6 ms·

I doubt it was seriously considered at the time it was discussed. Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be, that is very significan

by Ajakks 6mo ago

I doubt it was seriously considered at the time it was discussed. Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be, that is very significant. Earth is spinning in a giant circle around the sun. Thats facts. "aiming an asteroid" is less of making a rock a missile - and a lot more of tug-boating it into the exact right spot, in the way of earth, so that earth hits the asteroid - not anything complicated like the asteroid hitting earth. There are a lot of little things like that...

aw1621107 6mo ago
> Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be I mean, you did say: > space battleship - one that never comes down to the surface, just sits in orbit. So I think it's understandable for people to take that at face value. Furthermore, if it isn't in orbit, then where would it be? > and a lot more of tug-boating it into the exact right spot, in the way of earth, so that earth hits the asteroid - not anything complicated like the asteroid hitting earth. From an orbital mechanics standpoint I don't think there's actually a difference. You're changing an orbit either way.
- Ajakks 6mo ago
  If I were holding earth hostage with my Space Battleship - I would sit in a lunar orbit. Also, I am not kidding about tug-boating - if I fly up, match an asteroids speed and velocity, why cant I just throw a tow strap on that, accelerate, and park it an area that only has to be accurate enough for a planet to hit it - I dont need to stop it, or have it flying at the earth, it only needs to be in the way, moving a little slower than the earth. What if I make that the space battleship's job? What if a drone can do that? Im not really worried about resupplying the space battleship holding earth hostage -> someone will "volunteer" to do that, bc they want to live life.
  - aw1621107 6mo ago
    > I would sit in a lunar orbit Ah, so by "orbit" you were talking about orbit around Earth specifically? > why cant I just throw a tow strap on that, accelerate, and park it an area that only has to be accurate enough for a planet to hit it - I dont need to stop it, or have it flying at the earth, it only needs to be in the way, moving a little slower than the earth. Again, from a high-level orbital mechanics perspective there is little difference between the two. You start with two non-intersecting orbits and you're changing one orbit to intersect the other at the same time and place. How you go about doing so is just a question of how much time/fuel you're willing to expend, for various values of "just". That being said, assuming I'm interpreting you correctly what you propose is probably technically possible (e.g., change an asteroid's orbit to a slightly-larger-than-Earth-sized one), but it's also very fuel-intensive compared to skipping the "parking"/"in the way" part. If you haven't tried it already I can't recommend Kerbal Space Program enough for experimenting with this kind of thing, especially if you are alright with playing with mods. Real Solar System (changes the in-game solar system to match the our real-life one) and Principia (replaces the simplified patched conics system KSP uses for orbits with n-body gravity) would be particularly relevant here.
    - Ajakks 6mo ago
      I absolutely will check out Kerbal - I have done nothing more than thought experiments - which I'm sure is obvious, its obvious to me. I'm sure I am saying things exactly wrong - the idea is to save fuel and remove all of the difficulties that may arise with timing or aiming. Using more fuel is exactly opposite intent. I may be confused but I dont mean a "larger orbit than the earth" -> I mean the exact identical orbit, the exact path that earth takes around the sun -> ahead (or behind, it does not matter) of where we are and instead of 365 days to circle the sun, the asteroid is moving at a rate that will take MORE days -> so the earth will smash into the asteroid, bc it can't do anything else. I dont mean "park" in the sense that I stop its movement, nor would I select an asteroid that has such an orbit that it couldn't be manipulated into position with little difficulty. Like, imagine the solar system was a record on record player (I've never used one either) and the earth is on a line/groove - a choice asteroid is moving in the same direction on an immediately adjacent line/groove - the asteroid only needs to move onto the earth's groove (anywhere on that specific groove the earth occupies on the record works) and then the asteroid is then sped up or slowed down (not much tho) on that exact orbit -> either will result in a collision with earth. The only real way to stop such activities is with spaceships. That is my entire argument - you are saying that is less feasible than making a missle out of an asteroid? I appreciate the explanation fr Tbh, it wasn't until the game Terra Invicta that I really considered the solar system, as it actually is. That game has no other relevance to this particular conversation - good game, very different kind of 4x that I recommend but unrelated.
      - aw1621107 6mo ago
        > I mean the exact identical orbit, the exact path that earth takes around the sun -> ahead (or behind, it does not matter) of where we are and instead of 365 days to circle the sun, the asteroid is moving at a rate that will take MORE days Unfortunately that's not really possible. To a first approximation, Earth's orbit is a circle with the Sun at its center, and the size of that circle is determined entirely by Earth's orbital speed around the Sun. Assuming you're also in a circular orbit, if you move at Earth's speed, the size of your orbit will be the same as that of Earth's. If you move faster or slower, your orbit will be smaller or larger, respectively, unless you wish to continuously burn fuel to maintain your distance from the Sun. That's why I said the asteroid's orbit must be slightly larger than that of Earth's for an Earth-catches-up-to-asteroid-in-similar-orbit scenario. Obviously things get more complicated once you consider non-circular orbits, but the end result is similar - you can't continuously hang out in Earth's path while moving slower than the Earth around the Sun without burning a stupendous amount of fuel. > you are saying that is less feasible than making a missle out of an asteroid? I appreciate the explanation fr I think it's more that I think that "making a missile" is likely to require less fuel since you only need to adjust the asteroid's orbit ~once (only need to get it on a collision course) instead of ~twice (get the asteroid on a near-collision course, then adjust it again for the "right" kind of collision).
m4rtink 6mo ago
Any realistic space warship design will need propellant - sure you can avoid ground based interceptors and kill sats but it will eat into your propellant reserves over time. You will need to replenish from somewhere & that somewhere might as well get nuked instead of the ship, rendering it useless.

by Ajakks 6mo ago

aw1621107 6mo ago

> Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be I mean, you did say: > space battleship - one that never comes down to the surface, just sits in orbit. So I think it's understandable for people to take that at face value. Furthermore, if it isn't in orbit, then where would it be? > and a lot more of tug-boating it into the exact right spot, in the way of earth, so that earth hits the asteroid - not anything complicated like the asteroid hitting earth. From an orbital mechanics standpoint I don't think there's actually a difference. You're changing an orbit either way.

Ajakks 6mo ago
If I were holding earth hostage with my Space Battleship - I would sit in a lunar orbit. Also, I am not kidding about tug-boating - if I fly up, match an asteroids speed and velocity, why cant I just throw a tow strap on that, accelerate, and park it an area that only has to be accurate enough for a planet to hit it - I dont need to stop it, or have it flying at the earth, it only needs to be in the way, moving a little slower than the earth. What if I make that the space battleship's job? What if a drone can do that? Im not really worried about resupplying the space battleship holding earth hostage -> someone will "volunteer" to do that, bc they want to live life.
- aw1621107 6mo ago
  > I would sit in a lunar orbit Ah, so by "orbit" you were talking about orbit around Earth specifically? > why cant I just throw a tow strap on that, accelerate, and park it an area that only has to be accurate enough for a planet to hit it - I dont need to stop it, or have it flying at the earth, it only needs to be in the way, moving a little slower than the earth. Again, from a high-level orbital mechanics perspective there is little difference between the two. You start with two non-intersecting orbits and you're changing one orbit to intersect the other at the same time and place. How you go about doing so is just a question of how much time/fuel you're willing to expend, for various values of "just". That being said, assuming I'm interpreting you correctly what you propose is probably technically possible (e.g., change an asteroid's orbit to a slightly-larger-than-Earth-sized one), but it's also very fuel-intensive compared to skipping the "parking"/"in the way" part. If you haven't tried it already I can't recommend Kerbal Space Program enough for experimenting with this kind of thing, especially if you are alright with playing with mods. Real Solar System (changes the in-game solar system to match the our real-life one) and Principia (replaces the simplified patched conics system KSP uses for orbits with n-body gravity) would be particularly relevant here.
  - Ajakks 6mo ago
    I absolutely will check out Kerbal - I have done nothing more than thought experiments - which I'm sure is obvious, its obvious to me. I'm sure I am saying things exactly wrong - the idea is to save fuel and remove all of the difficulties that may arise with timing or aiming. Using more fuel is exactly opposite intent. I may be confused but I dont mean a "larger orbit than the earth" -> I mean the exact identical orbit, the exact path that earth takes around the sun -> ahead (or behind, it does not matter) of where we are and instead of 365 days to circle the sun, the asteroid is moving at a rate that will take MORE days -> so the earth will smash into the asteroid, bc it can't do anything else. I dont mean "park" in the sense that I stop its movement, nor would I select an asteroid that has such an orbit that it couldn't be manipulated into position with little difficulty. Like, imagine the solar system was a record on record player (I've never used one either) and the earth is on a line/groove - a choice asteroid is moving in the same direction on an immediately adjacent line/groove - the asteroid only needs to move onto the earth's groove (anywhere on that specific groove the earth occupies on the record works) and then the asteroid is then sped up or slowed down (not much tho) on that exact orbit -> either will result in a collision with earth. The only real way to stop such activities is with spaceships. That is my entire argument - you are saying that is less feasible than making a missle out of an asteroid? I appreciate the explanation fr Tbh, it wasn't until the game Terra Invicta that I really considered the solar system, as it actually is. That game has no other relevance to this particular conversation - good game, very different kind of 4x that I recommend but unrelated.
    - aw1621107 6mo ago
      > I mean the exact identical orbit, the exact path that earth takes around the sun -> ahead (or behind, it does not matter) of where we are and instead of 365 days to circle the sun, the asteroid is moving at a rate that will take MORE days Unfortunately that's not really possible. To a first approximation, Earth's orbit is a circle with the Sun at its center, and the size of that circle is determined entirely by Earth's orbital speed around the Sun. Assuming you're also in a circular orbit, if you move at Earth's speed, the size of your orbit will be the same as that of Earth's. If you move faster or slower, your orbit will be smaller or larger, respectively, unless you wish to continuously burn fuel to maintain your distance from the Sun. That's why I said the asteroid's orbit must be slightly larger than that of Earth's for an Earth-catches-up-to-asteroid-in-similar-orbit scenario. Obviously things get more complicated once you consider non-circular orbits, but the end result is similar - you can't continuously hang out in Earth's path while moving slower than the Earth around the Sun without burning a stupendous amount of fuel. > you are saying that is less feasible than making a missle out of an asteroid? I appreciate the explanation fr I think it's more that I think that "making a missile" is likely to require less fuel since you only need to adjust the asteroid's orbit ~once (only need to get it on a collision course) instead of ~twice (get the asteroid on a near-collision course, then adjust it again for the "right" kind of collision).

m4rtink 6mo ago

Any realistic space warship design will need propellant - sure you can avoid ground based interceptors and kill sats but it will eat into your propellant reserves over time. You will need to replenish from somewhere & that somewhere might as well get nuked instead of the ship, rendering it useless.