home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!saundrsg
- Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 14:40:37 EST
- From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
- Message-ID: <93003.144037SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
- References: <1992Dec28.193940.10495@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
- <1992Dec28.223226.12849@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
- <93002.204240SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <C09FDo.K4u@zoo.toronto.edu>
- <james.726039574@menaik> <C09nM6.LMJ@zoo.toronto.edu>
- Lines: 25
-
- The Lunar advantage is mass, Henry.
-
- If you want a 'hard' satellite, you can do three things - stealth it
- (which is pretty ridiculous for a comsat, but not neccesarily for
- a weapons platform), give it defenses (a hard problem), or armor it -
- design the components to be rad hard, put it in a Faraday cage, and
- wrap it in a lot of inert mass. The Moon has a real advantage when
- it comes to shipping inert mass to an Earth orbit, in terms of energy.
- This doesn't do them any good unless they have a full industrial
- economy there, though.
-
- Taking out a radiation hard satellite with a nuclear weapon, particularly
- one that is behind several meters of lunar regolith, isn't all that
- easy - no blast effect means either a *big* bang is required (which will
- annoy the people whose territory over which is was detonated, never
- mind the commercial comsats), or a very close hit. The very close hit
- is basic orbital mechanics, but assumes no counter measures on the
- launcher, launch site, etc.
-
- This is all handwaving anyway, since a good analysis involves knowing
- the launch costs from earth and the moon *after* that functioning
- lunar economy gets put in place. I'd *love* to have reliable
- instances of such figures, truly I would.
-
- Graydon
-