🚀 go-pugleaf

Date: 11-NOV-1986 16:08
From: Dennis O'Connor
Sender: OCONNORDM
Subject: Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc.
To: SPACE@ANGBAND@SMTP
--------
 In SPACE Digest V7 #41 "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" engages in a long
combination of comclusion-jumping, flaming and ad hominum attacks.
Such behavior is NOT what I had hoped for as a response to my
original line of inquiry. The length and low information density
of "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu"'s message prohibits quoting it, but I'd like
to challenge some of his statements.

1. You can design a powersat as a collection of independant modules, each
containing a reflector, power converter, and a microwave transmitter. The
transmitters on the units are coordinated by a redundant central control
system into a large phased-array transmitter. Advantages of such a
powersat : you use a lot of small, cheap components instead of a few
big, expensive ones; you can start small and expand it easily; you
can take portions down for service without shutting down everything;
and it is very robust ( loosing subunits doesn't cost you the whole thing ).
If you think about it, this makes it a survivable weapon also.

2. The USA did not ( hasn't yet ? ) conquered England because North America
is rich in natural resources and England is ( generally ) poor in them.
The same CAN NOT be said of space.

3. A space-based installation is only vulnerable to attack by a weapon if :
	a. It allows the groundhogs to build it.
	b. It allows the groundhogs a launch facility for it.
	c. It allows it to survive the LONG trip from Earth.
You can do A or B by blackmail or pre-emptive strike, and C using
existing machine-cannon or air-to-air technology. Given all this,
if you come up with a list of attacks that space colonies are
"very vulnerable" to, I'll come up with cheap, easy countermeasures.
( Countermeasure 1 : " You build a launch pad, we fry New York " ).

4. If the inside of the colonie rotates and the outside doesn't,
then put all the weapons on the outside and don't let any of them 
get blasted off ( see 3, above ). If the whole thing rotates do
the same but get better targetting systems. Really BIG weapons mount
inside along the axis of rotation, with a targetting mirror at the end.

5. in re the difference between tanks and cadillacs, more to the
point is the difference between pillboxes and underground parking
garages ( pillboxes are cheaper the garages, actually ).

6. If I win the war, I will MAKE YOU send me ANYTHING I WANT
( only to low orbit, I'll take it from there, but YOU DO THE
HARD PART ), and I WON'T PAY FOR IT, and IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT
I WILL FRY YOU because I CAN HIT YOU BUT YOU CAN"T HIT ME.
Beyond that, you can govern yourselves. This is called GUNBOAT
DIPLOMACY. Yes, goverments do act ( have acted ) this childishly.

7. A thriving, expanding space culture doesn't hold any fear for
me. Rather, a desparate, struggling, just-getting-started culture
is the real threat. They NEED to get things cheap/free.

8. If people are going to adapt to low gravity in only a few generation, 
the ONLY way it will happen ( genetically ) is if you refuse to allow
people who aren't well adapted to breed. Period. There is no other
form of adaptation possible ( unless your going to splice genes yourself,
but beleive me, that isn't a cheap thing with people. It's not
even cheap with E. Coli ). And what about bone-mass loss ?

9. If one of the MAJOR causes of war is scarce resources, then Space
Colonies will have a lot of  cause for war. The list of important
resources that ARE NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE ( much less "scarce" ) in
space runs like a CRC Handbook. And if an ambitous politician can
exploit these multitudinous shortages ...

I think everyone on the net would appreciate if entries to it
were well thought out, not just knee-jerk reactions. I am trying
( I'll admit I may not be suceeding ) to adher to this rule.

				Dennis O'Connor

--------