4 ms·

Would militarization of the oceans fund the practical colonization of the oceans? What about the militarization of Antarctica? > then it could effectively atta

Would militarization of the oceans fund the practical colonization of the oceans? What about the militarization of Antarctica? > then it could effectively attack most satellites in earth orbit and rockets attempting to reach orbit This is the High Ground thesis, dating back to the 1950s (see https://thespacereview.com/article/396/1 https://thespacereview.com/article/396/1 and http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/he-who-controls-moon-controls-earth-1958.html http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/he-who-contro... ). It takes a couple of days to get from the Moon to the Earth. A Moon base could not prevent rockets from reaching orbit. I'm pretty sure the US, and likely also Russia, can already effectively attack most satellites in earth orbit, so if that's the goal, a Moon base seems needless.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
The naval analogy applies especially in space: any weapon you put on a ship you can build one 10x bigger on the shore. The shore in this case is the moon. In the case of rocket interception from the moon, you put a big laser on the moon, not complicated. Could you do that from the Earth? Atmosphere, etc. As for historical precedent for military dominance presaging development, it isn't really a good example, but it's the period of colonialism in Europe. Countries in europe raced to build economic exploitation empires elsewhere in the world, let by advanced militarization of the seas.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Please don't argue by metaphor. Unlike the age of sail, modern warfare doesn't use simply bigger weapons. We've got all the megatons of nukes anyone would want. The USS Hornet was much less powerful than the land-based airfields of Hawai'i. Guess which one was able to bomb Japan first. Obvious complication with a Moon-based laser system: beam divergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence . What Moon-based laser system is able to deliver enough power 380,000 km away to a rocket able to take multiple g's and handle the aerodynamic stress of supersonic travel? Another complication: The power and accuracy loss of the atmosphere makes it hard to target rockets during launch phase. And if you wait until it's out of the atmosphere, how do you track it once its engines are off? A third complication: Not only is it relatively small and hard to target from 380,000km away, but the round-trip speed-of-light delay is 2.5 seconds. Add some jinking to the rocket's trajectory and it will be quite hard to hit. (How wide do you think the rocket-damaging part of the beam will be?) A fourth complication: what if the launch is on the other side of the Earth from the Moon? Given all of these complications, orbital battle satellites are the obvious equivalent to the Hornet, able to be on station in a way that more powerful land-based systems cannot. And these can be supplied from the ground. Or, if it's truly "not complicated", what are your solutions? > to build economic exploitation Which is a euphemism for "use force to extract labor and resources from other people." Look at all that British architecture built on the broken backs of black slaves in the sugar trade. Leopold II certainly managed to 'economically exploit' the Congo Free State. And of course the delightful opium trade with China. Maybe, just perhaps, it's possible we can do without a repeat of that?
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    The dream of some non-national space peace nation with everyone [metaphor warning]smoking peace pipes[/metaphor warning] is a nice fantasy. I'd like it to be the case, but if we can't do it on Earth, why would space, with far more difficult resource constraints (and therefore competition) have LESS conflict? Please. [metaphor warning]It's like VCs[/metaphor warning] to use HN mindthink, who will fund the trillions to get a functional space civs? Oh and they'll just [metaphor warning]kumbaya[/metaphor warning] and write off their massive investments with no controlling interest? As for the [metaphor warning]British Empire[/metaphor warning] or any other colonialism METAPHOR, at least there aren't [metaphor warning]indiginous tribes[/metaphor warning] that will be displaced, exploited, and exterminated. Size does matter with gravity wells. If you don't want to concede that, then you're arguing against very basic physics. The moon allows the instant deployment of a far larger force of weapons on demand than from Earth's surface. If you had a moon base, you could launch an army of battle satellites on short notice. It's basically drone warfare in space. Right now you have to predeploy your satellite flotilla and then the enemy just needs to deploy tracking H/K units. The moon has superior gravity well position to deploy a satellite and satellite killer army without launch windows, rocket and payload preparation, etc. Your deployments are very easily tracked, from launch to payload deployment, to orbit, with bounds on where that satellite will travel and how much delta-v it can have. The point is there is currently no political [metaphor warning]horse [/metaphor warning] to [metaphor warning]carry the water[/metaphor warning] of putting a functional economic base in space. Military supremacy is a very tantalizing motivation to provide a trillion dollars of funding, and there basically isn't any others [metaphor warning]on the table[/metaphor warning]. As for laser focusing, you are thinking like a small satellite designer would think who is constrained by launch capability. Moon military systems could have VERY LARGE lasers. Hell you could do simple space mirrors to achieve the desired effect, light delays be damned. I'll argue by metaphor if I want to.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      The nuclear armed signatories of the Outer Space Treaty were not "smoking peace pipes" and chanting kumbaya. Antarctica isn't militarized, and it also has "difficult resource constraints". Guess they must have been passing around some good weed back then in the UN building. > you could launch an army of battle satellites on short notice You've changed the topic. I objected to your claim that a "moon base ... could effectively attack ... rockets attempting to reach orbit". It CANNOT. Those battle satellites would take two days to reach the Earth, giving plenty of time for rockets to reach orbit. > Moon military systems could have VERY LARGE lasers Looks like you got some of that good weed too. Your "could" requires magic pixie dust. If you're going to break the laws of physics, might as well have transporter beams too. A moon based laser CANNOT prevent a rocket reaching orbit if only because the rocket can launch from the other side of the planet. You are of course free to argue by metaphor. The metaphor of comparing modern military tactics to the age of sail, back when more powerful cannon made for a more powerful ship, is still fundamentally flawed.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

The naval analogy applies especially in space: any weapon you put on a ship you can build one 10x bigger on the shore. The shore in this case is the moon. In the case of rocket interception from the moon, you put a big laser on the moon, not complicated. Could you do that from the Earth? Atmosphere, etc. As for historical precedent for military dominance presaging development, it isn't really a good example, but it's the period of colonialism in Europe. Countries in europe raced to build economic exploitation empires elsewhere in the world, let by advanced militarization of the seas.

eesmith 5y ago
Please don't argue by metaphor. Unlike the age of sail, modern warfare doesn't use simply bigger weapons. We've got all the megatons of nukes anyone would want. The USS Hornet was much less powerful than the land-based airfields of Hawai'i. Guess which one was able to bomb Japan first. Obvious complication with a Moon-based laser system: beam divergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence . What Moon-based laser system is able to deliver enough power 380,000 km away to a rocket able to take multiple g's and handle the aerodynamic stress of supersonic travel? Another complication: The power and accuracy loss of the atmosphere makes it hard to target rockets during launch phase. And if you wait until it's out of the atmosphere, how do you track it once its engines are off? A third complication: Not only is it relatively small and hard to target from 380,000km away, but the round-trip speed-of-light delay is 2.5 seconds. Add some jinking to the rocket's trajectory and it will be quite hard to hit. (How wide do you think the rocket-damaging part of the beam will be?) A fourth complication: what if the launch is on the other side of the Earth from the Moon? Given all of these complications, orbital battle satellites are the obvious equivalent to the Hornet, able to be on station in a way that more powerful land-based systems cannot. And these can be supplied from the ground. Or, if it's truly "not complicated", what are your solutions? > to build economic exploitation Which is a euphemism for "use force to extract labor and resources from other people." Look at all that British architecture built on the broken backs of black slaves in the sugar trade. Leopold II certainly managed to 'economically exploit' the Congo Free State. And of course the delightful opium trade with China. Maybe, just perhaps, it's possible we can do without a repeat of that?
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  The dream of some non-national space peace nation with everyone [metaphor warning]smoking peace pipes[/metaphor warning] is a nice fantasy. I'd like it to be the case, but if we can't do it on Earth, why would space, with far more difficult resource constraints (and therefore competition) have LESS conflict? Please. [metaphor warning]It's like VCs[/metaphor warning] to use HN mindthink, who will fund the trillions to get a functional space civs? Oh and they'll just [metaphor warning]kumbaya[/metaphor warning] and write off their massive investments with no controlling interest? As for the [metaphor warning]British Empire[/metaphor warning] or any other colonialism METAPHOR, at least there aren't [metaphor warning]indiginous tribes[/metaphor warning] that will be displaced, exploited, and exterminated. Size does matter with gravity wells. If you don't want to concede that, then you're arguing against very basic physics. The moon allows the instant deployment of a far larger force of weapons on demand than from Earth's surface. If you had a moon base, you could launch an army of battle satellites on short notice. It's basically drone warfare in space. Right now you have to predeploy your satellite flotilla and then the enemy just needs to deploy tracking H/K units. The moon has superior gravity well position to deploy a satellite and satellite killer army without launch windows, rocket and payload preparation, etc. Your deployments are very easily tracked, from launch to payload deployment, to orbit, with bounds on where that satellite will travel and how much delta-v it can have. The point is there is currently no political [metaphor warning]horse [/metaphor warning] to [metaphor warning]carry the water[/metaphor warning] of putting a functional economic base in space. Military supremacy is a very tantalizing motivation to provide a trillion dollars of funding, and there basically isn't any others [metaphor warning]on the table[/metaphor warning]. As for laser focusing, you are thinking like a small satellite designer would think who is constrained by launch capability. Moon military systems could have VERY LARGE lasers. Hell you could do simple space mirrors to achieve the desired effect, light delays be damned. I'll argue by metaphor if I want to.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    The nuclear armed signatories of the Outer Space Treaty were not "smoking peace pipes" and chanting kumbaya. Antarctica isn't militarized, and it also has "difficult resource constraints". Guess they must have been passing around some good weed back then in the UN building. > you could launch an army of battle satellites on short notice You've changed the topic. I objected to your claim that a "moon base ... could effectively attack ... rockets attempting to reach orbit". It CANNOT. Those battle satellites would take two days to reach the Earth, giving plenty of time for rockets to reach orbit. > Moon military systems could have VERY LARGE lasers Looks like you got some of that good weed too. Your "could" requires magic pixie dust. If you're going to break the laws of physics, might as well have transporter beams too. A moon based laser CANNOT prevent a rocket reaching orbit if only because the rocket can launch from the other side of the planet. You are of course free to argue by metaphor. The metaphor of comparing modern military tactics to the age of sail, back when more powerful cannon made for a more powerful ship, is still fundamentally flawed.