GZG FH: Blue water navy.

Just to keep people thinking over the weekend.

Do any of the NAC/NSL/FSE etc. have blue water navies?
Is there a place for them with grav vehicles and starships?

> Do any of the NAC/NSL/FSE etc. have blue water navies?
It's hard to say. I think that there would be some "surface ships" but not as
prolific as they are today. I think that costal defense ships would
still be around (for repelling those over-the-horizon grav tank
assaults) but large surface ships would just be too vunerable to orbital
bombardment. Submarines would still be a good counter measure and also be a
good way to
hide surface-to-orbit weapons.  Although with enough power, a grav
battleship would be pretty cool, especially when it went ashore.....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh, absolutely. They just have weapon systems we haven't seen yet (big GMS,
etc.). There will be a lot of surface commerce traffic (there is no cheaper
way to move stuff than by a big cargo ship). This will require
naval support to maintain the SeaLOC (Sea Lines Of Communication) - as
opposed to SpaceLOCs - given no FTL commos.  Surface ships will either
be big & heavily defended, or small and fast. They will probably have a mixed
armament of missiles (for over-the-horizon work), beams (anti-air & area

defense) and guns (short OTH, and close defense). Subs will be the real

killers (not much changes, does it?). Most large ships will have
surface-to-orbit (SO) weapons, both beam and missile.  Subs will be the
way to hide lots of nasty SO assets. You probably could hide spacecraft
underwater as well - I've always liked the Traveller System Defense
Boats hiding in the oceans. But they would be easy prey for Subs.

Wet-navy ships would probably work best with an FT-ish system - note the

plethora of 'Wet Thrust' type adaptations.  For post-modern naval
combat,
you'd want a scale of about 5-10 km to the MU (so you can have the
long-range missile attacks and no across-table movement), longer turns
than
normal naval games (15 mins, same as FT/DS2?), and a loose movement
system.
 It would be a more operational-level game than tactical manuvering.
Like most modern naval combat, it would probably be a game of target the other
guy, salvo the missiles, and pray the PDS works. Missiles would not be
represented on th board, 'cause they'd move across the entire table in one
turn.

I would also think that light naval units, with improvised weapons would be
common on colonies with a decent amount of water.

Noah

[quoted original message omitted]

> You wrote:

> Do any of the NAC/NSL/FSE etc. have blue water navies?

IMHO, a lot of the roles of these clowns can be taken up by Grav MBTs.
A MDC/5 or DFFG/5 on a small, fast, well armored hull can sink any
freighter out there, and scrap most any warship small enough to avoid being
'plinked' from orbit. Brown water craft will likely abound, but the blue water
stuff is primarily there for maintaining or cutting SLOCs (Sea Lines Of
Communication) which won't be likely to have the exaggerated prominence that
they do, for instance, in the case of the United Kingdom or the United States
(one being an island and hence forced to have a navy or be restricted to
invading Scotland yet again and the other having oceans between itself and any
enemies, unless of course Canada is taken over by Nazis)

Given the threat of an orbital strike, you might even finally see some of the
more fantastic designs for submersible aircraft carriers or amphibious assault
vessels being built.

Such aircraft carriers would be unlikely to have the kind of striking power
that a current U.S. supercarrier does, but the ability to keep the launching
ship alive to recover the strike force might make it worth while. Possibly the
aircraft would need to be submersible as well.

I remember reading a Popular Mechanics article positing a next-Century
submersible carrier that carries a force of submersible aircraft (possibly
grav tanks or something similar in a DSII environment). The idea was that the
sub would infiltrate as close to the enemy land positions as possible, then
launch its strike force. The strike force would then proceed even closer
(possibly widely dispersed) and then
surface and take to the air too close for orbital or long-range
air-defenses to be deployed.

Following the strike, the returning strike craft would again submerge
and proceed separately to a pre-determined rendevous with the
mothership. The idea was that this would prevent angry defenders from tracking
the strike ships back to the carrier.

All very elaborate, I know, but kind of nifty. Some friends and I had some fun
introducing a vessel like this into Victory Games' 7th Fleet game. I only had
a single squadron of Harriers to throw into the fray, but the sudden
appearance of a CAP in the wrong place could give the Soviet player fits!

> At 08:02 AM 9/25/98 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:

For coastal defense and near-shore commerce blockading, I'd have to
agree
with you, but I'd hate to be in a top-of-the-waves skimming grav tank in
heavy seas or more than 8 hours from shore. It's not like you can get out and
stretch your legs...

*Ponders the effects of salt spray on grav plates* *Shies away from mental
image of grav tank sinking like a rock*

One reason big ships exist is their ability to stay on station
indefinitely.  I'd visualize small, fast, hydrofoil-equipped attack
craft
with a GMS, a big gun (your MDC/5 or DFFG/5) and lots of ECM.  Probably
a
blurring of the distinction between brown-water and blue-water craft, as
well.

> At 10:02 AM 9/25/98 -0400, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:

These ideas are fun, too. But seriously, the usefulness of any big ship would
depend on the technology available.

We have carriers because of the limits on the range and speed of aircraft. We
have subs because of the difficulty of detecting them. If these factors remain
in spite of technological advances, then ships which fulfill this role will
still have a place.

But if aerospace fighters have the range and speed to reach any point on a
globe in a sortie and reconnaissance satellites can pinpoint the location
of a sub within meters, then blue-water navy will probably fade away.

Just depends on the technology you postulate.

john wrote
<<
> You wrote:

> Do any of the NAC/NSL/FSE etc. have blue water navies?

IMHO, a lot of the roles of these clowns can be taken up by Grav MBTs.
A MDC/5 or DFFG/5 on a small, fast, well armored hull can sink any
freighter out there, and scrap most any warship small enough to avoid being
'plinked' from orbit. Brown water craft will likely abound, but the blue water
stuff is primarily there for maintaining or cutting SLOCs (Sea Lines Of
Communication) which won't be likely to have the exaggerated prominence that
they do, for instance, in the case of the United Kingdom or the United States
(one being an island and hence forced to have a navy or be restricted to
invading Scotland yet again and the other having oceans between itself and any
enemies, unless of course Canada is taken over by Nazis)

John M. Atkinson
> [quoted text omitted]

but for some reason sent it as an attatchment.

anyway; i'm not sure that ocean-going ships will wane in
 importance - global trade depends utterly on ships to
move billions of tonnes of freight each year. i don't see many technologies on
the horizon which seriously threaten this. thus, ocean communications are
still vital. however, i do not think that wet navies will
 have much use; by then, shore-based aircraft and recon
satellites will control the seas.

possible alternatives to ships:

- a huuuge rail network, massive-gauge and
 computer-controlled, shipping cargo at great speed.
possibly subterranean, as in those dodgy 80s gene
 roddenbery post-apocalypse movies with 'subshuttles'.

- airships. studies have been done of a cargo airship a
mile long with 35 000 tonnes cargo capacity, comparable to modern freighters.
some way to go before they can rival the 564 763 deadweight tonne jahre viking
supertanker which plies our oceans.

- non-synchronous skyhooks. the less said about these the better, so
i`ll stop there.

and remember, the UN is there to stop all conflict in in core systems, which
includes earth.

In a message dated 9/25/1998 9:30:15 AM Central Daylight Time,
> jjarrard@ford.com writes:

> Given the threat of an orbital strike, you might even finally see some

Soviets were considering building submersible amphibious craft (carrying up to
20 tanks) and submersible hydrofoil missile attack craft in 60s and 70s.
 None
were ever built, but who knows, perhaps it's an idea whose time is yet to
come. Some future ship designs call for ships with very low freeboard, to make
them more difficult to hit with missiles. At high speed, if fitted with diving
planes, such a ship could slip beneath water surface to avoid an incoming
missile.

> You wrote:

> anyway; i'm not sure that ocean-going ships will wane in

On Earth, where you have an incredibly vast concentration of wealth generated
by trade among two major land masses and a whole host of minor ones, where
dinky little islands are host to superpowers, and so forth, yes ships will be
important economic assets. BUT, only on
Earth.  And on Earth we no longer have real conflicts--all the action
is out there, among the stars. There is no real need for projecting force
across the oceans, and there is therefor no need to escort it with ships,
which means you don't have the escalation of providing bigger and better wet
navy ships ad nauseum. Submarines I can see.
Patrol craft which can dual-hat for brown and blue water, I can see.
But not the USS Enterprise.

Sorry John but I think you only got it half right. Sure surface ships are
going to have major problems with Grav tanks when they get close inshore as
well as further out to sea if the tanks have top class ECM and stealth. What
will deffinately set them apart is length of deployment. A ship can stay on
station for weeks either blockading or simply getting from one place to
another. A Tank is going to get rather ripe inside after a couple
of days semi coped-up.
The one warship that will remain unchallenged except by its own is the
submarine. You'll get Boomer types that carry orbital defences and the
hunter-killers to track them down or defend them.
Just had an image flash through my head of a Los Angles class sub doing a para
drop into the Pacific. When you go to sieze a planet you drop not only the PA
infantry to secure a beechhead, but you also drop your attack subs to clear
out the defences. Its late.

Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au

> At 08:02 25/09/98 -0500, you wrote:

> A MDC/5 or DFFG/5 on a small, fast, well armored hull can sink any

Also look at the famous "at high tech a fighter plane and a tank would be
almost the same" argument from traveller.

With a grav hull, a MBT would be faster than a patrol boat, able to negate bad
seas, and hide on land if things get scary.

Aircraft would also at a higher tech level would carry more firepower and
would be harder to hit (with active and passive stealth).

Ships would also be very easy to locate from space (even today, with Keyhole
and ROSAT able to pick up subs and ships easily).

Therefore, IMHO, ships of tomorrow would be bigger, carry a LOT more armour
than today (no more magnesium aluminium), and proberbly submarines.

Darryl

[quoted original message omitted]

> i wrote:

> anyway; i'm not sure that ocean-going ships will wane in

to which john atkins replied:

> On Earth, where you have an incredibly vast >concentration of wealth

> forth, yes ships will be important economic assets. >BUT, only on

why can't this be true offworld? if there are balkanised planets (which is not
certain; it depends on your universe), then sea trade may be as vital as it is
here. on those planets, without the un looking over everyone's shoulders,
there may well be planetary conflicts.

> noah wrote:

> Wet-navy ships would probably work best with an FT-ish > system - note

there are at least two 'full steam's done or in the works, and i have seen a
'deep strike' or something, with subs. i think the name 'wet thrust' has been
avoided for fear of getting the censors involved...

> For post-modern naval combat,

postmodern naval combat? "ok, my battleship fires a missile salvo", "ah, but
your battleship is just a semiotic textualisation of recurrent precapitalist
social pragma..."

> You wrote:

> to which john atkinsON, dammit! replied:

> why can't this be true offworld? if there are balkanised

But will ships be the major economic asset? Yeah, you might have fishing and
other resource extraction taking place offshore, but you likely won't have
trade between the colonies of two seperate powers
(unless they are friendly--like if the NSL and NAC had colonies on the
same planet). Besides, the colonies would likely both be in the
raw-materials stage of economic development, trading their products for
the finished manufactured goods of the more developed worlds. They'd have very
little to offer eachother until some more serious economic development took
place.

Take a look at the US--even up until the mid-1800s, the South was
almost entirely geared up to trade with England rather than the rest of the
US.

> Tom Anderson wrote:

> noah wrote:

> Wet-navy ships would probably work best with an FT-ish > system -

> there are at least two 'full steam's done or in the works, and i have
has been avoided for fear of getting the censors involved...

> For post-modern naval combat,

> postmodern naval combat? "ok, my battleship fires a missile salvo",

At this point, the missile salvo impacts...with gratifying results.

> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Los wrote:

> We always think of colonies as a few croppers grubbing along trying to
civilized
> worlds, then get more established. There's no reason on a world with

I don't think anyone questioned the value of merchant vessels... but blue
water military when you have access to starship tech?

It's not that we don't have cavalry -- they just don't ride real horses
anymore.

> All of this can lead to multiple regional or national governments on

Agreed, once they win independence in the first place.

> john atkinsshon (:-) wrote:

> You wrote:

> to which john atkinsON, dammit! replied:

> why can't this be true offworld? if there are balkanised

> But will ships be the major economic asset? Yeah, you might have

btw, did anyone (in the uk) see that channel 4 thing on `the deep`?
about how the deposits around deep-ocean hydrothermal vents contain
minerals at 1000 times the concentrations in land deposits? wow. mining these
could be a major activity on colonies.

> but you

what about colonies of the same power on different continents? or the same
continent, but where there wqas no easy land route, eg it goes via mountains?

> (unless they are friendly--like if the NSL and NAC had colonies on the

> the finished manufactured goods of the more developed worlds.

what about shipping grain from the agricultural regions at the tropics
to the polar / equatorial mining districts? what about shipping stuff to
the equatorial transit sites (spaceports are better on the equator as it
maximises the assist from planetary spin; space elevator anchors are on
the equator). what about more mature colonies where there is on-planet
industry (shipping refined dilithium offworld is gouing to be a lot cheaper
than shipping the ore).

We always think of colonies as a few croppers grubbing along trying to make a
living. Eventually successfull colonies become "little" civilized worlds, then
get more established. There's no reason on a world with large seas that the
use of sea going vessels won't become a prevalant means of transportation of
trade. You don't have to have two powers sharing a world. Town X makes is the
agricultural center of the planet, Town Y is the manufacturing center, they
trade via seaborne routes.

Also why do colonies have to be one government? Eventually as a planet grows,
and people move to different regions, the same host of problems can develop
(i.e. "those lowlanders don't understand our problems up here in the mining
community, we should form our own government" etc etc.) The story of human
settlement for all time.

All of this can lead to multiple regional or national governments on teh same
plaent as a colony matures.

tom.anderson@altavista.net spake thusly upon matters weighty:

Brown water craft will likely abound, but
> the blue water stuff is primarily there for maintaining or cutting

Not entirely true. You'll still need ships for piracy suppression,
customs control, etc. (and to ram the occaisional eco-terrorist
vessel). The oceans will probably be inhabited. Therefore policing them
effectively (and they'll be harder to police than land) will
require effective military force - now, we aren't talking USS
Enterprise and New Jersey, but we are talking frigates and such armed and
armoured to withstand stand up fights with airborne, sea or land threats (and
an extension of their missile and gunbattery capability may give them limited
low orbit engagement). The Navy serves many
non-wartime functions which will be more necessary than ever, but the
use of smaller, faster, high-performance, high-capability vessels
will be the norm (with grav recce/ASW vehicles instead of choppers).

for instance, in the case of the
> United Kingdom or the United States (one being an island and hence

Or Americans.... far more likely.... and far less horrible... to most sane
folk....

> John M. Atkinson

> anyway; i'm not sure that ocean-going ships will wane in

Unless grav and power get way cheap, then every tank would be a grav tank and
every infantry man would have a grav belt.

however, i do not think that wet navies will
> have much use; by then, shore-based aircraft and recon

Do you plan on taking your shore based aircraft out in 10m waves to try to
land your inspection teams on a suspect ship? No. You still need to have your
frigate pull alongside and board.

> possible alternatives to ships:

Not necessarily alternative, could be an adjunct

> - airships. studies have been done of a cargo airship a

Same comment

Beanstalks too. Cheapest ground to orbit cargo transport.

> and remember, the UN is there to stop all conflict in in core systems,

United Nations Nautical Enforcement Arm (UN-NEA)? Enforces maritime
law, engages in anti piracy operations, executes drug interdiction strikes,
pursues smugglers, and performs high risk search and rescue. And, of course,
acts as (like the coast gaurd) a second or third line combat formation in
times of war with limited land, air, sea, undersea, and low orbit
capabilities.

YMMV.

Tom.
/************************************************

> Tom Anderson <tom.anderson@altavista.net> wrote:
Bean stalks like on Kim Robinson's Mars series? Or, rail guns to space? Or
laser launch facilities? Or, skyhooks? All of them quite expensive. Probably
only the home planet (Earth) might have them, I would think.

> do people even know what they are?
Yes I do! But, I'm sure, not all of them!

You got that shift key fixed yet, Tom? :-)

> ---- tom barclay wrote:

erm, no. that was john atkins. i would never use the term 'brown water
craft' :-) !

> Brown water craft will likely abound, but

> > exaggerated prominence that they do,

true, but as you say, no Enterprises or New Jerseys. probably also no
Slavas or Inflexibles. not really a navy, more an ocean police/customs
unit.

> The oceans will probably be inhabited.

aha! well this is a different question, and well brought up. policing
inhabited and exploited oceans is quite different. i would say, still not a
job for a navy as such.

> Therefore policing

eh? in the same way that policing the land takes effective military force? i
don't think so. policing the oceans will take ocean police, not a navy.

> - now, we aren't talking USS

only for SWAT units.

> (and an extension of their missile and gunbattery capability

it's a straightforward step from SLBM to SLASM (anti-space missile).

> The Navy serves many

i agree. i think this is not a navy, but once more we come back to semantics.
we'll use different terms, i suppose.

> > John M. Atkinson

sadly not; the following stuff i wrote.

> > anyway; i'm not sure that ocean-going ships will wane in

true. i think that in the consensus background they are not so cheap,
but if they were (think star wars - repulsorlift etc), wet-hull ships
are out.

> however, i do not think that wet navies will

maybe. or maybe i'll use vtols. i was really talking about military
operations.

> > possible alternatives to ships:

true, but if fully developed it would beat ships on throughput, speed,
flexibility, reliability and price.

> > - airships. studies have been done of a cargo airship a

i suppose so. i would also add a mention of the Ekranoplan.
<lecture>this, also known as the wing-in-ground effect (WIG) aircraft,
is a type of aircraft which flies at a few metres altitude, exploiting the
ground effect to be much more efficient. the technology was developed by the
soviets in the cold war, and is now being
commercialised by us-russian and german-japanese joint ventures. the
speed of a plane with the convenience of a boat.</lecture>

> Beanstalks too. Cheapest ground to orbit cargo transport.

yes, but not too good for moving stuff across the surface. not unless
it's a non-synchronous skyhook, but even then your options are limited.

> > and remember, the UN is there to stop all conflict in in core

aka, the WEO out of seaquest:dsv. i always quite liked that show.

> YMMV.

nautical mileage, of course :-)

tom.anderson@altavista.net spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> > Therefore policing

I'm not sure police in the world of the future might not (in some ways)
resemble second line military (in the ESU, they might BE second line
military). But point taken.

> > - now, we aren't talking USS

> > threats

Not necessarily so - yeah, there would be a lot of small craft, but
the coast gaurd (U.S. especially) is quite formidable in small ocean going
vessels. I can easily see them capable of handling a pirate hydrofoil, a
smuggler military vtol, or an escaping smuggling ship, and of supporting
boarding operations and sometimes landings on island strongholds of suspected
drug or terror lords. Especially if the actual navy is gone.

> > Do you plan on taking your shore based aircraft out in 10m waves to

My point was that these things would exist for peace time reasons,
and hence would probably be at least useful in certain on-planet (in
a balkanized planet or a place with lots of smuggling/insurrection)
military ops.

> i suppose so. i would also add a mention of the Ekranoplan.
<lecture>this, also known as the wing-in-ground effect (WIG)
aircraft, is a type of aircraft which flies at a few metres altitude,
exploiti>

Interesting story. A friend's father just retired from Canadian Coast Gaurd as
their only hovercraft inspector. Because of this, he was
involved with the WIG problem - do you regulate it as a ship, or a
plane? Apparently, neither the airspace guys nor the naval guys wanted it, and
of course the regulations of the naval side and the air side are not the same.
Ended up I think the aerospace guys got it. You know these things can carry
obscene amounts of cargo (exceeding that of a C5 Galaxy I think) and they can
move at quite a clip at heights up to 500m off the water surface (or at least
they can bounce that high to hop stuff). Neat stuff, hard to regulate, very
efficient.

> > YMMV.

Let's not get into that... then we open the door on chains, cables, fathoms
and other relatively bizarre measurements..... god save
us....
/************************************************

> You wrote:

> On 30 Sep 98, at 15:10, tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:

> i suppose so. i would also add a mention of the Ekranoplan.
<lecture>this,
> also known as the wing-in-ground effect (WIG) aircraft, is a type of

<counterlecture>;) Not much good as a reliable method for crossing oceans that
are prone to having heavy sea conditions, moderate to large waves prevent the
use of Ekranoplans. Good for inland seas and other large calm bodies of water,
perhaps featureless flat plains too.
</counterlecture>

> > Beanstalks too. Cheapest ground to orbit cargo transport.

Beanstalks are a waaaaaaaay major engineering task, and very
demanding of materials technology, 20,000+ km long stalk with
enough strength to perform the task. Not cheap to build either. "Hey.. it
costs a dollar a ton in fuel to pull things up it... but it cost a
googledollar to build it.";) Not too great if someone blows it in half. Half
floats away, the other half falls on you. Then again, perhaps you could use
solid state antigrav to support
it...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> On 30 Sep 98, at 22:04, John Atkinson wrote:

> You wrote:
You'd
> have to surface to target, right?

Just a random thought. You could possibly launch a tethered or untethered
targetting bouy to the surface for targetting, and launch your missiles from
deep (once overcoming the engineering difficulties of this).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> On 30 Sep 98, at 22:04, John Atkinson wrote:

> You wrote:
You'd
> have to surface to target, right?

Maybe not. Similar to lazing a target; Fire the missile, once airborne it
receives targetting information from a remote station.

And if you've got solid state antigrav, you don't need a silly old beanstalk.

The GZG universe seems pretty clear - stuff moves in & out of gravity
wells by way of shuttles (small, medium, large & that shouldn't be flying),
powered by similar drives as spacecraft, with some sort of gravitics to
make it real easy (contragrav, a la Traveller - screens grav pull of
planet).

Anyway, a beanstalk just screams 'Bomb Me To Make A Political Point'. I'm
all for disposable/recyclable BDBs (Big Dumb Boosters).  The Saturn V
could
put 50 tonnes (metric) on Luna - think how much it could put into LEO...

Noah

[quoted original message omitted]

Noah spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> And if you've got solid state antigrav, you don't need a silly old

Depends. Since beanstalk uses vaccum (no air resistance) and a counterbalance
system (outgoing shipment balanced with incoming), its energy inputs are
minimal. Might still be cheaper to operate.

> Anyway, a beanstalk just screams 'Bomb Me To Make A Political Point'.
I'm
> all for disposable/recyclable BDBs (Big Dumb Boosters). The Saturn V

Sure, so does the Eiffel Tower, The Sphinx, any Naval Base, etc. etc. Assume
the ground point would be gaurded well (and probably real hard to knock out
unless you had a design engineer handy. It probably has a safety zone a mile
or two wide around it. And probably within 50km is restricted airspace.

> From what I've seen of recent history with both US and foreign

Tom.
/************************************************

> On 4 Oct 98, at 22:01, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Depends. Since beanstalk uses vaccum (no air resistance) and a

The solid state grav would be kinda useful to obviate the few billion tons of
force in the centre of a counterbalanced option.

> > Anyway, a beanstalk just screams 'Bomb Me To Make A Political

Those monuments don't drop 20,000 km of superstrong metal on your planet when
they break. The required toughness of the material probably would make
breaking it tricky, but perhaps a ship hitting it for one reason or another
would be enough, or perhaps it takes a needle beam, class 3 battery, well
placed nukes.. 50km is covered by a FT ship in seconds btw.

> >From what I've seen of recent history with both US and foreign

One might expect so in 180 years or so;) or is it 280 I forget what the FT
'official' period is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> On 5 Oct 98, at 18:52, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Richard spake thusly upon matters weighty:

The few billion tons I was referring to was the force required to support the
beanstalk. You were going to have a several hundred or thousand mile long
cable with counterbalancing loads? eww, the mass of the cable would rather
eliminate any help. Anyway, this is
turning into a engineering/physics discussion (which I'm happy to
continue off list)

> > Those monuments don't drop 20,000 km of superstrong metal on

There is little advantage to doing so with those. However, other large
structures like bridges, which are a parallel to beanstalks have been damaged
or destroyed by terrororist or military force on occasion.

> The required toughness of the

No point in having the thing if you can stop it falling, just use the grav
stuff to transport the mass into orbit. It's powerful enough to hold up a
beanstalk after all;)

> Even if it isn't ENTIRELY practical, it sure is a neat engineering

Too true... but it's probably a bit more 'high' SF than some of the flavours
of FT. But hey, variety is the spice of gaming;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> On 4 Oct 98, at 22:01, Thomas Barclay wrote:

EH? In this case, I was refering to moving shipments by balancing a downward
shipment with an upward one thus meaning that gravity was accelerating one
package while pulling another up. Anyway, local
contra-grav would be great too.

> > > Anyway, a beanstalk just screams 'Bomb Me To Make A Political
etc.
> > Assume the ground point would be gaurded well (and probably real

> > a safety zone a mile or two wide around it. And probably within

No, but the point was that they too are targets and no one has succeeded in
killing them yet.

The required toughness of the
> material probably would make breaking it tricky,

And lets say we use an additional web of grav stabilizers to give it
a 'grav-lock' so that it won't fall even if it breaks. And so that
its harder to break. You have to think it would be very tough, armoured, and
may even have PDS, PDF, ADAF, and possibly its own defenses like
batteries....and the space station at the terminus would have it well within
paths of fire.

but perhaps a ship
> hitting it for one reason or another would be enough, or perhaps it

Or multiple hits from same.

 50km is
> covered by a FT ship in seconds btw.

Sure, I was thinking Air flight, not space. In orbit, you may not be
able to occupy the same orbit at altitudes lower/higher than RV with
the station would require. It may be a 500km no fly zone. And as I said, in
the FT universe, might be armoured and have defense systems. And it would be
under the cone of fire of the space based stationary terminus. Which could
either take power from solar panels and other such things, or get power via
the beanstalk for heavy batteries. Maybe a lot of C bats (cheap to power, and
well in range of any terrorists) and maybe a bunch of other ordinance.

Even if it isn't ENTIRELY practical, it sure is a neat engineering idea and a
neat campaign prop for good FT scenarios. Add to which it
would be a lot like going to Mars - why do it? Because its way cool.

> > >From what I've seen of recent history with both US and foreign

Of course. Then again, we may find other methods of putting things in space we
can barely imagine now (teleporation, railgun, big surgical tubing slingshot,
whatever). My point was to date, despite significant tech, we still have
trouble reliably putting satellites of a few hundred kilos up in orbit without
having to blow them.

Tom.
/************************************************

> Richard Slattery <richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
For a very readable account of what this might look like, see Kim Stanley
Robinson's "Red Mars", "Green Mars" and "Blue Mars" series. Picture a globe
with string wrapped around it, imagine the globe as earth, and the string is
the beanstalk.

Andrew Martin

getting way off topic & subject line