3 ms·
> far easier to construct Right but I’m not talking about construction. I’m talking about destruction. See an enemy building a catapult with your moon-orbiting
by TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
> far easier to construct
Right but I’m not talking about construction. I’m talking about destruction. See an enemy building a catapult with your moon-orbiting spy satellite? Send your Space Force astronauts in a rover to dismantle or destroy it. Or send an unmanned rover with robotic, remote controlled arms when we get to that capability.
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoor target your sattelite-laser on it, no atmosphere to make it useless on the moon...
- politician 5y agoAnyone building mass drivers on the moon is going to bring up anti-satellite missiles along with other point defense (“anti-meteroid”) systems and sky-facing telescopes and radars on the first mission. Several of these components are necessary even for a peaceful research base.
- Supermancho 5y ago> I’m not talking about construction. I’m talking about destruction. That's not very effective if you can fire and abandon, since it's very likely that someone could work out the locality of the origin, you have to assume there's no way to defend against that. So what? Another one pops up in a few days. The only way to defend against kinetic bombardment is controlling material gathering/supply and pinpoint destruction and that won't even be an assured defense. In a year, someone could scrap together X materials to hurl another.