From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le dimanche 30 octobre 2016 18:36:06 UTC+1, Greg Goss a écrit :   
   > Mikkel Haaheim  wrote:   
   >    
   > >Le dimanche 30 octobre 2016 08:45:06 UTC+1, Thomas Koenig a écrit :   
   > >> 0something0  schrieb:   
   > >>    
   > >> > And with enough Delta-V, we could direct a large-enough asteroid   
   > >> > into say... Eastern US, Far East, Western Russia, or Western Europe.   
   > >>    
   > >> What for?  Nuclear weapons exist for any given level of destruction   
   > >> on Earth.  They can also be "fine-tuned" better than a single   
   > >> asteroid.   
   > >   
   > >Well, three reasons I can think of off the bat:   
   > >It would not require messing around with deadly radiogenic material that   
   could kill you if you don't handle it properly.   
   > >It does not require the mining and processing of such, comparatively rare,   
   material.   
   > >It would only require rather simple propulsion physics knowledge, as   
   opposed to rather more complicated nuclear physics knowledge required to build   
   a working warhead.   
   >    
   > All three of those are more abundant for nuke work on Earth.   
   > Space is a deadly place that could kill you if you don't handle it   
   > properly.  Even more so than plutonium.   
      
   So is crossing a street. The problem is, there are not so many people who   
   actually know how to handle  radiogenic materials properly, and far fewer who   
   know how to weaponise it.   
      
   > Asteroids are even rarer on Earth than Uranium, which can be extracted   
   > from seawater at about four times the current cost.   
      
   OK. I was assuming that the point was for a space-faring population to attack   
   an Earth-bound target. In space, Uranium and Plutonium will be even more rare.   
   Many asteroids might not even have ANY.   
      
   > The knowledge to run an extended space mission, including installing a   
   > nuclear propulsion drive onto an asteroid, is orders of magnitude   
   > beyond using those nuke explosives on Earth.     
      
   Installing a nuclear drive is not necessary. Sufficiently large solar arrays   
   (emphasis on "large", admittedly) is sufficient to power a mass driver. You   
   use the asteroid's own mass to provide propulsion. This would work best with   
   asteroids on the order    
   of dozens of meters, rather than hundreds.   
   Yes. Travel time will probably be measured in years, even with the constant   
   thrust at increasing power levels (as you get closer to the sun).   
      
   BTW: there is a reason why only a few countries have nuclear warheads. Even   
   the knowledge to simply construct a nuclear reactor is not that common, let   
   alone trying to weaponise it efficiently and effectively. Yes, there is a good   
   fraction of a percent    
   of scientists and engineers who might possess the necessary knowledge,   
   especially when working as members of a large team. But the more likely   
   scenario for an actual space-based population is that they will be using   
   nuclear tech provided by organisations    
   on Earth, and they will be given general use manuals... which will NOT include   
   weaponisation. Eventually, a space based population will have scientists and   
   engineers with sufficent levels of the specific knowledge (they will want to   
   move toward self    
   sufficiency, after all), but this will take decades, at least... and most of   
   that knowledge will STILL be limited to civilian uses, which probably will not   
   include buiding warheads.   
   High school graduates with good maths and sciences grades (especially if they   
   have a computer) could probably figure out how to move an asteroid... given   
   correct info. Targetting will be the principle difficulty.   
      
   > --    
   > We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)