feasibility.

II personally think the idea of bombarding the earth into submission isn`t
feasible, to put it politely. The military cold openly destroy such
asteroids with current technology (?).

Besides, the aliens have such reduced resources, it would take more
resources to implement such a plan than they have. Besides, what about
'storage' of the 'raw' materials, on limited alien resources?

I thought a lot about that and came to the conclusion that it would indeed
be within alien capability to use asteroids and also to do so in a way that
we would not be significantly effective in stopping. They could pound us
so that we simply tolerated their incursions - to stave of their wrath, or
until we stopped being able to fight effectively.

In 'Conflict' The aliens had a reusable device that was being used to move
and alter trajectories of spacecraft, even doing so against the vehicles
control systems fighting back. A bunch of these pushing 20-30 meter
diameter nickel-iron asteroids (slugs) into 6 month Earth-impact
trajectories could do all the damage needed. Of course more of them and
larger versions of these little ROVs could do even more damage but it seems
very possible with just two of the ones like those seen in 'Conflict'.
**see below for supporting data.

With just a little bit of orbital mechanics and a few months patience and
perseverance, a single ROV could easily send dozens of slugs to the Earth
arriving in insurmountable waves. A second ROV would be there to provide
only precision targeting course corrections to some of them.

One ROV out in the asteroid belt sends slugs one by one into an Earth
intercept at varying speeds and trajectories so that they arrive in waves
perhaps 10 within an hour, every few weeks, way too many for interceptors
to even shoot at them all. The second ROV sits about 1G to 2G miles out
(5-10 times lunar orbit) rendezvous and precisely adjusts the courses of
incoming slugs to target specific sites. Launch facilities, SHADO HQ, nuke
facilities and stuff are the first targets to be hit on earth, to ensure
that effective new defense cannot be mounted. Moonbase would also of
course be given special attention with a bunch of slugs addressed just to
it, probably the very first batch. Those slugs that can't or don't get
their course correction would still impact untargeted. Each of these
metallic asteroid slugs would pack the punch of a tactical nuke and be very
difficult to track and destroy compared to a stony asteroid which at 20-30
meters in size would not be dense or strong enough and would break up in
the atmosphere.

All of the UFO demonstrated technology wouldn't be able to cope with the
incoming material provided by just two ROVs, we'd be done for if there were
10 of them or if they were bigger. Even if there was only one ROV, Earth
could still be randomly hammered by nuke-force metallic slugs. Slugs could
even be put on varying trajectories so that 100 of them fell all at once
after a year of ROV work, though only a few could be precisely targeted
this way.

**Some numbers & stuff. Circular Earth orbital velocity is in the ballpark
of 7,000 Miles per hour (high orbit) to 17,000 MPH for (low orbit), the
Shuttle's speed is about 17K MPH. The Lunar speed around the earth is only
2300 MPH while the return orbit from the Moon for a vehicle is over 25K MPH
and highly elliptical. Asteroids would be coming in probably at around 20K
or more and at a near perpendicular trajectory to any circular earth orbit.
The ROV in Conflict went from somewhere probably in Low Earth Orbit with
the space-junk at 17K MPH and made it around the planet as needed and
adjusted it's motion to over 25K going a different, possibly perpendicular
direction, intercepted another vehicle, then reversed direction after
entering the atmosphere and came back out into orbit. That ROV has *lots*
of power in order to do so, plenty enough to give us a nice steel rain.

Also: Today's real technology says that if we find anything really headed
our way; we're boned if we have less than 2 years to deflect it, the bigger
it is the more time we would need. That's why astronomers are hunting
these things so much and for the ones they find, predicting their orbits
for hundreds of years into the future. There are thousands of them out
there and the only thing we have going for us is that space is *real* big.

S (TMCM) D:-)

>I personally think the idea of bombarding the earth into submission isn't
>feasible, to put it politely. The military cold openly destroy such
>asteroids with current technology (?).
>
>Besides, the aliens have such reduced resources, it would take more
>resources to implement such a plan than they have. Besides, what about
>'storage' of the 'raw' materials, on limited alien resources?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Lazenby" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:51 PM
Subject: [SHADO] feasibility.


> II personally think the idea of bombarding the earth into submission isn`t
> feasible, to put it politely. The military cold openly destroy such
> asteroids with current technology (?).
>


-------------------------------------------------------


Absolutely false. We're utterly helpless against asteroids, for a great many
reasons.


------------------------------------------------------------


> Besides, the aliens have such reduced resources, it would take more
> resources to implement such a plan than they have. Besides, what about
> 'storage' of the 'raw' materials, on limited alien resources?
>


---------------------------------------------------------------


Who says they have such greatly reduced resources that they couldn't
handle that particular task. I'd say that the technology to do star travel
would be more than sufficient to divert a few asteroids.
....And how would you quantify limited resources anyway?
Their state of greatly diminished resources might be hundreds of fold what
it would take to do these things.

Dave H.

--- In [hidden email], "Shawn Kelly" <sdkelly@s...> wrote:
> I thought a lot about that and came to the conclusion that it
would indeed
> be within alien capability to use asteroids and also to do so in a
way that
> we would not be significantly effective in stopping. They could
pound us
> so that we simply tolerated their incursions - to stave of their
wrath, or
> until we stopped being able to fight effectively.
>

Hi Everyone,

Well isn't that just not the most lovely thing in the world?
Defending against the treat of being struck is just another day in
the life of our beloved Commander Straker.

But seriously, and I don't mean to upset the canonists again: You
would think that a technical civilization advanced enough for
starflight could also clone whatever body parts they need - but that
would make for one very lame TV series.

CONTROL VOICE: and now back to our intrepid heros...

Straker: Get me Moonbase
Ellis: Moonbase, LT Ellis here
Straker: Any UFO activity
Ellis: No, not since the Aliens started cloning their own body parts
Straker: Damn! I could do with some action.
Ellis: They did invite us to a coffeclatch
Straker: I nearly forgot, Gaye. I've been spending most of my days
out on the golf course now.

CONTROL VOICE: Is Straker doomed to spend all his afternoons on the
golf course? Is LT. Ellis, and the others on Moonbase doomed to
spend their days in pepetual boredom? Is this really all a plot by
extraterrestrial forces to take over the world?

Join us again next week for the continuing saga of UFO: The Cloned
Bliss.

Hugs,
Tasha :-)

--- In [hidden email], "Kevin Lazenby" <KevinLazenby8@a...>
wrote:
> II personally think the idea of bombarding the earth into
submission isn`t
> feasible, to put it politely. The military cold openly destroy
such
> asteroids with current technology (?).
>
> Besides, the aliens have such reduced resources, it would take more
> resources to implement such a plan than they have. Besides, what
about
> 'storage' of the 'raw' materials, on limited alien resources?

Kevin,

That is a good point, especially with regards to "current
technology". Even if current technology cannot sucessfully track
and hit and incoming asteriod, that depicted of SHADO certainly
can. Also in response to another post concerning a nuclear weapon
inpacting a large asteriod: who is to say that only one weapon is
used? Why not deploy ten. Also, a tiny divergence in the path of
the object could cause it to miss all together.

It would also seem logical to assume that the Aleins are lacking in
some areas and advanced in others - such as medical technology.
Otherwise, why don't they just clone what they need? If they are
truely out for conflict, what exactly do they want from Earth? As
it seems that everything on Earth is deadly to them - the water, the
atmosphere, SHADO operatives!

And finally...

TO THOSE TRAITORS WHO ARE ACTIVELY WORKING FOR THE ALIENS, I have
whispered your names in Commander Straker's ear!!! :-)

Hugs,
Tasha

Thank you Tasha that was great. LOL. Just because cloning is a possibility
doesnt mean the aliens havent tried . They may have tried to clone the parts
but they may have had problems that involved environmental or genetic defects.
We can clone animals but not humans. Maybe the aliens have spiritual beliefs
that make cloning a crime. scott


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tasha,
your comment about using several nukes to stop the meteor is
interesting and workable if the meteor is small enough. There are some really big one
out there so large they call them planet busters. But saying all that was
needed was to alter its course slightly was the comment I was hoping someone
would make. Instead of using a nuclear weapon why not just attach a rocket engine
to it and move it enough to make it miss Earth rather than trying to blow it
up and cause more trouble with the debris and radiation. In fact since the
aliens had to use some type of propulsion device to head the thing toward Earth
it might still be there and SHADO could simply take it over and send it on its
way. No nukes needed.

James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>your comment about using several nukes to stop the meteor is
>interesting and workable if the meteor is small enough.

It may be interesting to some, but I should point out that this whole
discussion about asteroids & nukes is off-topic, and people who persist in
posting about it will become moderated and have these messages deleted
(quite a few already have)

Marc

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
> >your comment about using several nukes to stop the meteor is
> >interesting and workable if the meteor is small enough.
>
> It may be interesting to some, but I should point out that this
whole
> discussion about asteroids & nukes is off-topic, and people who
persist in
> posting about it will become moderated and have these messages
deleted
> (quite a few already have)
>
> Marc

Marc,

I don't mean to be obtuse here, but the context of meteors and
asteriods striking the Earth after being manipulated by UFO Aleins
should be considered on topic, as well as scemes to defend against
just such a threat. I am sure that there are others here that would
consider such to be the case.

Hugs,
Tasha :-)

>I don't mean to be obtuse here, but the context of meteors and
>asteriods striking the Earth after being manipulated by UFO Aleins
>should be considered on topic, as well as scemes to defend against
>just such a threat.

Well, theoretically *everything* could be manipulated by UFO aliens, so
that would make *everything* on-topic. :-)

This discussion may have started out on-topic, but it seems to have veered
increasingly off-topic as time went on.

Marc

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
> >I don't mean to be obtuse here, but the context of meteors and
> >asteriods striking the Earth after being manipulated by UFO Aleins
> >should be considered on topic, as well as scemes to defend against
> >just such a threat.
>
> Well, theoretically *everything* could be manipulated by UFO
aliens, so
> that would make *everything* on-topic. :-)
>
> This discussion may have started out on-topic, but it seems to
have veered
> increasingly off-topic as time went on.
>
> Marc

Marc,

I guess in this respect you're right. :-)

Tasha