From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Wed Jan 15 1997 - 21:24:01 MST
James Rogers wrote:
>
> At 08:35 PM 1/15/97 -0500, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> >Also, what did you do to account for energy in the blast
> >reflected back to space? I would be interested in learning your
> >equations/calculations/methodology for coming to these conclusion....
> >Even though I still love em. i'm just curious....
>
> I have a number of sources for my data, by the vast majority of my equations
> and calculational information came from the book "Design of Structures to
> Resist Nuclear Weapons Effects" from the American Society of Civil Engineers
> (ASCE) Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 42 (ISBN:0-87262-439-0).
> It is essentually 300+ pages of everything you ever wanted to know about
> structural engineering in nuclear environments. It forced me to dust off my
> engineering skills, since I don't use them professionally. There is a
> hundreds of empirical and heuristical equations and data covering every
> possible aspect of this subject. I got some of my data from books, and some
> from the 'net. I also was able to glean some technical information from
> DoE. The meteor impact information was retrieved from various sites from
> the net, mostly NASA and .edu sites.
>
> Calculations for the lunar environment are actually much simpler because
> there are far fewer factors involved. The difficulty was that all the
> equations assume an earthbound environment. Removing the extraneous factors
> was subject to quite a bit of error. This is why I finally used underground
> nuclear testing as a baseline for my calculations. After you get a decent
> set of baseline data, all that is left is a lot of number crunching, and
> nothing terribly difficult.
>
> If you want to know all the equations involved, I recommend the above
> mentioned book. It is very thorough, technically complete, and designed as
> an engineering handbook.
>
> >General Grant, I will respectfully accept your surrender when you have
> >finally come to your senses..... he he....
>
> I've remained mostly non-partisan in this discussion (because I don't really
> care; it is just an interesting bit of calculation), but my personal opinion
> is that UNLESS the moon was extremely well developed and populated, it would
> not be able to adequately defend itself against a determined assault from
> earth. In the case of a minimally developed moon, it would be too easy to
> permanently damage an already precarious economy and environment. The lunar
> environment would be more or less permanently dependant on earth for things
> such as organic materials.
>
> If the moon was fully developed however (like a small planet), then I see no
> reason why it could not be adequately defended. It is mostly a matter of
> distributing your economy and not having all your eggs in one basket.
Well, yes, any new nation would want to be as diverse as possible before
really tossing the tea, so to speak, as a given. I am expecting however
that a winnable scenario would have a decent chance (>20-30%) of
occuring with a half a million people on the moon, up to 50% with at
least a million people. Given the situation where so long as the lunies
can ride out whatever happens on earth, like the king of the hill, they
have beyond the mere military conflict the political chance of winning.
People on earth are fat and lazy, and as evidenced by conflicts in this
generation, are not willing to fight and die unless it is their own
backyard. If you think people wondered at why we were in Vietnam, the
moon is 230,000 miles farther away than that...
>
> SIDE NOTE (TRIVIA YOU BOTH MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN):
>
> You wouldn't necessarily have to put really large rocks into orbit. Some
> are already orbiting the earth. According to astronomers, there are
> something like 13 non-trivial natural bodies orbiting earth. Discounting
> the moon (which is one of them) I believe the sizes range from about
> 50-2000 meters in diameter. Simply the threat of dropping a big one (say,
> 1000 meters) into an ocean should be sufficient deterrent from attack. An
> ocean drop doesn't have to be accurate, and would destroy *a lot* of coastal
> cities and lands.
>
So there is already a deterrent capability and all this posturing is
moot. All that remains is one corporation with the balls enough to go up
and grab the opportunity. now don't raise your hands too quick now.....
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
President retroman@tpk.net
Northstar Technologies Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com
Inventor of the Lorrey Drive Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com
Website: http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/
Now Featuring:
Mikey's Animatronic Factory
http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/animations.htm
My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA)
MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday
Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH)
------------------------------------------------------------
Transhumanist, Inventor, Webmaster, Ski Guide, Entrepreneur,
Artist, Outdoorsman, Libertarian, Arms Exporter-see below.
------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/local/bin/perl-0777---export-a-crypto-system-sig-RC4-3-lines-PERL
@k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_
]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256;
&S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:00 MST