The Astronomy Thread

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
41,955
168,042
All this mars talk has me hankering for a little
arnold schwarzenegger eyes GIF
 
  • 3Worf
Reactions: 2 users

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
18,397
14,910
Come to think of it, after writing that about The Moon is a Harsh Mistress I read a tweet (that I can't find now) where someone said that the opening up of a "Moon city" is just an way to paper over the militarisation of the Moon by the USA, in that they can then quickly create some sort of a bombardment system on the Moon whereby they can launch large Moon bolders at the Earth to target enemy nations, simar to what the Lunar Rebels did in Heinlein's novel. It's a crazy idea, but at this stage, I wouldn't put it past some people in the Pentagon and other think tanks to think along those lines.

It wouldn’t be that much of a “super weapon”

1) You’d still have to launch your payload off the moon. Even if gravity is lower, the rocks still have mass. To launch anything of size/mass, you’d basically need a lunar trebuchet, otherwise you’re spending a fuckton on mass drivers or a rocket system that can evenly lift a large boulder

2) You’d need something precise/guided, otherwise you’re just lobbing rocks

3) your rock would still be slow as fuck relatively speaking and since it’s hard to hide and load a moon boulder launcher, it would be pretty easy to figure out when one is coming

4) the rock has to be large enough and dense enough to survive atmospheric reentry without breaking up
 

Sheriff Cad

scientia potentia est
<Nazi Janitors>
31,189
74,093
It wouldn’t be that much of a “super weapon”

1) You’d still have to launch your payload off the moon. Even if gravity is lower, the rocks still have mass. To launch anything of size/mass, you’d basically need a lunar trebuchet, otherwise you’re spending a fuckton on mass drivers or a rocket system that can evenly lift a large boulder

2) You’d need something precise/guided, otherwise you’re just lobbing rocks

3) your rock would still be slow as fuck relatively speaking and since it’s hard to hide and load a moon boulder launcher, it would be pretty easy to figure out when one is coming

4) the rock has to be large enough and dense enough to survive atmospheric reentry without breaking up
And the cost to lob rocks from the moon would be approximately 12 bajillion dollars while we can launch ICBM's nobody can currently stop for relative peanuts.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
15,781
89
And the cost to lob rocks from the moon would be approximately 12 bajillion dollars while we can launch ICBM's nobody can currently stop for relative peanuts.
You wouldn't even have to nuke them back, just blow up the launch pads on Earth and wait for them to starve to death.
 

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
46,213
166,691
Y'all making me want to re-read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. And then Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
And here I was thinking it made me want to watch a movie.

stay beautiful i love you GIF


Where's Elon's bio dome?
 
Last edited:
  • 1Worf
  • 1Mother of God
Reactions: 1 users

Aaron

Goonsquad Officer
<Silver Donator>
10,346
27,459
Everyone here poopooing the idea of Musk wanting to put mass drivers on the Moon to launch shit at the Earth, but here it is straight from the horse's mouth.

And anyone saying: "well, it's just to haul finished goods to the Earth with!" Well, that's what the mass drivers in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress were for too, until the revolution happened and the started hauling bolders at the Earth instead of cargo.

 

Maximis Velocity

Professional Lurker
<Silver Donator>
247
622
I always thought that under the ocean should be the test bed for a viable off world habitat solution. If it breaks/fails, swim up... you might live. Testing in space... no so much.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
49,461
108,872
Everyone here poopooing the idea of Musk wanting to put mass drivers on the Moon to launch shit at the Earth, but here it is straight from the horse's mouth.

And anyone saying: "well, it's just to haul finished goods to the Earth with!" Well, that's what the mass drivers in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress were for too, until the revolution happened and the started hauling bolders at the Earth instead of cargo.
Anything going fast enough is a weapon and most things in space are going pretty fast.

Mass drivers would be the entire point of lunar industry. Low gravity, no atmosphere 2 weeks of sunshine means mass drivers would be an incredibly efficient and easy way to launch payloads.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
15,781
89
It's not so much that it couldn't happen, but it would just be insane for a moon colony to attack earth because even though they could do some significant damage, they would have no way of defending themselves from a counterattack and they would be totally dependent on regular shipments from Earth to survive.
 

Aaron

Goonsquad Officer
<Silver Donator>
10,346
27,459
It's not so much that it couldn't happen, but it would just be insane for a moon colony to attack earth because even though they could do some significant damage, they would have no way of defending themselves from a counterattack and they would be totally dependent on regular shipments from Earth to survive.
It's not for an independent lunar colony to attack the whole of Earth. It is for a US based lunar colony (or other nation's colonies if they can have them) using that colony's mass driver to target the enemies of the US.
 

Sheriff Cad

scientia potentia est
<Nazi Janitors>
31,189
74,093
It's not for an independent lunar colony to attack the whole of Earth. It is for a US based lunar colony (or other nation's colonies if they can have them) using that colony's mass driver to target the enemies of the US.
Again... why?

ICBM's exist.
 

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
18,397
14,910
I'm not sure what the argument for "space rocks > ICBMs" is. Because the rock isn't nuclear? Well guess what, if you launch a kinetic strike with a rock that is the equivalent of a nuke, the country may still respond with a nuke

The only "advantage" of the rock is I guess it is lower tech, if you completely ignore all the high tech needed to actually move then launch the rock with any precision.
 

Furry

Email Loading Please Wait
<Gold Donor>
27,454
40,528
I'm not sure what the argument for "space rocks > ICBMs" is. Because the rock isn't nuclear? Well guess what, if you launch a kinetic strike with a rock that is the equivalent of a nuke, the country may still respond with a nuke

The only "advantage" of the rock is I guess it is lower tech, if you completely ignore all the high tech needed to actually move then launch the rock with any precision.
I wouldn't even say rock launching is lower tech. Building a nuke is a lot easier than targeting a 300 foot wide rock on a specific area, which probably around the minimum to obtain equivalent destruction to a strategic ICBM.

People forget that one rock that blew up in Russia and took out some windows like 15 years ago was a ~100 foot rock. Even that would be a monumental task for what was essentially damage equivalent to a lazy riot.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user