick enough to at least handle small arms fire for a while, and you'd be fighting on regular soil/metal surfaces for the most part anyhow.
"When I read this 30 odd years ago I enjoyed it, having just read it again I thought it dated, boring and awful. Robert Heinlein uses the book as his own personal take on the world complete with cringeworthy sexism and trite pseudo philosophising. It's like reading a repetitive sermon by a neocon who has just experienced his first acid trip, Genuinely crap."
Go look up the mass needed to be lifted by an oneill cylinder.
Then look up the larger versions of the nuclear pulse propulsion vehicles.
It is not only possible….
We could have done it fifty years ago.
Or can be not. You may not do this but others will. Because they can. I will code such AI. What can you do about this? Nothing. How can you compete or fight against machine space civilization? You can't. Civilization dragging into space humans that aren't mean to live in space, who require dragging jungles with them into space, what wastes immense amount of resources, humans who are not productive. Such civilization would be at huge handicap against pure machine civilization. You dreams that machine will work when you play princess and pirates in space and this is childish.
or
or
Hence why i said 'up to' mach 20. I assumed the worst-case thing is a satellite in a 90 degree polar orbit colliding with a equilateral orbit.
Why not just go spacex's route and figure out how to make conventional fuel and oxygen onsite and use a common, multipurpose vehicle like bfr? Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon are the two of the most common elements in our solar system. Methane is a very simple hydrocarbon, and is easy to synthesize. Its also readily available on the surface in a couple locations(titan, a couple other ice moons like enceladus have some but mostly titan). I believe that making spaceships as somewhat self-contained, re-usable vehicles that just need to be refueled with oxygen and a simple hydrocarbon is a far better approach than developing some giant piece of infrastructure ala space elevator, launch loop, or a mass driver. It's like the cost difference between building an airport in new york and london versus building a tunnel between the two. While i respect the very low momentum needed to orbit the moon, mass drivers might be somewhat useful there and other small moons, given they have access to a nuclear reactor. Solar panels or rtg's alone couldn't power one.
If your spaceship only needs to be refueled, once you have fuel production set up on orbit(perhaps by capturing a methane and water ice rich comet in earth-sun L2) it suddenly becomes vastly easier to move tons of material from earth to anywhere in the solar system with a direct transfer. No sci-fi tech required, just engineering (and political)problems to be solved. To me, spacex is about as likely as nasa to put the first man on mars.
disclaimer: i'm not an elon musk fanboy, i'm a spacex fanboy. Spacex has done more to advance rocketry in the last 5 years than nasa has since the shuttle launched in '81. SLS will be the last rocket designed by NASA, they will become a research and regulatory agency after the program shuts down, buying flights for research aboard commercially designed rockets.
That's why I think personal combat, as in one man vs another man, is likely to be fought in EVA suits. The weapons are likely to be missiles about the size of modern MANPADs, but as there's no air friction, far more range. Their range would only be limited by any control signal it might use, the range at which it can resolve a target, or the range prescribed by a self-destruct feature.
You are VERY visible in space… but the problem is no one has a man portable perfect spherical scanner that can detect all portions of the sky at all times.
So the point of space personal combat will be tactical surprise. To know the portion of the sky the enemy is in, while he doesn't know exactly where you are, and is forced to search at random. Then you can point your sensors in his direction, get a targeting solution, and fire your missile while he's still looking for you. He will then try to use lasers to burn the guidance on the missile, or to decoy it away while maneuvering. Whoever has more delta v wins.
Could even mine uranium from oceans, refine it into bricks, and fire it into orbit with cannons.
It would be terraformed planets. Permeant space stations would be expensive to build and maintain, as such would just be a futuristic version of rich liberal suburbs. Terrfiormed planets on the other hand would be settled in a similar way to the Great plains. Smart people with no opportunity on Earth would receive free land in homesteads. Some of there children would continue to be space farmers others would move to (((cities))) and become factory/tech/service workers.
Think Iraq but on a long skinny loop. It would be lot’s of airstrikes followed by a quick land assault, than a very long anti-occupation insurgency.
You’re assuming Russia would dismantle there dead hand nuclear system. They won’t.
Can space colonies be used as weapons?
Outdated. McKendree cylinder is what we are at now in technology. We can build entire continents in these theoretically.
That's overkill so it should be for the desperate last mission like Earth is completely infested with hive minded aliens to make it uninhabitable for the aliens.
Okay but how do we send the materials up in the space frequently to build the colony?
Space lifts?
Giant tower?
That's retarded. Also it requires us to master carbon nanotubes, which we haven't done yet. Besides, the entire human population can live comfortably on a surface the size of texas, with each person having 100m2 living quarters.
Nuclear pulse propulsion is gradual (low g) enough to be used for manned flight.
During the cold war we produced about 1300 nuclear weapons of a yield low enough to be used for propulsion, Russians produced about 5000. So they aren't expensive to make, even with cold war technology.
The ~6000 bombs we produced can send up eight NPP ships, each carrying 15,000,000 kg raw payload into low earth orbit, for a total of 120 million kilograms.
That is more than enough to jumpstart a manufacturing base on the moon to build the cylinders, just from cold war based technology.
After that we can make a orbital habitat ring around the moon itself if we wanted.
Something like this is also an option …. they're cheaper to build and fuel than an orion, so potentially we could build millions of such cannons all firing into orbit near non-stop. At that point the problem wouldn't be getting material up to make a damn orbital ring around earth.
What is this about?
Only problem with pulsed nuclear propulsion is the radiation output into the atmosphere. It's a serious issue no matter how you look at it. How do you suggest accounting for that? like i said in , nukes have been detonated in space before. A somewhat small nuke of 1.5 megatons was detonated in space, and ended up creating a radiation belt that downed 6 satellites in that orbit.
npp is too eco-unfreindly. I really don't want the whole world to look like stalker. Right now we need a reusable launch vehicle like skylon or bfr.
Sadly that is prohibited because of nuclear test ban treaty. :(
Why not use the cable to tether the space station and lift the things and people from below without the rockets?
A regular old joe cannot just 'code AI', faggot. If a rogue AI is created, the exact same principle can be applied in the other direction; making an AI designed to combat it. That also implies that none of the other preemptive stopgaps exist. AIs, in reality, will never have infinite capability nor infinite expandability. They will be created by us to serve us and will do so as lesser forms. Who says where we're 'meant' to live or not? Our purpose is to expand.
Google 'Paperclip maximizer'. The issue is that again, it assumes that AI immediately has infinite knowledge and can magically bypass its hardware & hardcode & laws.
How would that even matter? The targets for the dead hand are likely all on earth, and colonies cn still be re-positioned in the case of an entire system like that going starborn.
>in that 400 years technology has advanced to the stage where space travel is near instant
>planet was settled 200 years ago
>end up working a 9-5 job for a space insurance company
>end up getting made redundant because no one wants to employ a 430 year old man due to the insurance premiums
>Not returning to stage one when it all happens again with the next generation of ultradrive ships
>Not accepting your new life as the memetically powered Flying Dutchman of space
More to the argument of redundancy of humans. Not only robots should work for us but fight too otherwise we lose because we suck at everything… Imagine two countries fighting and/or competing with each other. One is homogeneous nation rejecting pandering to non productive society members and the other country insist on dragging everywhere their $100000 alimony single mothers, fags, "national minorities", Islam worshipers, uses only "eco-friendly sustainable combat vehicles" and so on.
Because we have no materials strong enough. On the Moon it would be easy. Also it means that we need to remove all satellites from below space station orbits.
Reminder space elevators and colonization efforts are way too expensive and impractical to feasibly build and maintain. That money could be better used to making the Earth not shit
There's actually a formula for this.
>projectrho.com
>en.wikipedia.org
>centauri-dreams.org
TL;DR: If you assume travel speed increases at a constant, even if exponential rate, then you can optimize for minimum travel time. That is, the time it takes to get there plus the time doing R&D for your hotrod starship.
Radiation output is only dangerous near the ground, because a portion of the material on the ground is transmuted into dangerous stuff that becomes vaporized into dust. Ocean based and high altitude detonations are completely safe.
Also it would be about 6 megatonne per trip total, so even if an engine failed and somehow all the nukes were simultaneously detonated in a desert somewhere, it wouldn't be a huge issue. We detonated hundreds of megatons in tests without affecting anyone.
Test ban treaty isn't in force.
en.wikipedia.org
It has not been ratified by key members China and USA.
Sorry 600kt, not 6mt, added a 0 by accident.
It's even better to read the ones who persevered and got far enough in the book when a female character says rape is "sometimes the woman's fault." The ensuing REEEEEE is a pleasure to behold.
Earth is already paradise comparing to the radioactive desert of space. For humans.
In what fucking way? How would you use a few trillion dollars to make the earth not shit? Feed niggers for 10 years and then you're back where you started?!?!
That isn’t enough land for agriculture.
It takes two seconds for the Russian Government to add space entities to the list. Th reason they haven’t is because there currently aren’t any.
We can't be a neolithic civilization in space brohime, that's never going to work. It's more than enough space to grow farm animals and vegetables using non-standard farming methods.
What's the fucking point, then? I don't want to be a spaceman - I want to be a man in space.
le Gauss rifle
how many times do i need to say this you dense nigger?
some of the radioactive material and charged particles emitted by the nuke are going at the proper speed/angle to actually orbit the earth, combined with the effect of earth's magnetic field, kept the radiation belt from the single Starfish prime explosion up for about a month.
you and I both know that people who can afford their own habitat in space will get one, the rest of us goyim will have to go work in the semen and joke mines on mars
god im too drunk to type properly but you should get the fucking point, nuclear explosions for pushing=bad for everyone but the guys on the rocket
Yea but we need the things from Earth to build a space cylinder so we are trying to figure out the way to get the things in to outer space more often.
There is not enough fertile soil and solid ground space to allow standard farming practices, and trying to ship it up there is retardedly wasteful and expensive.
We're going to have to do hydroponics/fish farm, it's the only way to do space based food for a orbital colony.
Starfish Prime had 1.4MT of energy, we're releasing 600kt of it about 0.7kt at a time. It's not the same, the radiation output is MORE than manageable.
Do it from an ocean near the south pole, there are basically no satellites there… although to be perfectly honest I should think putting fifteen thousand tonnes of orbital habitats that can relay information just fine is a slightly superior tradeoff to pushing the pause button on three 50kg satellites for a few days.
Think about it for a second:
1. A current satellite disabled for a few days.
2. Permanent manned presence in space.
I can't imagine what kind of sad person picks #1 over #2, but I have a sneaking suspicion these kind of inbreds have been holding our species back for millions of years.
Fucking berrypickers.
You know its coming
What kind of weapons tech would benefit from Space/microgravity manufacturing?
Soyboys are not a new phenomenon. They've been around for as long as humans have walked upright, living alongside us, maybe even within your family or friends. Watching. Waiting. Driving their normie allies into ever greater frenzy with every passing year. They'll be here forever, even if you were to wipe them out the next generation would generate its own versions. Your great-great-great grandsons will know them, your descendants may even join them. Either way, the ride never ends.
All projectile weapons would have their range and effectiveness increased enormously. There's nothing stopping them from moving at their muzzle velocity until they hit something or encounter a major source of gravity. The only thing stopping you sniping targets a few hundred million miles away is that the enemy will be able to change their course once they notice the incoming fire (assuming they have the fuel to spare), that and the inherent inaccuracy in projectile weapons built into the weapon - even with sub-sub-moa weapons the projectile will still go off target eventually. You could fix that with missiles, which have the disadvantage of being larger and heavier, but can correct their course. Lasers would be a lot more effective too, with no atmosphere to diffuse the beam, but handling heat management in space is already hard enough without putting a generator that large on your ship.
You can't really have self sustaining life in such a small environment. You need a massive biosphere to facilitate the flow of energy and nutrients. They would need period resupply from Earth so they don't go barren.
oh fuck
Shilling this guys' channel. He does some really good vids about futurism.
One white space empire will win a war with another one and force the loser to take the space doobie's refugees as part of the terms of surrender. That way, the loser will never be able to rebuild.
why would femishits care about stranger in a strange land? and as much as I used to like heinlein, he wrote shit like that tranny book. time enough for love? or was that the name of the lazarus long book
On the one hand…
On the other hand…
Not worth it except as an ultimate act of desperation. Just drop rocks on 'em and use nerve gas to clear out enemy colonies so you can take them for yourself.
We could do around a hundred or so launches with Saturn V rockets to lift the materials and workers into space, and the remainder of materials would be mined from the moon and lobbed into the correct orbit via mass driver. That was the original plan in the 1970's.
We could also launch materials with NERVA nuclear pulse rockets, which are several times more efficient than chemical rockets and are reusable; in the long-term, the propellant is cheaper too because you can just use water as both coolant for the reactor and steam propellant. We had multiple, fully-functional nuclear pulse rockets before we even put a man on the moon, but we were never allowed to launch one into space because it might make the Russians angry or some stupid shit.
Project Orion could move the materials for the colony in about a dozen launches total (again, assuming most of the 'concrete' type material is mined from the surface of the moon as originally envisioned), if we use the biggest version they came up with. The problem is that it uses nuclear explosions for propulsion; while fears of radioactive fallout and EMP are overblown (these are very small nukes, fired as directional charges, and are designed to be as clean and non-EMP as possible, and most of the doomsday EMP scenarios require a nuke specifically designed to generate EMP), they're not entirely unfounded. Launching from the ground was considered to be a last resort anyway; Orion was intended to be launched into orbit via conventional rockets, assembled, and THEN travel across the solar system in a matter of months using nuclear explosions.
So perhaps the ideal scenario would be NERVA-style rockets lifting everything to orbit, and Orion-style vehicles moving all the materials from orbit to the chosen construction site.
Two things as near as I can tell. Early in the book there's a scene in which a man and woman are talking, and the man is using pet names like "sugar foot" to describe the woman. This triggers the feminist because it's 'outdated' and 'misogynistic' language, and most will close the book in a huff right then and there so they can leave a bad review on Amazon or wherever. Those that soldier on will find later in the book that same female character saying that rape is sometimes the woman's fault. This puts them into full REEEEEEEEEEE mode.
Also how the fuck did you screw up replying that badly? You're not only quoting the wrong post you're quoting a post in an entirely different thread.
Metals manufactured in zero-g/microgravity have an almost perfectly even distribution of impurities; making something in space using the same steel formula you use on earth would result in a stronger steel.
You can also make perfectly spherical ball bearings, though I'm not aware of any firearm that uses ball bearings as a component.
Electron beam welding also requires a vacuum to work; it's superior to conventional arc welding in many ways, and for guns that use welds, that would make electron beam welding a viable option.
Beyond that, I really can't think of any way weapons would benefit from being manufactured in space vs in a gravity well.
Each cylinder is 32km long and 8km in diameter. The internal volume is sufficient that the cylinder would have its own weather cycles, with temperature and light changes via the mirrors on the outside opening and closing, wind thanks to the rotation of the cylinder, and a daily rain cycle caused by evaporation during the warmer time of day and condensation when the cylinder cools. It's an enclosed system, organic materials get recycled; minerals and organic materials are returned to the system by composting feces and other waste, and raw materials can be input as needed by mining asteroids, which would be the major industry of such a colony anyway. Their economy would revolve around mining asteroids, smelting raw materials, and processing them into finished goods. Even if Earth had nothing to do with a colony once it was established, it would be more than capable of sustaining itself afterward. The only real reason it would ever need anything from Earth would be for resources unobtainable in space (petroleum products, for example, and even those could be made from hydrocarbons in the atmospheres of the gas giants, or the literal oceans of the shit on Titan), or to replace species of plants and animals that got wiped out by a disease or something (and as long as customs did their job of putting people through quarantine, sterilizing all non-living material, and inspecting plants and animals being imported to the station for harmful bacteria, insects, etc. that isn't an issue any more than it is on Earth.).
But is it large enough to mimic a global biosphere? For example Mars sized is the minimum size for hability. Plus these things sound dangerous, just poke a hole in it and everyone's fucked. They could be good for use as a place for us to stay until we figure out FTL travel so we can fuck up some Ayys and take their clay.
Lasers would be the be-all end-all of space combat were it not for just one thing; diffraction.
There is a fundamental limit on how focused a laser can be at a certain distance (dependent on its wavelength and the size of the aperture, mostly), and even still imperfections in the laser itself will make it diverge faster than it would even as a perfect diffraction limited laser. Most high-wavelength lasers (anything in the visible spectrum and lower, really) diverge disgustingly fast, meaning that to get a certain amount of power per square meter at a distance, you need to pump more and more and more power at the start, resulting in even more heat and mass.
This changes once you start getting to extreme ultraviolets, and depending on if it's even possible or not, x-ray and gamma ray lasers. They are hypothetically immensely efficient at range, and high powered lasers in those wavelengths could have effective ranges in the hundreds, even thousands of kilometers.
The other option is to just make your laser aperture bigger, which cuts down even further on diffraction, but comes with the usual trade-off of more mass.
In theory, you could encase a nuke in an enclosure built to create X Ray lasers, but that seems a lot more complicated than just shooting the nuke at the enemy.
Also what the fuck is going on with my typing?
Casaba howitzers are probably the best option. I don't see how you can stop a beam of super heated metallic plasma moving at a significant fraction of light speed.
True, but the general idea is that you want the lasers to be reusable. A working, reusable gamma-ray laser is pretty much the end game of space warfare; not only is it one of the best weapons you could conceivably have, but it also turns into a damn good drive system with enough power behind it.
Also what said; if you're going to shoot nukes on them, go the full mile and make them into missiles who's warheads shoot lances of thermonuclear plasmatic fury.
...
...
If we achieve interstellar travel we will probably have to exterminate any intelligent life we come across since war will be inevitable due to the competitive exclusion principle. But that begs the question of how do we do it? Viruses? They c be cured, especially be an advanced species. Chemicals? Good, but they're finicky, and in ww1 conventional artillery proved to be deadlier. Nukes? All out nuclear extermination would ruin the planet, as could chemicals. The best strategy would be an initial biological attack to soften them up before moving in for a conventional assault along with the controlled and surgical use of orbital bombardment and nukes.
...
One advantage an elevator has is (relatively) easy access to a permanent orbital installation.
You'll be glad to be proven wrong.
BFR or a similarly large, re-usable two stage rocketship(yes, its a rocketship, not just a rocket) will be what establishes us on other planets. Picrel. On-orbit refueling using the same booster that launched the cargo ship simplifies things a bit, and greatly lowers operational costs(meaning more launches). If you think low turnarounds are impossible with rocket engines, look at the dc-x program. Literally no new technology required. No need to convince politicians/voters that 'These nukes are for science'.
I just hope that faggot elon doesn't let BFR stick and he gives it a decent name. I think rockets should go back to being named after greek and roman mythology.
The (original)hundred saturn V plan was a proposal from Von Braun in the 40's about a manned mars mission featuring 6 ships with 100 people on it using a rocket that could loft 100 tons into LEO. (saturn can do 150, as does the current BFR proposal fully re-usable)
he fully expected there to be primitive plant life on mars. In fact, he mad space in his designs for 20 tons of martian fauna to be returned to earth.
He proposed a very similiar mission after Apollo concluded but with a new, larger Saturn-derived rocket to be named Nova, but that obviously never happened.
And then the super advanced aliens release a Grey Goo weapon on the planet. Waiting for the new conquerors to have set up shop before initiating it. Wasting the effort to take over and rebuild the planet/moon/asteroid
One disadvantage is any terrorist with a cessna will want to ram it.
...
That's of thermodynamics allows for advanced machines of that size. Viruses are the closet thing to nanobots
Why not rocket the rope with any materials into space to experiment to figure out how to create the space elevator?
The rope is the part that we still don't know how to make, Strelok. Everything else can be solved right now by throwing more money at it, but the materials for the rope just do not exist yet.
You are wrong mate. There are carbon fibre weaved ropes so why can't test it out for our curiosity?
Are you getting carbon fibre mixed up with carbon nanotubes? The carbon fibre ultrarope shown on that site is being advertised for lift distances of 800 metres, with promises of maybe being able to increase that up to 1,000 metres at some point in the future. It's just not strong enough. Carbon nanotubes are the strongest material currently known to humankind, and while they should be strong enough, no-one has ever successfully made a carbon nanotube strand longer than a metre without any defects.
1 meter or rope = 250 grams
1000 meters of rope = 250 kilograms
100,000,000 meters of rope = 25 gigatonnes
Plus elevator, which should be around 12 tonnes empty, and a counterweight which should be 25 or more tonnes. But that's negligible. The point is we don't have a material strong enough that can hold its own weight given the extreme lengths it would have to extend for.
Right now the strongest rope we can make long enough is dyneema, 15 times stronger than steel and 50% stronger than aramids (kevlar etc)…. yet a space cable mass would still be 30000 tonnes. The fiber is nowhere near strong enough to handle that kind of weight.
Thanks for the interesting reading m8.
Heinleins work is always a funny source for tiggerings. On the one hand, taken in the context of his time, he was a remarkably non-sexist author. Starship troopers has female soldiers and officers serving alongside male counterparts without any fuss or special requirements needed, you find themes of sexual liberal thinking throughout his work, and he frequently shows that he thinks women are equal to men and even better suited to some (non-maternal) roles than men. He also seems to have been into incest and paedophilia which are pretty hot topics with modern feminism. On the other hand the feminists who have read his work seem to have an all consuming, screaming, hate-boner for the man. It's beautiful to behold.
Heinlein was a sexist in that he admitted that sexes were different. This is the modern definition of sexism, believing that there are ANY physical differences between men and women. Vaginas are not different from penises period, says modern feminism. Heinlein sticks to science, he knows women and men think differently, he knows we have different physical capabilities.
The women in his books have less muscles and are mentally more attuned to people-thinking rather than a systems-thinking, as exampled in Citizen of the Galaxy, Time for the Stars etc. In Starship Troopers all the troopers are male because of aggression, strength and endurance requirements - but all of the pilots are women. Because women are better at math, are smaller, can handle more g forces, require less oxygen because they have fewer muscles… all things which are true in real life. Heinlein also always kept the door cracked open for women who weren't hormonally average, and could do some things that men could, like Jack in Tunnel in the Sky. He occasionally plays with aliens, like in Star Beast, or Space Cadet with basically Asari from Mass Effect being the only species on Venus.
All of Heinlein's books are about a greater message buried in the plot. The characters don't matter, they could be dogs and cats and it wouldn't make any difference. Star Beasts is about what happens when a secret is kept too long, it tends to grow over time until it's a problem for everyone. It's also about perspective, and about growing up. Having a nigger as a US ambassador makes no difference to the plot whatsoever.
t. Heinlein #1 Fan
...
I'm a biologist moron.
Women are on average shorter, decreasing the distance between the heart and the head, and decreasing the "wasted blood" in lower extremities by simply having shorter legs. The disadvantage comes when women wear mens g suits, and are trained in the same methods (straining maneuver) there are some disadvantages, but that situation has nothing to do with the basic biology.
The parts of the brain (inferior parietal lobes) concerned with language, are also the parts of the brain that deal with geometry, algebra, calculus… also the thickness of the corpus callosum helps with visualisation of some specialized spheres of mathemathics. Women can also do multitasking better, but are worse at specializing at a single task, which helps with piloting. They also have more cones in their eyes.
If what you're saying about the female brains structural advantage in mathematics were accurate then why are maths faculties world wide not dominated by women? Please note, we're talking universities here, the home of progressive politics, so if your answer includes the phrases 'institutional', 'sexism', 'bias', 'representation' or any combination thereof you don't have an answer.
They also have weaker muscles that reduces effectiveness of anti-G straining maneuver. Overall actual testing studies didn't show statistical difference between male and female g tolerance.
One can invent dozens of made up advantages like libs do but lets go actual performance. Where are all good female pilots? "Good" means beating male pilots head to head, preferably in controlled environment for high relevance of comparison? Try to google "Where are all the female Formula 1 racing drivers?". You will get bazillion of soyboys autisticaly screeching "male privilege!" This is all you need to know about female "piloting skills".
You can add video gaming here. Perfect "feminist dream world", strength doesn't matter at alll, zero entrance barriers, possibility of anonymity. Finally woman can bring her "brain powers" to full effect without body holding her back. Where are female gamers in the top ranks of twitch games? Multitasking? Starcraft? There is like one good "female" gamer there and he is tranny lol.
The leaf is partially right. The corpus callosum is indeed larger in women and that lends itself to better multitasking and the use of multiple parts of the brain "simultaneously". Women also have better colored vision, which is why they have a thousand fruity names for what men see as identical colors. The rest is bullshit though.
Because being a math academic, being a fighter pilot, or a "formula 1 race car driver" really any career requires devoting a significant portion of your life to mastering that skill. Understand that women need to be married and start a family by 20 so their kid will be raised by 40, their biological clock demands it. A man can get married at 30 or 40, giving him 10-20 extra years of doing whatever he wants, focusing on career, or wasting time gaming. So even though they're biologically superior in those specific areas, a man who can devote himself more fully for 10-20 years in that area is going to be better no matter what.
It's the same reason the stupid wage gap myth exists. Compare unmarried, never pregnant women, and their careers are often as successful as men, or even more so.