Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Labor camp

4 (20%)

List of choices (would you like to be killed by woodchipper, firing squad, gascambers...)

8 (40%)

Choose how to die (with restrictions, or course, no "I want to be nuked in the dining hall")

6 (30%)

Generic Lethal injection

1 (5%)

Electroshock

0 (0%)

Life in prison

0 (0%)

Other (Specify)

1 (5%)

No opinion

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 20

[misko27]

A. How much of a magnetic field does Luna have? Besides, if the ISS can keep astronauts from turning into "overcooked pizza," why can't our space station?

None. THe ISS is in low-earth orbit, which effectively means its protected by earth. The moon has the trails of earths magnetosphere, which periodically causes lovely electrical storms to rack te surface.

"Hand-to-hand combat?" That's suicide for DWARVES! We live in an era of missile launchers, snipers, and nukes. If we charge into battle, outnumbered, using axes, we will have lost 99%+ of our militia AND have a tantrum spiral at home. And unless we take out vital little nations, the big nations will be willing and able to wipe us out to stop us from bombing Paris and DC.
That's why I'm recommending the TMIaHM method: Settle on Luna, wait for something to distract Earthlings, fling rocks at them (starting in uninhabited areas, move on to military targets, threaten civilian targets if we must), defend our homes (which we could make ideal for hand-to-hand combat), declare independence, become a major economic power, go from there. Okay, those last two steps weren't in Heinlein's book, but still. In short: Interplanetary warfare first, hand-to-hand for home defense. Also, consider some kind of thingy (space station?) with centrifuges providing greater than Earth-level gravity for training our soldiers. Then, they will be stronger than the groundhogs.

Ignoring what I said ealrier, are you? I mentioned the fact That direct assualt on the planet with the most resources in the solar system is suicide. What we take advantage of, is the fact that earth is fragmented, and we can start off on small african countries where no one will care.  Then, we can use our advanced technology to put their resources to better use, and set up bases. And I never meant hand-to-hand, I meant as in firearms. Everyone else was talking about blowing up earth, while I pointed out that that will likey end in our annhilation. What we do is set up defenses on earth, then do the whole "bombardment from orbit" thing, and then take over the richer nations, using our base.

The whole point there is that we don't bother them ad keep on good terms, until we go apeshit all at once and start the reign of Armok on earth.

Also, earth currently lacks the ability to send nukes into space. Thats why, when we use the artilliary from orbit, our first priority should be space bases, to prevent the inevitable counterstrike. Our second priority will be using the small nations to launch attacks on the oil-producing nations. Even if the united states is capable of making the shortfall for itself, the overwhelming demad will obliterate the world economy. Once they are crippled, then we can safely destroy all resistance on our own time.

Our primary foe is US, followed by china, then russia.

And I thought we we're going to declare independace first, in order to prevent the chinese (or whatever government is will to lend its materials oin exchange for "volunteers") from taking advantage of us. Then, when the chinese balk at sending materials, the international outcry at leaving us to starve will force them to give-in.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A. How much of a magnetic field does Luna have? Besides, if the ISS can keep astronauts from turning into "overcooked pizza," why can't our space station?

None. THe ISS is in low-earth orbit, which effectively means its protected by earth. The moon has the trails of earths magnetosphere, which periodically causes lovely electrical storms to rack te surface.

Hm, that's a pity. We need to invest in radiation shielding, then. Or dig deep underground on Luna. Or not try conquering the Earth, and wait for it to siege us...we really need to make a mod based on this.

"Hand-to-hand combat?" That's suicide for DWARVES! We live in an era of missile launchers, snipers, and nukes. If we charge into battle, outnumbered, using axes, we will have lost 99%+ of our militia AND have a tantrum spiral at home. And unless we take out vital little nations, the big nations will be willing and able to wipe us out to stop us from bombing Paris and DC.
That's why I'm recommending the TMIaHM method: Settle on Luna, wait for something to distract Earthlings, fling rocks at them (starting in uninhabited areas, move on to military targets, threaten civilian targets if we must), defend our homes (which we could make ideal for hand-to-hand combat), declare independence, become a major economic power, go from there. Okay, those last two steps weren't in Heinlein's book, but still. In short: Interplanetary warfare first, hand-to-hand for home defense. Also, consider some kind of thingy (space station?) with centrifuges providing greater than Earth-level gravity for training our soldiers. Then, they will be stronger than the groundhogs.

Ignoring what I said ealrier, are you? I mentioned the fact That direct assualt on the planet with the most resources in the solar system is suicide. What we take advantage of, is the fact that earth is fragmented, and we can start off on small african countries where no one will care.  Then, we can use our advanced technology to put their resources to better use, and set up bases. And I never meant hand-to-hand, I meant as in firearms. Everyone else was talking about blowing up earth, while I pointed out that that will likey end in out annhilation. What  we do is set up defenses on earth, then do the whole "bombardment from orbit" thing, and then take over the richer nations, using our base.

Why bother with the small African countries, and WHY wouldn't anyone care? Even if we ignore the ones with diamonds, we're still showing that we're interested in conquering Earth. If we want to destroy and not intimidate, we should follow Cracked's advice (see #4) and attack the unstable, oily and metally nations first. Then retreat, and come back once "the planes are grounded for lack of fuel and replacement parts and military personnel are either busy controlling riots in the streets because of the collapse of the economy or are off fighting one of countless raging wars over whatever remaining drops of oil are left in the supply lines."

The whole point there is that we don't bother them ad keep on good terms, until we go apeshit all at once and start the reign of Armok on earth.

We need to keep them not thinking that we're a threat until we're ready to be a BIG threat, so that they don't wipe us out before we can wipe them out.

Also, earth currently lacks the ability to send nuke sinto space. Thats why, when we use the artilliary from orbit, our first priority should be space bases, to prevent the inevitable counterstrike. Our second priorit will be using the small nations to launch attacks on the oil-producing nations. Even if the united sates is capable of making the shortfall for itself, the overwhelming demad will obliterate the world economy. Once they are crippled, then we can safely destroy all resistance on our own time.

Not to burst your bubble, but Earth also lacks technology to send humans to Mars on any kind of large scale, as well as the technology to send projectiles to Earth from Mars. Remember: However we go there, they can go there...and discard a few thousand people in payload and supplies in favor of nukes. If we unite the small nations, we will be eliminated; that's why we attack the oil-producing nations from orbit and then hide. Or intimidate them with the threat that we could eliminate the oil-producing nations--no reason to make us the bad guy in everyone's eyes on Earth if we can avoid it.

Our primary foe is US, followed by china then russia.

Agreed. What we disagree on is how to attack them. I say, either a mobile base in the asteroid belt (for safety) or a deep base within Luna (for ability to attack Earth easily).

[10ebbor10]

What's the problem with other planets? Can't we colonize Venus or maybe one of the outer planets.

Venus is actually "rather" easy to colonize. We just need to dump some geo engineered algae in the upper athmosphere, wait for them to add enough oxygen for us to breath.(Shouldn't take much longer then 150 years). Then construct a floating base in the upper athmosphere, where both temperature and pressure are surviveable. Sure, the sulfides in the athmosphere are not so healthy for human survival, and storms might tear the base apart.

Btw, no planets in the inner solar system have a decent magnetic field (Except for Earth).

Mercurius is too small and it's magnetical field to weak, Venus has no magnetic field at all, the moon only has a semimolten core(and therefore no magnetic field), Mars used to have a magnetical field, but lost it when it core solidified.

[GreatWyrmGold]

What's the problem with other planets? Can't we colonize Venus or maybe one of the outer planets.

Venus is actually "rather" easy to colonize. We just need to dump some geo engineered algae in the upper athmosphere, wait for them to add enough oxygen for us to breath.(Shouldn't take much longer then 150 years). Then construct a floating base in the upper athmosphere, where both temperature and pressure are surviveable. Sure, the sulfides in the athmosphere are not so healthy for human survival, and storms might tear the base apart.

Venus has next to no magnetic field, which leaves it with the same problems as Luna or an asteroidal space station. Its gravity is only slightly lower than Earth's, so we'd have no advantage for launching ships; also, as it is closer to the Sun than Earth, it would be easier for the groundhogs to launch warships at us. Oh, and that atmosphere is made of various acids, which will corrode our habitats and kill your algae pretty fast. And that's ignoring the issues you brought up, and the fact that we're not interested in waiting a century and a half for the atmosphere to be better when we can just burrow into the Moon and have a better spot to snipe Earth from.

Btw, no planets in the inner solar system have a decent magnetic field (Except for Earth).

Mercurius is too small and it's magnetical field to weak, Venus has no magnetic field at all, the moon only has a semimolten core(and therefore no magnetic field), Mars used to have a magnetical field, but lost it when it core solidified.

Wait, Mars doesn't have magma OR a magnetic field? Take that, misko27! Luna or a space station it is! Or maybe Titan or Europa...would they be protected by their respected planets' magnetic fields?

EDIT: Corrected some terminology.

[10ebbor10]

Mars has magma, but more then 10 km below the surface. The last eruption was, I think, more than half a million years ago.

Titan and Europa will probably not be protected by their planets magnetic fields, as I think those are not stable enough (Not sure though, need to check that.)

Anyway, those are so far from the sun that we will have plenty of warning time and above that, the flare will have dispersed at least a bit.

[misko27]

While martian core has slowed in recent millenia, dimming the magnetic field, there is still magma in pockets all over the planet, as well as very large pockets near the aforementioned volcanos. Various googled acedemic resources alert me that the volcanos may not be extinct at all.

Put up a poll, asking whther it should be lunar, martian, on space station.


And who said any of this is exclusive? We're only talking about the first base, weren't we planning on conquering the whole solar system all along?

I just want this on every page, may make it my sig.

We realize that its not a pick and anvil affair, but the primary plan is to utilze all the resouces available to everyone in DFm and in addition use some hapless government (the chinese might be willing, they want to expand their space agancy) for more funds and materials, then declare ourselves independant as soon as we get there.

I just want this on every page, may make it my sig.

Maybe we could engineer the martians into some sort of primitive, booze based blob that eats rotten corpses, and then stick a tap onto the side of this creature. THEN, we coul dride said creature as mounts of war, and have a refreshing drink mid-battle, reducing ineffectiveness due to people running off to drink.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[ghjijhg]

I can't decide whether of not lunar, or martian space station should be set up.

Have we considered making two space stations? One on Mars and one on the Moon?
As stated before, we need a poll.

[Caprealis]

Why did you link Google?..

And I think two would be best, Since it would take longer to get to the martian space, The lunar base could at least be started
And half-fast set up by then. That way we could use it as a depot for storage and such to ship things off to the other one when the
time comes.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Mars has magma, but more then 10 km below the surface. The last eruption was, I think, more than half a million years ago.

Titan and Europa will probably not be protected by their planets magnetic fields, as I think those are not stable enough (Not sure though, need to check that.)

Anyway, those are so far from the sun that we will have plenty of warning time and above that, the flare will have dispersed at least a bit.

Mars: Ah, nevermind. There's still all of the other reasons that Luna is superior to Mars.
Titan/Europa/Etc: I think that the gas giants' magnetic fields would be stable, given their size. If they're big enough, that is the question.

Two bases would be nice, but A. communication between the two would be slow (assuming Mars and Luna, somewhere around an hour and a half round-trip, IIRC), AND getting more than ideas from the two bases on a regular basis would render us vulnerable to attack. Also, we'd need about twice as much capital.

[10ebbor10]

To return to Venus:

1. We can build our flying base while the algae terraform the athmosphere. (We don't need them, it's just more convenient than energy hungry life support systems)
2. Most of the acidic substance are found in the lower athmosphere. Our base and the algae should be safe.
3. Why would it be easier to send warships towards the sun. The gravitational well is not that much of an advantage, and their ships will need to be armoured more against flares
4. A base on Venus would be hidden. You can't see through the athmosphere, the artificial magnetic field will shield us from radar and solar flares, and we can move the whole thing around.

Now: on the point of a lunar base.

1. Close to Earth. I mean, they can already reach it
2. Few resources.(Both energy and metals). For energy you only have 3 2 options
                -Solar (Easily damaged by flares and micrometeroids)
                -Nuclear fission/fusion. Both lack resources. You would need to import uranium/thorium for the former, and deuterium for the latter. While the moon does have water, it only has it in minimal quantities. Deuterium is a rare isotopes of water, so you would need to crunch extraordinary amounts of rock to get the required amount. While there are a lot of minerals (mostly silica,alumina and iron II oxide to be found in the crust), refining them would require lost of energy, and in some cases water.
3. Dangerously unprotected. The moon is not protected by Earth's magnetic field, and it doesn't even have an athmosphere. You would have to build your entire base underground, further increasing costs

I can see a lunar base working, with our current or near future technology it won't be able to develop further then a small scale .

Mars
   -Mars has more or less the same problems as the moon. Thin athmosphere and no magnetic field, toghether with a shortage of energy producing resources. (solar pannels are not a good idea here. Sand storms are common on Mars, and the dust tends to stick to the pannels. For that reason Curiosity(Nasa's new rover) is equiped with a nuclear battery rather then the solar pannels of it's predecessors.)

For Titan
   - Titan does not have it's own magnetic field, and is only part time protected by Saturn's magnetic field. (Which, btw, is slightly weaker than Earth's). So whenever it leaves that field, parts of the athmosphere are ionized.

Europa
 - Europa is in orbit around Jupiter, which has a magnetic field almost 20 times as strong as Earth. However, I'm not sure wherether this will mean it protects the moon.
However, Europa does have it's own magnetic field, most likely caused by interaction of Jupiters magnetic field with a conductive layer on Europa (most likely a massive salt water ocean)
               
For both I doubt they'll be able to whistand a direct hit by a mass ejection from the sun. (Rather then the constant of solar wind particles)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Venus:
1. Why bother, then?
2. Perhaps, I haven't researched Venus very thoroughly.
3. The sun is BIG. Even if it's not a big advantage, we REALLY don't want to give them any more advantages. Besides, do you know how many ballistic trajectories for outbound exploratory craft involve flying "near" the sun to catapult it farther away? Take out the "catapult farther away step" and you get a big advantage right there.
4. Isn't most of said atmosphere lower to the ground? What artificial magnetic field? And there's only so far we can go.

Luna:
1. Yup, the biggest advantage and possibly among the biggest disadvantages.
2. Energy could be an issue.
3. What's the problem with subterranean stuff? Even eschewing the "We be DORFS!" argument, a mile of solid rock is pretty much the best protection from a nuke.

The stuff about Mars, Titan, and Europa ring true; I can't add more.

EDIT: Almost forgot, I made a poll for the location.

[10ebbor10]

1. Because dumping the algae costs us near to nothing, and just pumping air in and filtering it is way more efficient then a closed circuit lifesupport
3. Almost none. Most use the Earth and the moon for the slingshot, rather than the sun. (Going to close to the sun presents a large risk. Your craft can overheat or be hit by a flare)
4. Most meteroids burn up in the upper athmosphere. Note that while most of the athmosphere is close to the ground, the part between us and space is still as large as earths
    The magnetic field we need to develop to allow for any long space travel to exist. While we can hide our bases under the ground, we will need to protect our rocket.
    Unless we're going to the moon, that voyage is short enough to make withour mayor risks. (Though Nasa did pause their Apollo project for a year or so because of solar
    flares)
    Besides, the venus base will need to float. There's no way we can maintain a base on the surface, conditions are way to hostile there. Using some sails we can float around like a gigantic Zepellin

Digging underground poses problems. It's costly, and you can't hide everything below ground. Stuff like landing pads and solar pannels need to be on the surface for practical purposes. Besides, it also means you have major risks during construction. You can't lower prefab parts to the ground.

[ghjijhg]

Why did you link Google?..

Free advertising.

Anyways...One thing is for certain.We will need an astrologist.

[Slayerhero90]

Screw these decisions on where to go! I've chosen Mars, and I SHALL ride a space walrus! I shall be a member of the WALRUS CAVALRY! COME ON MEN! WE MUST INVADE JAPAN!

[GreatWyrmGold]

1. Because dumping the algae costs us near to nothing, and just pumping air in and filtering it is way more efficient then a closed circuit lifesupport

Dumping algae may not...getting the algae probably will. Engineering algae that can live off of sulfur in midair and survive acid with flying colors? Not easy, mate, especially if we want it to help us out.

3. Almost none. Most use the Earth and the moon for the slingshot, rather than the sun. (Going to close to the sun presents a large risk. Your craft can overheat or be hit by a flare)

"Near" in the spacey sense of the word.

4. Most meteroids burn up in the upper athmosphere. Note that while most of the athmosphere is close to the ground, the part between us and space is still as large as earths

And spaceships, of course, have a lot of problems surviving to the ground on Earth now. That's why the Space Shuttl;e had to be rebuilt after every mission.
/sarcasm.

    The magnetic field we need to develop to allow for any long space travel to exist. While we can hide our bases under the ground, we will need to protect our rocket.

It's one thing to shield a spacecraft, it's another to shield a planet.

    Besides, the venus base will need to float. There's no way we can maintain a base on the surface, conditions are way to hostile there. Using some sails we can float around like a gigantic Zepellin

Oh, the humanity...

Digging underground poses problems. It's costly, and you can't hide everything below ground. Stuff like landing pads and solar pannels need to be on the surface for practical purposes. Besides, it also means you have major risks during construction. You can't lower prefab parts to the ground.

There are some issues, but there are more issues with being nuked. Especially if we are a couple miles above ground, with a fair amount of airborne acid in the way.

Why did you link Google?..

Free advertising.

Anyways...One thing is for certain.We will need an astrologist.

...Astrology is stuff with the zodiac and fortunetelling.