Is she right Veeky Forums?

Mmmmh, maybe because of the cold of space the moon of lava would become a moon of obsidian become impact, and since obsidian is really sharp, maybe the moon of ice would be cut in half like when sasuke slash with a katana.

wu lad

What difference does it make for a nuke if it's launched from the Moon or anywhere else? The distance it travels has nothing to do with the nuclear explosion.

I guess you put a nuke inside a device like for extra lols

good post

she's just another armchair scientist like literally 99% of the population. the only difference is people know her for something not science related. I hope that answers your question.

I too read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
it's a great book but probably not scientifically accurate

> Rocks dropped...

> dropped...

You can't drop something from the moon.

It takes a lot energy to change the orbital dynamics of an object on the moon to a trajectory that would hit earth.

>spend shitloads of money to "drop" rock from moon on earth
>gain nothing from it
>the rock burns up in the atmosphere
fugg :DDD

>rods from the Gods will alwais be a best doomsday machine
>weaponized rock a shit

prove me wrong

She actually said that. (It's been deleted)

archive.is/e9kgC

>she

Was the government behind this?

youtube.com/watch?v=90Omh7_I8vI

>DUDE SPACEX WANTS TO DESTROY THE WORLD LMAO

What the fuck. Do liberals just assume that all rich people are conniving Bond villains?

>she

Projection : that's what they'd do because they're horrible alledgedly human beings.
We really need to slaughter them all.

The book is mostly accurate for the time it was written, but using it as an argument for throwing rocks at earth to be a practical and devastating weapon ignores the fact that in the book it was the only weapon the colonists were capable of building that could hit earth and that there are way better places in space to throw rocks at earth from.

>she

The usual hysterical gibberish from known moron John "Brianna" Wu.

Her post the book.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZXSLgqdOJO4

It's not the distance. It's the fact that you don't have to spend resources on flying the nuke halfway across the world. Also the fact that the targeted country can't just do something like shoot your plane down as it's crossing the seas to deliver the payload. You drop the shit from orbit and gravity handles delivery for you. And the other country can't even fight you back without having something equivalent because all their bullets are locked in by gravity. They gotta build a fucking rocket to go to space to shoot you. Lastly, if they try to shoot the nuke in mid air for some stupid reason it's totally unlike shooting it down while it's overseas. Now you just get to live with no explosion/vaporization damage and a gigantic fallout radius over your country. It's a lose/lose for you and a win/win for moon man.

>it's a great book but probably not scientifically accurate
You make the ghost of Heinlein very sad. He worked very hard at getting these kinds of details right.

Stuff thrown from the moon to Earth would hit the atmosphere at about 11 km/s, meaning it would have about 60 MJ/kg, or about ten times as much as conventional explosives. The amount of energy lost to entry would depend on the size and density of the projectile. A rock ball of many tons coming nearly straight down could hit with several times the energy of an equivalent mass of conventional explosives. Iron would be even better.

To throw from the moon to Earth, however, only requires accelerating it to around 2.75 km/s, an energy of around 4 MJ/kg. So there's a large profit of energy throwing downhill, which compensates for the losses of mining and accelerating the mass.

There's a huge advantage here over manufacturing and especially delivering conventional explosives, because of the simplicity and low energy cost, and because you can hit anywhere on Earth with basically no defense possible. A catapult on a peak of eternal light, or on a relatively short crawler track around a pole (the distance you have to travel in a month varies depending on distance from the moon -- even at the equator, you only need to maintain an average pace of 10 miles per hour to stay in the daylight), could take advantage of constant solar power and the relatively modest energy requirements, to keep up a constant barrage.

While it's not remotely comparable to nuclear weapons in terms of energy per unit mass, it's very comparable in destructive potential due to the ease with which many large projectiles could be thrown. However, quite a significant industrial base would need to be established on the moon. (the scenario in the book involved a lunar colony at least comparable to an industrial city)

Sure you don't have to spend resources flying halfway around the world but you need to spend resources to fly the materials to make the nuke to the moon, and then you need to spend the resources to move the nuke from the moon to earth. Add to this that you will have to wait 1-3 days for the nuke to arrive which gives plenty of time for the target to react.

As for it being harder to shoot down, while it will be a faster target to hit than a more conventionally delivered nuke, a properly designed interceptor wouldn't need to hit the nuke. It would just have to get near enough to use an ERW to fry the electronics.

Thanks

The plot of GI Joe 2

You don't necessarily need a huge industrial base to support something capable of bombarding the earth. Current naval railguns can already shoot 3.2 kg projectiles at 2.4 km/s. These can be relatively compact(read not kilometers long).

A recent nasa study found that the mass requirements for a mass driver might be reduced with the use of in situ resources and 3d printing.

NASA has even investigated self-replicating mass drivers:
www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/880Chirikjian.pdf

Now I want to say a crawler is totally ridiculous, but given the size of current naval railguns it's not that ridiculous. Lower lunar gravity does allow for larger tracked vehicles. Lunar day is 14 earth days long, it is probably easier just to build two mass drivers for continuous bombardment.

Anons have convinced me, elon musk is dr. evil and he's gonna put nuclear missiles on the moon and hold the earth for ransom.

>she

I read a comment on Reddit today saying we shouldn't carelessly mess around with the moon because our oceans depend on it for the tides.

Nobody's planning on blowing up the Moon anytime soon. So that's not a concern.

>First because she is a >she.
It used to be a he. Check E.D..

People can pick their preferred pronouns and nothing you conservatards say can change that. Deal with it or rot on the wrong side of history.

>or about ten times as much as conventional explosives
>So there's a large profit of energy throwing downhill

Not really, you first have to get the stuff there in the first. And for the cost, you could just make a bigger bomb.

Would missiles sent from the moon burn up in the atmosphere? If so what would happen?

The Soviet's and the US did once plan on nuking it in the space race to show who's dick was bigger

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

Imagine if people took a nuclear missile. Put in on top of another missile. Then shot that missile to the moon. Then shot the nuclear missile back at earth.

>being this much of a brainlet

Veeky Forums is dead jfc

also, kys

>spend resources on flying the nuke halfway across the world
yeah, now you'll just send it to the moon, and then shoot it back. or send all the necesary heavy and sensitive equipment to build nukes on the moon, just as retarded

>shoot your plane down as it's crossing the seas to deliver the payload
is this the 50s? no modern country with a nuclear arsenal flies their nukes to the place they want to drop them on anymore just because of that
you know how to avoid getting shot? a missile falling from space at many kilometers per second, and you can do that with an ICBM, no need to go to the moon for it, so that tactical advantage the moon could give you is also non existant

anyways, google the sprint anti ballistic missile

If you already have a mining base on the moon, then how is it hard to pick up some shit to throw down to earth?

>thread full of morons who don't understand gravity and orbital dynamics

>hilarity ensues

we should do this more often.

The moon is like 300k miles away from the earth and there's no air to slow down anything along the way.
Do you even realize how much speed a rock will build up if it fell from there?
I never really considered that angle of space flight but this is really making me think about the dangers and the ethics of it. Not only is it financially questionable to waste money on it when you have other devastating problems at hand, but just as bad it can all be used to bring even more harm to humanity.
I think we, as people of the earth, should be really careful about this. We can't let our present and past flaws dictate our future.

>if it fell from there

stop it you're making me laugh too hard and I need to go to get ready for work.

I mean, its actually not that tactically important and here's why. You would have to spend billions of dollars to construct equitorial assault cannons on the moon, and even then, the projectiles would have to be atmospheric entrance-proof. As far as militaristic strategy goes, I'm not sure you want to target a particular portion of earth when Literally all the countries undergoing a night time phase can see you. Granted, it probably wouldn't be a very good move to do a counterbarage at something that waves depend on but if it meant saving the last bastion of hope in Madagascar, then farewell sweet moon.

>You don't necessarily need a huge industrial base to support something capable of bombarding the earth. Current naval railguns can already shoot 3.2 kg projectiles at 2.4 km/s. These can be relatively compact(read not kilometers long).
3.2 kg projectiles wouldn't do much. They'd probably burn up or hit the Earth's surface at subsonic speed. If you put a guidance system on it, you might hit a particular building with the force of a small lobbing cannon, but those would be expensive and without a big industrial base you wouldn't be able to fire many shots. In this case, you'd be better off making conventional explosive shells, with ablative heat shielding rather than relying on kinetic energy.

You need high-mass projectiles to have a good ballistic coefficient, as well as to have a serious destructive effect. I think tons are a minimum.

Nuclear weapon yields are usually measured in energy-equivalence to kilotons of TNT, a conventional explosive. A nuke of a couple hundred pounds is good for hundreds of kilotons, able to seriously damage large areas of city. If you want a single moon rock to do that kind of damage, it has to actually have a mass of at least tens of thousands of tons, the size of a major warship, like a battleship or aircraft carrier. Have fun throwing that.

If you're throwing rocks of a few tons to a few hundred tons, you've got to launch thousands of them to have an equivalent effect to a nuke, like a WW2 bombing campaign.

if my math is correct, then it takes 5,78 MJ for 1 kg of mass to reach moon escape velocity and cancel orbital velocity.
the object then gaines on its descent to Earth about 60 MJ giving you an energy in / energy out of about 10 which is nice but not really an alternative to nukes.