Le mardi 11 octobre 2016 11:01:06 UTC+2, nu...@bid.nes a écrit :   
   > I've been thinking about SFnal depictions of future colonization and   
   industrialization in space, and I think they're as wrong as most MilSF and for   
   the same reasons- all are modeled on historical Earthbound examples and assume   
   the same economic,    
   political, and cultural drivers.   
      
   I got the same impression but to be fair, space colonisation is so unlike   
   everything in History or in today's world, it is hard to come up with   
   something believable from next to nothing. Even worse, our world is changing   
   fast, so what was believable not    
   so long ago makes no sense today (say, a common Western-USSR effort).   
      
   > There's a distinct trend toward decentralization of manufacturing, cultural   
   blurring and political unification right now. Anyway...   
      
   Not sure about political unification, particularly as entire regions of the   
   world are falling into chaos, or failing to emerge from it...   
      
   > [Hidden strategic targets]   
      
   Any significant space target will be identifiable, simply because stuff had to   
   go there in the first place to make it a space target.   
      
   On planetary surfaces, civilian strategic targets (industries, population   
   centres, civilian spaceports, powerplants...) will be known, and thus can be   
   attacked.   
   Military targets that are not carefully hidden, like military spaceports,   
   logistic centres, spaceyards, administrative headquarters, active   
   early-warning systems can similarly be attacked.   
   Train-based weapon systems could be disabled by bombing uncovered tracks,   
   stations and trains. This is a known vulnerability, and the reason why the US   
   gave up on those. AFAICT, US plans to counter USSR/Russian train launchers   
   consist(ed) of classifying    
   train networks as potential nuclear launch facilities, and wipe them out   
   accordingly in case of nuclear conflict.   
   Hidden bunkers, for logistics, weapon systems or headquarters would need to be   
   low-heat in idle use (so no active nuclear powerplant) to remain hidden, with   
   as little surface traffic as possible. Extensive tunnel networks would be   
   needed.   
   But then, not only it would be difficult to hide an entire military that way   
   (and keep it in a state of constant alert), so it would necessarily be   
   smaller, but it would also cripple offensive abilities: it is one thing to   
   hide defence lasers, guns and    
   chemical rockets, it is another to have interplanetary attack systems launched   
   from hidden underground systems.   
   So remnants of a military may survive, as well as enough chain of command to   
   run it, but they would essentially be only able to try and defend their world.   
   Note that Earth and Titan are special cases, as oceans allow for large-scale   
   stealth movement, without needing massive infrastructure like tunnel networks.   
   Anti-orbital submarines would be my best bet on planetary defence, if   
   available.   
   But those two are exceptions, as no other body in the Solar system has similar   
   surface oceans. (And Earth itself is an even more special case with its   
   massive existing infrastructure and shirt-sleeve environment.)   
      
   Without industry and civilian support, they would have no way of expanding   
   again, and even continued activity would be hard as supplies dwindle. So the   
   attacker could send a siege fleet to mop up what is left and/or occupy the   
   world, or even simply wait    
   for the defenders to be exhausted, while being ready to snipe any surprise the   
   defenders have left.   
      
   > [Stations on changing orbits]   
      
   Constantly changing orbits requires both massive and constantly replenishing   
   dV reserves, or acceleration so small that the projectile's own exhaust would   
   be enough for course correction.   
   In addition, if orbits are constantly changing and other ships are not   
   informed, any transfer will require much more dV for each transfer, as the   
   ship will have to compensate changing orbits - or if only limited dV is   
   required for the ships, then the    
   projectile's small corrections will be enough to still intercept it.   
   This is most probably unsustainable for all but the most sensitive military   
   targets, and even then probably only for small stuff like sensor stations or   
   light defence platforms.   
      
   But even assuming some military stations escape from the initial attack, they   
   now have no infrastructure left to replenish their dV, so it is a question of   
   time before they fail.   
      
   Now, how much damage can they do during this time?   
   Planning such a strike, I would prepare stealth designs to send offensive   
   payload in their general direction, then at the moment of the strike deploy   
   said payload, equipped with high acceleration and enough dV to strike the   
   station. Hopefully, a    
   concentrated attack should prevent them to launch a counter-offensive.   
   Would it work? I don't know, honestly, it depends on too many assumptions at   
   this point.   
      
   >   We've barely touched on atmospheric colonies on Venus and the gas giants-   
   what's their job? If it's just gas harvesting, their only location constraint   
   is the existing concentration of various gases at various latitudes (altitude   
   determines long-term    
   temperature and pressure of course). They can be anywhere in those latitudes   
   and will certainly need to be capable of movement when needed to steer around   
   enormous storm cells (more so on the gas giants than Venus). How quickly? It   
   doesn't matter except    
   as it makes terminal guidance capability necessary in all such cases.   
      
   On gas giant, the main interest of atmospheric stations is probably gas   
   harvesting, for example He3 harvesting on Saturn (as Moon He3 is a chimera) if   
   boron is not used instead.   
   Other uses include power generation (either a beam station or a lantern),   
   manufacture (Energy and some raw materials can be extracted from atmosphere,   
   others from the moon system) and research stations. Those may or may not   
   evolve into settlements.   
   I am not sure about what Venus settlements would live off - those projects   
   look more like "Let's colonise here!" akin to Mars efforts than industrial   
   projects. Maybe they would pilot automated surface mining systems for raw   
   materials, using them for    
   industry in the balloons. Given the very slow Venusian rotation, the balloons   
   can move to stay in perpetual daylight and run on solar power, requiring   
   powerplants only when massive energy is needed.   
      
   In both cases, their movement can be partially accounted for during flight but   
   terminal guidance is indeed necessary.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)