01-21-2019, 07:10 AM | #31 |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
This conversation moved fast.
In the other thread, I mentioned the options were limited to hiding targets, moving targets, and building targets. Plus threatening to shooting down landing craft and troops. The biggest challenge for the alien craft is that of all artillery: target acquisition. How does it distinguish between a cargo truck and a truck-mounted SAM system? How does it know where the missile silos are? It can kill civilians indiscriminately, but is it willing to, and what does that ultimately accomplish? Once the enemy leader is on the run, its difficult to distinguish him from all the other running humans. The only thing the humans can do is resist, but that isn't to say that resistance can't be effective.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
01-21-2019, 09:05 AM | #32 | |
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern New Hampshire
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Quote:
You might be better off with Lagrange Points. That way the station would have visibility to any place that also has visibility to the moon (assuming you don't choose point #2 in their diagram in that wiki article). I mentioned a completely non-technology based solution earlier in the thread. No one has responded. But getting someone or a few people on board a supply shuttle to sabotage the place sounds like a pretty great adventure seed to me. Alternatively, is there stealth technology? Can humans secretly spend a bunch of resources on developing stealth tech that works against alien sensors? Maybe steal something more minor of alien sensor technology so they have something to test with? And then create something that can reach the alien ship with that technology? Get it up into space with what looks like a normal satellite placement, and then launch a mission from there? Or just a stealth missile? |
|
01-21-2019, 09:23 AM | #33 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Quote:
Quote:
Sitting at the L-points also means that you are exchanging covering a limited area at all times for limited coverage times over the whole Earth. Neither is ideal, of course.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
||
01-21-2019, 10:40 AM | #34 | |
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern New Hampshire
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Quote:
Maybe there should be three or four stations each covering their own area... |
|
01-21-2019, 10:52 AM | #35 | |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Quote:
The bombardment has been described as coming from a SM+15 hyper-drive capable ship with access to TL10^ technology, though we are discussing a subset of its abilities. I agree that if you want to cover the planet while orbiting, you want three or more locations. Though if you're only targeting one nation, a single ship is fine.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
|
01-21-2019, 11:11 AM | #36 | |
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern New Hampshire
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Quote:
Anyway... I still think humans finding a technological solution is less likely than a clever solution like boarding a supply shuttle and blowing it up from the inside. |
|
01-21-2019, 11:27 AM | #37 | |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Quote:
EDIT: In particular, a strict geostationary orbit (directly over the equator) is out of line with the orbit of the moon, so periodic burns are required to keep the moon's gravity from shifting the plane of orbit.
__________________
I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig. Last edited by ravenfish; 01-21-2019 at 11:33 AM. |
|
01-21-2019, 11:42 AM | #38 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
A large enough spaceship can function as a mobile station. While a mobile station may seem less efficient than a static station, it has the advantage of being less vulnerable to ballistic attacks from a planetary surface and can always retreat. After all, the Death Star was a mobile station...though it was victim to commanders who did not seem to understand that mobile stations should retreat from attacks rather than heading towards them (dropping a squadron of TIE-fighters to engage the Rebel forces while the Death Star retreated would have been a much more logical reaction).
|
01-21-2019, 01:55 PM | #39 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
01-21-2019, 02:11 PM | #40 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: Orbital Lasers
Honestly though, that only works when the secondary craft are much faster than the primary craft. When you can jump into hyperspace to avoid fighters, that makes it more ballistic submarine versus fighter jets. Ballistic submarines survive through stealth and by avoiding unnecessary combat, which is how the commanders of the Death Star should have treated it. It is not the combat abilities of ballistic submarines that are terrifying, it is the fact that they can pop up anywhere and use those combat abilities that is terrifying.
One of the problems with any large interstellar polity is that they have access to vast amounts of resources. The interstellar dust of a cubic light year alone masses more than forty Sol systems, and a polity that controlled a sphere 500 ly in radius (over one million star systems) has a volume of over 500 million cubic light-years, giving it ~20 billion Sol-masses of interstellar dust to work with. Even if they ignored the dust, they would like having enough debris in their star systems to allow them to support millions of spacecraft. |
|
|