5 ms·

What are the military motivations? What advantage does it provide?

by chaoz_ 7y ago

nradov 7y ago
There is no advantage. The US Army made plans for a moon base in 1959 but abandoned the project as pointless and unaffordable. http://www.astronautix.com/h/horizonlunaroutpost.html http://www.astronautix.com/h/horizonlunaroutpost.html
- detritus 7y ago
  Your link, interesting as it is, doesn't point to any particular criticism of the idea, and given its age might not be much relevant today anyway, had it done so.
  - valuearb 7y ago
    Far too expensive and far way to be useful for anything.
mdorazio 7y ago
The moon is at the "top" of Earth's gravity well and has relatively low gravity itself. A simple launch system would allow you to shoot rocks at targets on earth whenever you want, using them as kinetic projectiles without the launch costs of putting rods into low Earth orbit. The down side, of course, is that any attacks from the moon would be slow, taking hours at minimum to reach targets.
- timerol 7y ago
  Compared to conventional explosives, and especially compared to nukes, this is an ineffective and expensive way to flatten a target. A moon base of this type would only start to make sense if you assume that you want to completely flatten dozens of cities without resorting to nuclear weapons. It makes good sci-fi, but doesn't actually make sense.
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    In the case of a moon base, yes - it would be a non-nuclear strategic weapon. In the case of orbital-start kinetic strikes, no - you get effectively unstoppable area of denial strike ability anywhere in the world faster than any rocket-based system.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  It takes a fair amount of delta-v to "drop" something from Lunar orbit to Earth. It also takes a long time to reach its target. Accurate targeting would be a challenge without active guidance. Even hitting a city would be a bit tricky, and if you're firing projectiles that can flatten large areas such that you don't need accurate targeting everyone's gonna treat that like a nuke, so you may as well just use nukes. I find it hard to believe the costs of establishing and maintaining even an automated Lunar launch system of this sort would be anywhere near worth it, compared with many other options.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    as I understand it, "fair amount of delta-v" is quite the understatement. the delta-v needed to realize that gravitational potential energy is equivalent to the moon's orbital velocity. aside from atmospheric drag in the launch phase, you're not saving much energy compared to strapping a bunch of rockets on an earth rock and letting it fall back down. much cheaper and more effective to deliver a nuke via ballistic missile.
- valuearb 7y ago
  The moon is at the bottom of it's own rather deep gravity well. Landing equipment and men there is many times more expensive than putting them in low earth orbit. Returning mass from the moon takes about two thirds the delta v of just getting something into LEO from earth, and that fuel has to be shipped from earth, so another order of magnitude more expensive. That's why the Apollo lander returned so little mass. And moon projectiles take days to reach Earth, are easy to track and intercept. So no, putting kinetic projectiles in LEO is far cheaper, far more accurate, far harder to stop, and can hit targets within minutes. A Falcon Heavy could lift 100,000 lbs of "rods from god" with fuel to LEO for less than $150M. That would only get a few thousand pounds of equipment/fuel to the moon. The moon has no military value for Earth. Far too expensive, far too far away.
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  It seems to me the projectile launching base would itself be an easy target.

What are the military motivations? What advantage does it provide?

by chaoz_ 7y ago

What are the military motivations? What advantage does it provide?

There is no advantage. The US Army made plans for a moon base in 1959 but abandoned the project as pointless and unaffordable. http://www.astronautix.com/h/horizonlunaroutpost.html http://www.astronautix.com/h/horizonlunaroutpost.html

detritus 7y ago
Your link, interesting as it is, doesn't point to any particular criticism of the idea, and given its age might not be much relevant today anyway, had it done so.
- valuearb 7y ago
  Far too expensive and far way to be useful for anything.

mdorazio 7y ago

The moon is at the "top" of Earth's gravity well and has relatively low gravity itself. A simple launch system would allow you to shoot rocks at targets on earth whenever you want, using them as kinetic projectiles without the launch costs of putting rods into low Earth orbit. The down side, of course, is that any attacks from the moon would be slow, taking hours at minimum to reach targets.

timerol 7y ago
Compared to conventional explosives, and especially compared to nukes, this is an ineffective and expensive way to flatten a target. A moon base of this type would only start to make sense if you assume that you want to completely flatten dozens of cities without resorting to nuclear weapons. It makes good sci-fi, but doesn't actually make sense.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  In the case of a moon base, yes - it would be a non-nuclear strategic weapon. In the case of orbital-start kinetic strikes, no - you get effectively unstoppable area of denial strike ability anywhere in the world faster than any rocket-based system.
karatestomp 7y ago
It takes a fair amount of delta-v to "drop" something from Lunar orbit to Earth. It also takes a long time to reach its target. Accurate targeting would be a challenge without active guidance. Even hitting a city would be a bit tricky, and if you're firing projectiles that can flatten large areas such that you don't need accurate targeting everyone's gonna treat that like a nuke, so you may as well just use nukes. I find it hard to believe the costs of establishing and maintaining even an automated Lunar launch system of this sort would be anywhere near worth it, compared with many other options.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  as I understand it, "fair amount of delta-v" is quite the understatement. the delta-v needed to realize that gravitational potential energy is equivalent to the moon's orbital velocity. aside from atmospheric drag in the launch phase, you're not saving much energy compared to strapping a bunch of rockets on an earth rock and letting it fall back down. much cheaper and more effective to deliver a nuke via ballistic missile.
valuearb 7y ago
The moon is at the bottom of it's own rather deep gravity well. Landing equipment and men there is many times more expensive than putting them in low earth orbit. Returning mass from the moon takes about two thirds the delta v of just getting something into LEO from earth, and that fuel has to be shipped from earth, so another order of magnitude more expensive. That's why the Apollo lander returned so little mass. And moon projectiles take days to reach Earth, are easy to track and intercept. So no, putting kinetic projectiles in LEO is far cheaper, far more accurate, far harder to stop, and can hit targets within minutes. A Falcon Heavy could lift 100,000 lbs of "rods from god" with fuel to LEO for less than $150M. That would only get a few thousand pounds of equipment/fuel to the moon. The moon has no military value for Earth. Far too expensive, far too far away.
woodandsteel 7y ago
It seems to me the projectile launching base would itself be an easy target.