Is he right? Can you just drop rocks from the moon and equal

File: lookoutB_1100x469.jpg (182KB, 1100x469px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1100x469px

>>33147327
Yes, all you need is decently big rocks.

>>33147327
Anything you can launch would be too small to make any meaningful impact, or burn up in atmospheric entry. Large enough rocks would be too big to launch.

>>33147327
Absolutely, the reason NASA brought rocks from moon was to gain their immense energy, the rocks were carefully delivered back to earth instead of dropped so the energy wasn't lost

>>33147327
No, objects reach terminal velocity regardless of shape, size, or mass, well under the threshold for doing significant damage to large areas. If they dropped a bomb from space going x mph, it would eventually hit the atmosphere of air, be slowed down considerably, cool down, and reach the surface at y speed. Of course, you might have guided objects fired from space or near-orbit that can eventually reach high speed impacts, but even then it would be no more effective against civilian targets than just dropping a nuke, nor would it be more destructive. The only time you'd benefit is if it were dropped on military targets that would somehow try to intercept the object, with hopes they would fail because the speed of the object is too high. If it were a nuclear capable object, the difference in damage between a 1mt nuke impacting a target at 5mph and 5,000 mph is negligible.

>>33147353
We're not talking an actual payload, we're talking a "kill all current life by blocking out the sun" sized meteor. You know, like what destroyed some 80% of the biosphere a few million years ago.

>>33147327
It's the ultimate high ground. You can see any attacker hours ahead of time. Easy to defend and completely inhospitable to an attacking force since they can only carry so much oxygen.

But yeah a 50 ton hunk of iron going straight down is going to fuck an entire region up. Look up the Chelyabinsk meteor and the damage it caused from a air burst 97 miles up.

>>33147327
No, since the moon has gravity too, you can't launch a rock from the moon and get an explosion equivalent to a nuke. Much easier to just use orbital space rods

>>33147368
Well she's not wrong. Dropping a meteor 1/128 the size of the planet would fuck up almost everything. But we'd basically have to be able to move small planets at that point. By the time we have that technology, north korea or iran would have the technology to an-hero with a 1200mt giga nuke that would destroy the world anyway.

>>33147327
A rock dropped from the moon would fall to the ground, on the moon.

A rock launched from the moon at lunar escape velocity of 2380 m/s would be launched into a very high earth orbit, if said rock were then decelerated by another few hundred metres per second, it would have a trajectory that would bring it into contact with the earth.

If said rock were sturdy enough to survive re-entry, and had enough of a ballistic coefficient to not lose too much energy to the atmosphere, then it would hit the ground.

Orbital bombardment is overrated. Just use an ICBM.

>>33147383
>By the time we have that technology, north korea or iran would have the technology
by that point, who gives a shit? Everyone would be on their own planet/systems.

>>33147370
>It's the ultimate high ground.
It's over, Anakin!

Fuck it, guess I'll make a serious post

With a rods from god thingy, you ideally get as much energy out of a rod as you spend burning propellant to bring it up to the sky, if you instead go to the moon you get a certain discount, the mass is already there and you only have to propel it out of the moon's much lesser gravity

In practice, you would have to mount a mission to the moon carrying equipment to mine huge fucking chunks of rock and enough propellant to push it out of moon's energy well, the apollo mission cost 150 billion USD inflation adjusted, granted, it would be cheaper with modern tech, but carrying all that propellant and mining shit to moon would raise it back to atleast 150bn

And let's face it, 150 billion USD, are we pretending that you can't buy actual WMDs with that kind of money?

>>33147386
ICBM... from the MOON... IPBMs....

>>33147405
The moon isn't a planet.
ICBBMs.

>>33147368
Here's the thing:

If the technology to line up a snooker shot with a dinosaur-killer exists, the technology to make it miss exists.

Causing such a collision would require large amounts of energy, this would be seen, and big asteroids on collision courses are hard to miss to start with. So it'll be seen coming, and Blue team will use whatever tech Red team used to send it, to send it away.

If Red team can line up the shot, Blue team can knock it off course. Doing that will almost certainly require less energy and effort than aiming it in the first place did.

>>33147327
if you drop a rock on the moon it lands in between your feet

>>33147405
Normal ICBMS have like, what an hour between launch and boom?

A Lunar ICBM has a hell of lot further to go, and all of it across open space, no horizon or atmosphere to hide behind.

>>33147327
Yes, on a very abstract level.

But it would be just cheaper and more effective to put nukes on orbit.

>>33147341
you could drop iron rods like that hand of god

File: tmp_27128-Kearth232125646.png (218KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 500x382px

This all seems very familiar.

>>33147327
Isn't this """woman""" running for congress or some shit?

Yes and no;

In order to reach the Earth from the Moon, you need to de-orbit. De-orbiting requires reducing your orbital velocity. So in order to drop rocks on people's heads on earth, you would need to slow them down launching from the moon. Lunar re-entry speeds are ~11km/s.

Dropping 100 tons from the moon, onto Earth, would be equivalent to about a 1.4kt bomb. We would have to increase that by an order of magnitude to 1,000 tons in order to reach a hiroshima size nuke. Another order of magnitude to 10,000 tons to reach a typical low-yield thermonuclear weapon at ~140kt

It would take perhaps another two or three orders of magnitude: 1,000,000+ tons; to reach something that could be described as "hundreds of nukes"

Needless to say, dropping even 100 tons from lunar orbit isn't something anyone will be doing anytime soon.

By the way, this is part of the reason Rods from God was never a real thing. On top of the difficulty in aiming the damn thing, you also run into the problem that 1 ton projectiles just aren't moving fast enough to actually hurt shit unless it's a direct impact. You can improve matters by firing at escape velocity but in an orbit that re-intersects the earth; could easily get 50+km/s doing that, but then you're waiting months or years for impact, making it virtually useless in a military/political scenario (but perhaps useful for terrorists).

File: Trans-lunar_injection.svg.png (39KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x600px

>>33147405
CBM or CLBM - Cis-Lunar Ballistic Missile

>>33147421
It'd take about three days for a hohmann transfer

>>33147426
THE ONLY GOOD BUG

>>33147426
Asteroids can't cross the whole galaxy, Buenos Aires was a false flag, wake up sheeple

>establish military stronghold on moon
>have great coverage of targets across the entire world
>other countries can't retaliate in fear of destroying the moon along with it

They're right but for the wrong reason.

>>33147327
No
But we can have tungsten rods dropped from low orbit

>>33147480
They can't destroy the moon, it's too big. The most that would happen is it would turn into a giant globe of melted cheese for awhile.

>>33147486
That wouldn't do anything. Feel free to calculate the kinetic energy of a tungsten rod dropped at low-earth-orbit re-entry speeds.

I'll give you a hint: It's fuck all.

>>33147474

>Bugs can barely hit ships in orbit despite specialized arty
>Are supposed to be able to fling a meteor across the galaxy with perfect accuracy

Really fires those neurons

>>33147496
>tfw you finally realize buenos aires really was a false flag and it wasn't the director being too fucking retarded to realize an asteroid couldn't travel 60,000+ lightyears in a few days or months.

>>33147514
holy shit, and the reason it didn't get down was because they disabled the moon defenses on purpose!

>>33147424
Yes, but the STAR WARS program had actual scientists working on it and not mentally ill degenerates, so they knew how to circumvent issues like reentry burn, at least on paper.

Either way the program fell apart because it's a lot easier to just build more and bigger nukes than develop rockets, satellites, communication systems, etc. from square one.

>>33147434
The original concept behind rods from god was to destroy military installations and bunkers, not to replace nukes and ICBMs, that was a part of the media frenzy of the time.
Though I believe the effectiveness of a kinetic bombardment projectile could be greatly increased if it could be designed to break up before impact, giving it more of a cluster bomb effect which also somewhat alleviates the issue of guiding an uncontrolled projectile.

>>33147514
Haha I too watch RLM my fellow narwhal baconeer!

>>33147548
what the fuck is RLM

Kinetic energy ain't something to fuck with. The first ICBM's weren't even fitted with warheads until a Nuclear explosive could be made small enough to carry, because the energy of 40 tons of missile striking the ground at 15,000 mph was greater than the chemical energy of any conventional explosive they could contain.

cazaba howitzers or nuclear formed penetrators are a much better way to fuck up someones day

50Mt and few feet of steel infront to make the penetrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Propulsion_of_steel_plate_cap

>>33147589
Could probably nuke an aircraft carrier from orbit this way. Wouldn't even be possible to shoot the nuke down, it'd just explode 100km's above you and BAM nuclear lance straight through the deck.

>>33147596
exactly

I wonder how much penetration a 900 kg steel rod traveling at 60km/s has

>>33147598
That's not how it works

>>33147601
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge#Nuclear_shaped_charges

>early nuclear weapons designer Ted Taylor was quoted as saying, in the context of shaped charges, "A one-kiloton fission device, shaped properly, could make a hole ten feet in diameter a thousand feet into solid rock."

>>33147614
But you're talking about propelling a giant steel plate around, which is not what nuclear shape charges do

>>33147618
I was talking about a rod, like the kind from EFPs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

>>33147634
And yes I know that shaped charges and EFPs are different

>>33147341
the moon has a relative velocity to earth of 1km/s, so to overcome this and put yourself on an earth intersecting orbit isn't nearly as hard as the other way around.

if your rock started on the moon, it wouldn't be all too hard to do.

>>33147327
This person is mentally retarded, pay no attention.

>>33147455
>hohmann transfer
kids, were going balls to the wall. punch it to 200km/s and straight transfer like a real hardcore motherfucker.

>>33147349
this. if the moon rocks weren't on the spaceship then it wouldn't have had the force and weight to push through the atmosphere. In all actuality, the force was so strong with the moon rocks aboard it caused the hole in the ozone layer. nasa don't say this in public and they paid all the gores off so they blame it on coal.

>>33147378
its a lot easier to get things up the moon gravity well. moon atmosphere is essentially a vacuum so railgun mass accelerators/plasma drives/ microwave drive/other electrical doohicky will tend to work better work better there. Couple with orbiting solar panels and thousands of tonnes of structurally hardened lunar material can be placed into elliptical dive bomb orbits around the earth. Just scale up to millions of tonnes and redundant projectiles for a nice and viable orbital deadfall doomsday device.

>>33147353
1) An objects Terminal Velocity DEPENDS on Size, Shape and Mass. There is no 1 terminal velocity.

2) It takes time to reach terminal velocity, starting from a slower velocity or a faster one. Start fast enough you can hit without having time to slow down to terminal velocity.

3) Terminal Velocity only matters in a fluid. While its in space or the rarefied atmosphere it can very fucking fast.

The rest is fine - one of the primary reasons Rods from God were investigated was exactly because they weren't nuclear. They're not going to have more energy than Nukes. Anything you can unironically call a rock is going to need to be travel ling at Mach 15 to have as much energy as a tiny W54 tactical nuke.

>>33147558

Shut the fuck up you fucking retard.

Now anyone rich enough for a flight to the moon is going to be hucking tungsten rods at us.
We truly are living in a new era of terrorism.

>>33147327
Gospodin Selene promised he could drop the rocks to within feet of a desired target. I do not see any problems here.

>>33147386

>be a gook working with NASA
>get bored of watching space
>create a gigantic shuriken launcher
>sell it to the chinks
>chinks will ship it to the moon
>shit hits the fan
>'mmmurican is expecting nukes
>nothing happens
>NORAD picks some strange signals
>star shaped things in collision route with Earth
>they don't give a fuck cause nobody can speak or raise alarms for some UFOs as they do not exist
>Shit is indeed the real deal
>Earth is split in half
>Flat Earth tards are now happily beheading infidels

>>33147383
>she

>>33147327
Well, hand-sized rocks would easily crumble upon entering Earth's atmosphere when it comes time for its rapid deceleration. Yes, nobody likes celery, not even in space. So if you perhaps managed to bring a catapult of sorts to the moon, and a fuckload of shovels to dig up giant rocks, then it's possible to cause some devastation tot he Earth. But the thing is, you'd want to be throwing rocks that are hundreds of meters or even kilometers wide. I don't think that even a 50m rock would manage to cause much damage on earth. It'd break up into tiny rocks or dust. Maybe at best, you'd cause a REALLY inaccurate but HIGHLY-penetrating shotgun effect of a bunch of pebble-sized rocks. Just don't eat celery while you're working; it's disgusting and stringy and will slow down your progress.

>>33147327
He's a fucking moron

>>33147548
>I didn't realise Starship Troopers was ironic until until RLM told me so now I get super buttmad whenever it's brought up because they made me feel dumb for missing the point

>>33147327
This is so stupid it hurts.

>>33147327
You could just use strong enouh explosions to get the moon out of orbit faster and push I towards the earth

>>33147780
Underated.

Can we all agree that TMIAHM is one of the best sci fi books?

>>33147327
What? Fuck no. It'd burn or pop in atmo. Barring that, moon rock is probably far less dense then earth rock and would wind up in the low kiloton range. Why spend trillions of dollars and precious materials going to the moon when you can use... Oh, I dunno. A nuke?

>>33147327
>>33147327
Terminal velocity is like a 9th or 10th grade concept man...

>>33147798
>It'd break up into tiny rocks or dust. Maybe at best, you'd cause a REALLY inaccurate but HIGHLY-penetrating shotgun effect of a bunch of pebble-sized rocks.
What if someone replaced the the 50m rock with a 50m block of cesium-127 or other radioactive waste so a whole area gets sprayed radioactive particles and becomes uninhabitable for a few hundred years?

File: 1300038612935.jpg (340KB, 2000x1324px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 2000x1324px

>>33147327
eehhh, in a wide sense you could... if by dropping rocks you mean building huge ass rail guns and firing them at Earth, but then we have
>>33147370
We would see they doing it, firing it, and we could retaliate and maybe even deflect the attack... dunno.
I'm not a rocket scientist!

>>33147848
>I'm not a rocket scientist

That is made incredibly clear.

File: 1277298052813.gif (993KB, 322x241px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 322x241px

>>33147421
>>33147426
>>33147455
>>33147848
shit, just realized, this is very similar to the Martian's attacks from War of The worlds.
book, not awfull tom croooise movie, plz

>>33147843
What if - check this out - we take that radioactive waste, right, a-and put it in a... like a sort of missile launched from Earth instead?

Going to space is expensive, going to space with radioactive waste isn't any cheaper

You'd get a more cost-effective result with conventional nuking

File: 1281420124580.jpg (363KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1920x1080px

>>33147853
well, excuse me, mister Nasa Warfare Expert!
anyway this is all science fiction anyway.

>>33147877
>namefag
>not a rocket scientist by his own admission
>uses "anyway" twice in the same sentence

"Namefag Turns Out To Be An Idiot ; Thousands Left Unsurprised"

File: themagicbutton.jpg (147KB, 355x1090px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 355x1090px

>>33147872
>go to asteroid belt.
>tie nuclear rockets to some asteroids, not the really big ones, just the ones big enough not to burn in atmosphere
>aim them to nuclear waste deposits on Earth
>wait 5-10 years.
>hit 10% of intend targets
>profit

a man can dream

>>33147877
No, Fuckface Wu was being completely serious when it posted that abomination of a suggestion. Drop the trip, you're stinking up the thread already.

Also how fucking critically retarded does Wu have to be to claim that the fucking Moon of all places is "the most strategically important place," for earth. Christ. If that were the case, someone would've probably made the fucking effort to go back already.

>>33147889
>10 years later

"Pebble hits nuclear waste deposit : business as usual"

That's probably the best result you can expect. Anything bigger you simply won't be able to "attach rockets to", as incredibly retarded as that sounds.

You have to be 18 to post here.

>>33147889
You can do better than that anon. Get way out to the Jupiter Trojans. Mine water to use H2 as reaction mass. Start launching shit at Earth. Keep the nuclear rockets there until they break, just keep going. When all you need is hydrogen
and rock, you can just keep going.

However, nothing to be gained by this so its still retarded to do.

File: 1mumad.jpg (87KB, 1439x1073px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1439x1073px

>>33147893
>could hide post
>could hide thread
>choose to be asperger level buttmad
I found my 4chan folders from seven years ago. I can shitpost all day

>>33147934
Would love to stick around, tripfag, but I gotta get to work. Gg ez pz

File: 1278252062794.jpg (93KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x600px

>>33147909
>However, nothing to be gained by this so its still retarded to do.
I know, but it still fun to "plan" it, just like those old Bond villains
"hey, lets spend our lifetimes and money building a laser on Moon!"
"or we could just buy some black market nukes"
"... that's why no one invite you to anything, Bob."

File: 1299107137034.jpg (36KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x355px

>>33147945
>ez pz
>tripfag
you really need to work some things.
have a good day at work

>>33147948
Wow, a namefag that prefers his little deluded fantasies to actual strategies pertinent to the thread, quelle surprise

>So to take care of that problem, striking first and fast to prevent retaliation and MAD...
HAY GUISE LET'S BUILD SPACE LAZORSSS XDXDXD
>Why the fuck haven't you been section 8'd already, Jim

>>33147596
There are multiple problems with that.
The first is hitting the damn thing. The higher up you set off the charge, the more time the carrier has to move, and at flank speed a hard rudder input is going to make you miss. Also the higher up you detonate the harder it is to properly detect the carrier and it's heading, speed, &etc, meaning your chances of sending your projectile the right way isn't all that high.
And if you do hit, you've made a 2-5m diameter hole top to bottom in the carrier. That's not critical damage, they can take more than that. At BEST you hit the deck, hangar, 4 aircraft, and one of the reactor plants. That'd do some very nasty damage to the ship, but not sink it. Considering how you spent a nuke to achieve this, that's a pretty shitty result. You're better off using your nukes as depth bombs and hoping for a near-miss.

File: delta-V map.png (46KB, 339x479px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 339x479px

>>33147327
Nope. Ignoring lost energy during reentry, a rock dropped from the Moon would only contain about 9 megajoules per kilogram, or 9 gigajoules per ton. So only about twice powerful than conventional explosives (if I did my math right), and about a million times LESS powerful than a thermonuclear bomb of the same mass.

Now, you COULD compare a big-ass million-ton rock to a 600 pound nuclear warhead and get in the ballpark, but that's a) pretty fucking disingenuous, and b) well beyond the capabilities of modern technology, let alone the capabilities of anything SpaceX is proposing.

File: OHYOUEOD.jpg (58KB, 531x800px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 531x800px

>>33147973
>actual strategies pertinent to the thread
>actual strategy pertinent to thread, blow chunks of Moon hoping they hit Earth
sorry anon, I am truly sorry. I should take this thread more seriously

File: 1488063401608.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>33147327
>he

>>33147983
Better than fucking space lasers ya fuckin' mong.
Why 4chan has allowed and still allows trips and names is beyond me.

>>33147327
This is what they did in the book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. They had some type of launch system for shipping freight and sent huge stones at earth from the moon during a revolution.

>>33147327

kek angry poor people

The rich own this planet and anything else humanity sets foot on. Deal with it shitters.

We must bring down the lesser moon Dalamud and purge Eorzea of their taint.

File: 1470197345270.png (142KB, 473x462px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 473x462px

Throw the moon at China.

>>33147656
I think he probably has read too much early sci-fi like Heinlein.
While the concept is possible, it's completely impractical compared to just making nukes or chemical weapons here on earth.

>>33147496
>>33147474
Didn't the Arachnids have a large interplanetary "empire"? It didn't have to be launched from their home planet.

You could in theory with a big enough rock.

It's not done because it will always be a shitload more expensive than just dropping a nuke. But, we don't drop nukes because they're too damn powerful and indescriminate for any serious non end of organized civilization activity.

>>33147853
>I am a catty faggot

Yeah, you sure are.

>>33147327
What are meteors?

>>33147843
Wow, what a great and not at all fucking stupid idea.

>>33148702
What is delta-v required to deorbit a rock big enough not to burn up in the atmosphere
Doing any appreciable damage would require you to build a rocket big enough to take a huge chunk of rock, deorbit it from the moon, then deorbit from earth to a trajectory where, taking into account aerobraking, the rock hits the target. Congrats, you just spent more than a billion dollars for an ineffective weapon

>>33148733
>What is delta-v required to deorbit a rock big enough not to burn up in the atmosphere
I don't know, nigga, all I know is meteoroids that aren't just 'dropped from the moon' can't usually penetrate Earth's atmosphere.

>>33148733
but would it look cool?

>>33147327
>he

>>33147980
>The first is hitting the damn thing. The higher up you set off the charge, the more time the carrier has to move
That's the actual point of a casaba warhead, because hitting a moving target with a warhead is much more difficult than hitting them with a massive beam of nuclear-fuck-you-plasma. The beam of plasma and hard radiation propagates at near light speed. Not only that, but the beam is a cone, not just a straight line. That means it loses effectiveness at range, yes, but these things were designed with the idea of hitting targets from thousands to millions of kilometers in space, a hundred or so kilometers in atmosphere won't affect the lethality for something like a carrier. Of course this assumes the warhead has a way of aiming itself before detonation, which is perfectly feasible with current technology.

>And if you do hit, you've made a 2-5m diameter hole top to bottom in the carrier. That's not critical damage, they can take more than that. At BEST you hit the deck, hangar, 4 aircraft, and one of the reactor plants. That'd do some very nasty damage to the ship, but not sink it. Considering how you spent a nuke to achieve this, that's a pretty shitty result. You're better off using your nukes as depth bombs and hoping for a near-miss.
I don't know the exact cone of focus for a casaba warhead, but 5m is quite small for something that was detonated on the edge of the atmosphere. More likely at the distances of an orbital strike, it would be 20-30m of coverage. Also besides just heat, there would be massive amounts of hard radiation hitting the target, which would almost certainly cook and contaminate anything on the deck of the ship and likely irradiate the entire crew of the ship.

>>33147948
I agree. Its fun to talk about it on /k/ , but bringing it up during actual political discourse is retarded like that sjw cunt did.

>>33147327
Actualy had good laugh. Good job OP

>>33147490
All in favor of turning the moon into an orbital fondue pot say aye.

>>33147349
This.

Why do you think the space race was so important, anon? Bragging rights?

No, it was for the rocks.
Those rocks with the power of 100s of nukes are why we won the Cold War.

>>33147712
>It can very fucking fast
I know it's a typo, but just imagine we're all dumbass looking scientists in a backyard and one just goes
>It can VERY fucking fast!
And everyone just goes
>mm yes, I see

File: Wuman.jpg (39KB, 489x445px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 489x445px

>>33147991
No hacksaw this side of hell is gonna change that.

>>33147514
>you now know that the director didn't like the way the book reasonably portrayed the Federation and Rico was South American.
>you also now know the shitty director turned it into a half baked political commentating war movie because he's hard left

You have to hit the earth with enough kinetic energy that it would override the need for an explode warhead. Once you're going to that length of trouble you may as well just launch a nuke under most circumstances.

File: 1f5.jpg (125KB, 900x598px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 900x598px

>>33147455
>Cis-Lunar Ballistic Missile
>Cis-
The bigotry never ends.

>>33147327
>Brianna Wu
>>>/8gag/
You have to go back

>>33147530
>STAR WARS program

1) It's not an acronym, you don't need to capitalize the whole thing like an autistic person.

2) That's not even the actual name of that program. It was actually the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI. "Star wars" was a nickname the media gave the program to mock it.

>>33149006
Ahhhcktually, Rico is Filipino.

>>33147431
Yes. I am waiting for her stand on Guam and if jumping should be made illegal over there.

>>33149006
If Verhoeven was trying to turn it into an anti-war movie then he fucked up bad. Even though it's obviously satirical Starship Troopers is the most positive portrayal of fascist and hard right doctrine I've ever seen

>>33149279
She worried about it tipping over too?

>>33148881
seriously, anyone take that girl seriously? you guys gotta be shitting me come on.

>>33149404
>girl

>>33149404
>she

>>33147327
Sure, you'd just need a big rock. An object explodes when its kinetic energy is greater than the energy of the bonds holding the object together.

>>33147387
>North Korea achieves global juche victory in 2300 AD, once everyone else has left for there space cruisers to the Benis system.

>>33148426
It's been a few years since I read the book, but I think you may be thinking of the Skinies. It was basically a 3 way territory war happening.

Mass Drivers on the moon would be an absolute terror weapon.

We're still far off from that tech though

>>33148426
They had a few planets at least, most within relative proximity of the home planet. Arachnids expanded by hurling spore through space. Humans expanded into this area and zoned it off, rebel colonies decided to settle on a few contested planets, bugs hurled a rock at the mexicans. voila, bug war 1 & 2.0

>>33147327
Ah, humans. Constantly racing towards extinction. Fucking irony.

File: 1487597203006.png (58KB, 680x810px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 680x810px

>>33147327
This fucking faggot larping as a woman can't even distinguish between tactical and strategic.opinion discarded.

File: bruh1.jpg (44KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x600px

you guys think too small. why not put a rocket on the moon and launch the whole thing into earth

>>33147327
Old idea is old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Thankfully we signed treaties so that type of thing is frowned upon.

>>33150154
Read the thread, some animeme faggot already suggested it.

>>33150154
Because the payload in the rocket would (probably) be smaller than the explosion caused by the kinetic energy of the rocket itself. Why not just throw a giant rock at that point?

File: 1266946269500.jpg (29KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x480px

>>33149941
>>33150030
ooh...

How about a moon based mass driver? Refine the rock into multi ton metallic darts (to reduce the effect of earth's atmosphere) and fire them at high velocities from a kms long magnetic rail? You could achieve a very high velocity if you had enough power. A high speed multiplied by the weight of the huge streamlined dart might make quite a crater.

File: 1482347556275.jpg (34KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x400px

>>33147327
Why is it that the liberals are always the ones coming up with genocide and now exterminatus on their own planet?

>>33150450
>Why is it that the liberals are always the ones coming up with genocide
...uwot?

I'm reminded of the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' reading the OP, though I honestly doubt Wu read it.
An incredibly paranoid and uneducated fear for Wu to have.

>>33147370
>50 ton hunk of iron going straight down is going to fuck an entire region up.
No, it'll just bury itself in the ground. Think of the difference between an FMJ and a hollowpoint.

File: 1256073172239.gif (242KB, 160x120px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 160x120px

>>33150653
it depends on how fast it goes down

>>33150721
>it depends on how fast it goes down
Not really. Earth and rock is not dense enough to make an iron rod dump its energy fast enough. A faster-moving rod will just penetrate even deeper.

You can see this yourself. Slowly push a pencil through a piece of paper; then shoot a rifle at a piece of paper. Compare the holes. The pencil hole will be torn and jagged, the rifle hole will be a clean, perfect circle.

>>33149095
>Meaningless pedantics the post.

>>33150653
It'd be the energy equivalent of something like a 10kt nuclear blast. Depending on how the thing air-bursts, what the angle is, etc. it could devastate a very large area.

File: Ishimura.jpg (61KB, 271x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 271x450px

>>33147327
>woman thinks videogames are real

really activates the axons

>>33150949
>*woman (male)

>>33150968
I don't care about the dick, but that brain has obviously been swimming in estrogen for long enough to atrophy

File: 1217680857900.jpg (264KB, 1100x800px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1100x800px

>>33150968
>>33151007

>>33151031
3, 2, 4, 1, 5

>>33147424
Tungsten rods but yes. There's a difference though and they are comparable to fission bombs not 100x times unspecified nuclear whatever..

>>33147327
>thinking you can drop rocks from the moon and they'll hit the earth
Anon, I..

>>33147455
what about Trans+ missiles? Where do they pee?

>>33147327
I saw him at Boskone - his husband was giving a talk.

He's fucking huge. I'm 6'1 and he towered over me.

In a fistfight, I'd be worried about his reach.

Also, what everyone else has said about terminal velocity and atmospheric burn.

File: 1220130606612.jpg (688KB, 1684x1835px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 1684x1835px

>>33151040

>>33151063
Isn't it worthwhile to have a few of those as assets, since they can probably penetrate or damage pretty much any bunker ever?

Anyone have the "Space rocks are not free" 40k letter?

>>33151411
Seconding this, I keep on forgetting so save it whenever it's posted.

File: 50ay674hbfg.jpg (55KB, 600x760px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x760px

>>33147424
Unnecessarily expensive and silly.

>fly probe to sizable passing object or one of the trojan bodies in our orbit
>use booster on probe to adjust it's course onto target
>meteor slams into target with hellish kinetic energy
>plausible deniability

>>33150968

It's not even to good kind, though.

>>33147696
So basically use it as a base to launch shit into earth's orbit, or do the slingshot thing on a big rock of dubious origin

I still think it'd be ridiculous to get a giant piece of rock into orbit, unless they connected a tonne of littler rocks together; like some kind of frankenrock

>>33152522

More technically, you're slowing the rock down from Earth orbit, because the moon is already orbiting the Earth.