From: nuny@bid.nes   
      
   On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:35:08 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
   > Le mercredi 5 octobre 2016 19:51:29 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   écrit :   
   >    
   > Okay, I have a few minutes here.   
      
     We all have offline lives. I think.   
      
   > Snip the calculations that I freely accept.   
   >    
   > > There are other possibilities, such as nuclear.  However, at those power    
   > > levels you aren't going to be able to hide the reactors so you would end    
   > > up with one of two situations:  Either you create something that says    
   > > "look at me!" all the time if it's a fission system or something that    
   > > screams "I'm about to do something big!" the instant a fusion system    
   > > powers up.   
   > >    
   > > Using multiple launchers and a slower rate of fire will help, but to get    
   > > it down to something that isn't spotted instantly would mean having what    
   > > amounts to a single-shot system.  (Better hope nothing ever happens with    
   > > your energy storage system, if you think a cellphone battery failure is    
   > > nasty....)   
   >    
   > Again, not about not being detected, but about not being noticed.   
   > All of this will be part of an infrastructure that will be supporting all the   
   > increased mining and manufacturing rates anyway. You need energy to get ores   
   > from the mining sites to the processing sites. You need energy to get   
   > processed ores from the processing sites to the manufacturing sites. You need   
   > energy to get from manufacturing sites to distribution sites. Mass drivers   
   > are going to be the mainstay railyards for the next few centuries (most   
   > likely). Daily outputs of a few thousand tonnes aren't going to be the   
   > average load... they will be the minimal loads.   
   >   
   > Launching activity and power levels will not be noticed because these levels   
   > will fit well within the norm.   
   > >    
   > > You don't get quite how phenomenal the numbers involved are.   
   >    
   > Actually, I do. YOU are failing to understand how miniscule these numbers   
   > will be compared to a thriving interplanetary civilisation.   
      
     Mass drivers as railheads is a fair analogy, but...   
      
     Tonnage per shot isn't the issue, launch velocity ~= dV on target is.   
   Adapting commercial launchers to military purposes won't be a matter of just   
   cranking up the input power. (Launch lasers are a different matter.)   
      
     Commercial loads aren't going to be in any hurry just as they aren't on   
   today's railroads because the load has to be intercepted and decelerated   
   safely so it can be processed. Commercial launchers will be built to handle   
   much less stress and dissipate    
   much less energy than military ones. Rocket sleds haven't been converted to   
   commercial uses.   
      
     Military launchers will be purpose-built and will have to dissipate much   
   more energy per shot than commercial launchers to get enough dV to reliably   
   destroy the "catcher".   
      
     If you assume commercial catchers that can handle your assumed large fast   
   loads exist, they too can be adapted for defensive use.   
      
      
     Mark L. Fergerson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)