test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What would happen if the United States ever built a galaxy class/Sovereign class star ship

2»

Comments

  • tr717771tr717771 Member Posts: 180 Arc User
    Assuming the US ever built such a thing? it would be a tool of arrogance first and foremost because there is no way the Americans would use that ship as anything more than a tool of American centric rhetoric. All the other nations would either be trying to ally with them to the point of bootlicking and brown nosing or against them and pretty soon the Russians and Chinese will have to respond to this and if the Americans should threaten to unleash this ship on them.. so all you got is rhetoric and arrogance.

    actually we would use it as more of a defensive platform more than anything and not to mention for scientific research and discovery but still have the ability to defend itself and the united states and its allies against any rouge country hell bent on launching nukes I.E. North Korea
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    tr717771 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    tr717771 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    tr717771 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Uuum war.

    Please explain that in detail how would a war start over something that the United States built?

    The Sovereign Class is a Warp 9.9 Starship with 16 seperate phaser mounts and 12 torpedo tubes. Both quantum and photon torpedos are capable of destroying all life on a planet as per General Order 24. The Sovereign Class has two layers of shielding, an astrometrics facility and a sensor array.

    It's not an exaggeration to say that if one were to be built then the nation who built it has the power to dominate the planet.

    Obviously any nation stupid enough to attempt it now would bankrupt themselves into oblivion and if they even got close would have their prototype destroyed undefended as their entire military budget (as well as the rest of their budget) has gone leaving no one to defend the nation conventually.
    But you're building a doomsday weapon, why the hell would it not cause a war? It's be the single most powerful thing humanity has ever created, a Death Star.

    Well still it be cool to see them in real life though but I guess the scary countries be so scared of something they have no control of let alone have no say in it being built second I know that it would be mainly used as a defensive platform against any hostel attacks against the united states lets say you have rouge agents in both russia and china that has a personality and mind set like the north korean leader that is hell bent on either world domination or just wants to destroy the united states I doubt it be used as a first strike weapon

    It's not just Russia and China who would be threatened. The very existence of such a ship would, by its very existence, be an open deceleration of war against the entire planet.
    Nukes are only not so because all the superpowers or former superpowers have them, unless any other country in this instance is also building Starships then the US has declared war on the planet.​​

    wow lol so basically your saying if we built it everyone would declare war on us over it even though we wouldn't use it as a offensive weapon but more of a defensive platform and why would we start anything with the brits or any ally for that matter ? the only ones you said be more afraid is china and russia lol wow
    You fail to comprehend realpolitik. When we moved Jupiter mid-range missiles into Turkey in the early '60s, that sparked the Cuban Missile Crisis (and came within a whisker of starting WW3), even though our intention was merely to deter Soviet aggression.

    Our world is fairly devoid of telepaths. You naively assume that everyone will think the best of everyone else. In the real world, sadly, bad actors tend to assume that other bad actors act just as badly as they do, and just hide their true motivations. And anyone old enough to remember the Nixon administration is well aware that sometimes, despite our high ideals, we're the bad actors.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    I would extend that a bit, jonsills. The higher and purer the stated ideals, the more likely the other guy will assume it's a screen for your real intent, and the more likely the assumption will prove correct. There is nothing so suspicious as altruism.
  • tr717771tr717771 Member Posts: 180 Arc User
    wow you all think that I don't know anything here lol I was born in the 70s raised in the 80s and 90s but still other countries can not I repeat can not control what other countries do to improve themselves either for self defense or scientific reasons you act like the world would be dead set against the united states making their own star ships not to mention you do realize that our allies would probably have access to certain areas but as far as I am concerned I feel no other country should dictate what the united states do to improve itself defensively .
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    tr717771 wrote: »
    wow you all think that I don't know anything here lol I was born in the 70s raised in the 80s and 90s but still other countries can not I repeat can not control what other countries do to improve themselves either for self defense or scientific reasons you act like the world would be dead set against the united states making their own star ships not to mention you do realize that our allies would probably have access to certain areas but as far as I am concerned I feel no other country should dictate what the united states do to improve itself defensively .

    When it comes to the use of space, they certainly can. Regardless of what any poster here thinks, there are some in the world who doubt the US's motives, and view them as less than honorable. Assurances that a warship built in space would have only defensive purposes, aside from being in violation of a treaty to which the US is a signatory, would only assure them that the US was intent upon use of force from an unassailable platform in space.
  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,844 Arc User
    tr717771 wrote: »
    Assuming the US ever built such a thing? it would be a tool of arrogance first and foremost because there is no way the Americans would use that ship as anything more than a tool of American centric rhetoric. All the other nations would either be trying to ally with them to the point of bootlicking and brown nosing or against them and pretty soon the Russians and Chinese will have to respond to this and if the Americans should threaten to unleash this ship on them.. so all you got is rhetoric and arrogance.

    actually we would use it as more of a defensive platform more than anything and not to mention for scientific research and discovery but still have the ability to defend itself and the united states and its allies against any rouge country hell bent on launching nukes I.E. North Korea

    How can you wipe out an entire country in self-defence? Launching nukes can be shot down safely a certain distance above the ground to limit loss of life is one thing or transport it into space and shoot it down out there, but it's an entirely different thing moving that ship above North Korea and firing torpedoes incinerating millions of brainwashed people both civilian and military. The fall out for the Americans would be catastrophic from within the country and outside the country.

    when you sacrifice liberty for security, you will gain neither.
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    tr717771 wrote: »
    wow you all think that I don't know anything here lol I was born in the 70s raised in the 80s and 90s but still other countries can not I repeat can not control what other countries do to improve themselves either for self defense or scientific reasons you act like the world would be dead set against the united states making their own star ships not to mention you do realize that our allies would probably have access to certain areas but as far as I am concerned I feel no other country should dictate what the united states do to improve itself defensively .

    When it comes to the use of space, they certainly can. Regardless of what any poster here thinks, there are some in the world who doubt the US's motives, and view them as less than honorable. Assurances that a warship built in space would have only defensive purposes, aside from being in violation of a treaty to which the US is a signatory, would only assure them that the US was intent upon use of force from an unassailable platform in space.

    With the number of regime changes that the US has caused since World War II, it is no surprise that certain nations don't trust the US.
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    Trying very hard to stay within forum rules here. Interesting discussion is easily sidetracked.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    tr717771 wrote: »
    wow you all think that I don't know anything here lol I was born in the 70s raised in the 80s and 90s but still other countries can not I repeat can not control what other countries do to improve themselves either for self defense or scientific reasons you act like the world would be dead set against the united states making their own star ships not to mention you do realize that our allies would probably have access to certain areas but as far as I am concerned I feel no other country should dictate what the united states do to improve itself defensively .

    You built a powerful weapon you invite its destruction before you can finish it. Either that or everybody builds their own starships. That's all there is to it. Nobody is 'dictating' what the US does with its starship, they simply not allowing it to be finished.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    It depends if it went it alone or as part of an international team effort.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Part of the problem, of course, is that a Sovereign-class starship, designed as it is to go into openly hostile regions of space, is heavily armed and defended. It's hard to see it from the outside as anything but a threat. If your purpose truly is peaceful and scientific, build Earth Spacedock instead. For one, that'll definitely be a multinational effort, and for another, it wouldn't necessarily be built with multiple energy-weapon emplacements and torpedo launchers aimed pretty much at the planet below.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    Even better: wait until we're mature as a species before doing any of that. So long as we're factionalized and each faction is engaged in a zero sum game of dividing the pie, no advance by one will be tolerated by the rest. The more one advances beyond the rest, the greater the push-back. Before we talk about ESD and Sovereign-class starships, we need to talk about elimination of the zero-sum game. Whatever form that takes, it is likely to be a long, bitter, bloody time between conceiving it and achieving it.

    I have often posited that the development of humanity is analogous to a child's growth. When we were in the hunter-gatherer stage we were infants. Everything was about me, me, me. We became toddlers in the bronze age as we began to learn to play with others, and young children in the iron age as we began to form teams and conform to group identities. The Age of Enlightenment saw us go from preteens to teens, and currently we're at the early teen stage where we're each learning to explore our own identity, but strongly associate with group identities, including the rejection of other, not-cool groups based on their group identity.

    So, according to my theory, we still have to get through our combative late teens, our early twenties, and begin to have families, (extra-planetary and extra-solar colonies,) before we get to our more rational, thoughtful thirties. By that time we'll have a one-family world in which we each are valued by the rest, (except for the weird uncle or the crazy aunt who keep doing stuff nobody else understands.)
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    brian334 wrote: »
    Even better: wait until we're mature as a species before doing any of that. So long as we're factionalized and each faction is engaged in a zero sum game of dividing the pie, no advance by one will be tolerated by the rest. The more one advances beyond the rest, the greater the push-back. Before we talk about ESD and Sovereign-class starships, we need to talk about elimination of the zero-sum game. Whatever form that takes, it is likely to be a long, bitter, bloody time between conceiving it and achieving it.

    I have often posited that the development of humanity is analogous to a child's growth. When we were in the hunter-gatherer stage we were infants. Everything was about me, me, me. We became toddlers in the bronze age as we began to learn to play with others, and young children in the iron age as we began to form teams and conform to group identities. The Age of Enlightenment saw us go from preteens to teens, and currently we're at the early teen stage where we're each learning to explore our own identity, but strongly associate with group identities, including the rejection of other, not-cool groups based on their group identity.

    So, according to my theory, we still have to get through our combative late teens, our early twenties, and begin to have families, (extra-planetary and extra-solar colonies,) before we get to our more rational, thoughtful thirties. By that time we'll have a one-family world in which we each are valued by the rest, (except for the weird uncle or the crazy aunt who keep doing stuff nobody else understands.)

    we'll never 'mature as a species' Brian. we discovered this thing called "Fire" and "Tools" and the environment stopped dictating our biology, and we started dictating to our environment.

    I reject that hypothesis based on evidence.

    1) Humans today are on average much larger than humans of even a few hundred years ago.

    2) The human brain structure has become more complex as the brain size has decreased, this occurring since the development of tools and fire. Assuming the continued development of brain complexity, there should be a consequent increase in mental capacity.

    3) While natural pressures which force evolution have been reduced, they have not been eliminated. (See malaria and sickle cell for an example of human evolution in action. Heck, see a cast of thousands of diseases which have pushed human evolution forward.)

    4) Social evolution continues as humans gather in ever-larger polities and in ever larger identity-groups. There has been more and more rapid social evolution in the last 100 years than the previous 1000 years, which has an effect on evolution, especially in the selection of successful males for breeding.

    Evolution continues. What evolved man will look like is still up for grabs, but his brain will be more complex, he will think faster, multitask more readily, and form large social groups easily, and these groups will fit into hierarchies of supergroups which may replace nations with associations which have no physical borders but easily coexist alongside other supergroups.

    And even then evolution won't be finished. It will never be finished. At best we might slow it down, but even that's doubtful.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    ruinthefun wrote: »
    That, and even if we managed to build this awesome spaceship, we'd still end up needing the Russians to get anyone up there.
    Way to ruin the fun!

    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • marty123#3757 marty123 Member Posts: 670 Arc User
    Why would you assume it’s only the US who could build such a ship?
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    The assumption wasn't necessarily that only the US could, although that's not an unreasonable supposition (we do have the most sophisticated space technology, currently) - it was that only the US had. And given the lead time necessary to construct that very specific make of starship, it seems unlikely that it would be permitted to simply happen without interference, given its nature as a powerful weapon of war and a complete abrogation of multiple treaties to which the US is signatory.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,844 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    brian334 wrote: »
    Aside from we're not technologically there yet, we're not culturally there. In the early 1970s we transformed away from an intense desire to achieve in space, and that has never recovered. Our culture as it stands now would never countenance even a fraction of the expense required for such an undertaking.

    It's why I advocate baby steps. We're not even ready for a Mars Colony yet, though it's right at the limits of what can be done with technology now, and should be a major goal of everyone interested in maintaining the health of our biosphere, (because nothing will push the technology of the Green Revolution like forcing people on Mars to innovate without fossil fuels and waste-manufacturing for convenience.)

    Baby steps would include, but not be limited to, desert and high latitude greenhouses/biospheres, underwater and floating habitats, and integrated arcologies. If we can build any of these on Earth, it is a simple extrapolation to extend them into space. Once in space it becomes a commercial necessity to improve propulsion methods, and from there we get the push to go to the stars.

    But it begins with our understanding of how to create a self-contained environment, and so far that has eluded us. Until we have that, any dream of a starship is just a dream.

    It makes far more sense to establish orbital stations and a lunar base than going straight to Mars. As The Martian proved, it takes far too long to do a rescue mission to Mars than it is to rescue someone in Earth's orbit or on the Moon.

    it would be harder to build hab on the moon, because of the unique abrasive nature of the moon dust.
    Spock.jpg

  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    brian334 wrote: »
    Aside from we're not technologically there yet, we're not culturally there. In the early 1970s we transformed away from an intense desire to achieve in space, and that has never recovered. Our culture as it stands now would never countenance even a fraction of the expense required for such an undertaking.

    It's why I advocate baby steps. We're not even ready for a Mars Colony yet, though it's right at the limits of what can be done with technology now, and should be a major goal of everyone interested in maintaining the health of our biosphere, (because nothing will push the technology of the Green Revolution like forcing people on Mars to innovate without fossil fuels and waste-manufacturing for convenience.)

    Baby steps would include, but not be limited to, desert and high latitude greenhouses/biospheres, underwater and floating habitats, and integrated arcologies. If we can build any of these on Earth, it is a simple extrapolation to extend them into space. Once in space it becomes a commercial necessity to improve propulsion methods, and from there we get the push to go to the stars.

    But it begins with our understanding of how to create a self-contained environment, and so far that has eluded us. Until we have that, any dream of a starship is just a dream.

    It makes far more sense to establish orbital stations and a lunar base than going straight to Mars. As The Martian proved, it takes far too long to do a rescue mission to Mars than it is to rescue someone in Earth's orbit or on the Moon.

    it would be harder to build hab on the moon, because of the unique abrasive nature of the moon dust.
    Under the Moon, in lava tubes (they appear to exist). That also gives you protection from solar radiation during the two-week-long days. OTOH, a lunar base isn't terribly useful; it would have pretty much all the drawbacks of an orbital station, without the advantages of microgravity and launching from outside a gravity well. (Luna's one-sixth gee might not be much, but it's still more gravity to launch against than you'd experience from a HEO or Lagrange-point station, no matter which Lagrange point you chose.)
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    brian334 wrote: »
    Aside from we're not technologically there yet, we're not culturally there. In the early 1970s we transformed away from an intense desire to achieve in space, and that has never recovered. Our culture as it stands now would never countenance even a fraction of the expense required for such an undertaking.

    It's why I advocate baby steps. We're not even ready for a Mars Colony yet, though it's right at the limits of what can be done with technology now, and should be a major goal of everyone interested in maintaining the health of our biosphere, (because nothing will push the technology of the Green Revolution like forcing people on Mars to innovate without fossil fuels and waste-manufacturing for convenience.)

    Baby steps would include, but not be limited to, desert and high latitude greenhouses/biospheres, underwater and floating habitats, and integrated arcologies. If we can build any of these on Earth, it is a simple extrapolation to extend them into space. Once in space it becomes a commercial necessity to improve propulsion methods, and from there we get the push to go to the stars.

    But it begins with our understanding of how to create a self-contained environment, and so far that has eluded us. Until we have that, any dream of a starship is just a dream.

    It makes far more sense to establish orbital stations and a lunar base than going straight to Mars. As The Martian proved, it takes far too long to do a rescue mission to Mars than it is to rescue someone in Earth's orbit or on the Moon.

    it would be harder to build hab on the moon, because of the unique abrasive nature of the moon dust.
    Under the Moon, in lava tubes (they appear to exist). That also gives you protection from solar radiation during the two-week-long days. OTOH, a lunar base isn't terribly useful; it would have pretty much all the drawbacks of an orbital station, without the advantages of microgravity and launching from outside a gravity well. (Luna's one-sixth gee might not be much, but it's still more gravity to launch against than you'd experience from a HEO or Lagrange-point station, no matter which Lagrange point you chose.)

    What about a Lunar Orbital Tether which passes through Lunar L2 and extends out to +g far enough to offset the mass of the cable in Luna's gravity well?

    In this scenario we place a rotating hula-hoop station at LL2 with the Darkside Tether passing through its hub. Vessels dock at Hula Station and are moved via cable cars to Terminus where they are "dropped" into space at 3000+ miles per hour. Cars could also travel to Darkside Station to visit the moon, if they wanted to. The tether would also provide a means for Lunar raw materials and manufactured goods to access orbit relatively cheaply. Bonus: the tether to Luna need not be as robust, nor as long, as that of Earth to LEO, and would have no interference from the atmosphere or the Earth's magnetosphere.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    brian334 wrote: »
    Aside from we're not technologically there yet, we're not culturally there. In the early 1970s we transformed away from an intense desire to achieve in space, and that has never recovered. Our culture as it stands now would never countenance even a fraction of the expense required for such an undertaking.

    It's why I advocate baby steps. We're not even ready for a Mars Colony yet, though it's right at the limits of what can be done with technology now, and should be a major goal of everyone interested in maintaining the health of our biosphere, (because nothing will push the technology of the Green Revolution like forcing people on Mars to innovate without fossil fuels and waste-manufacturing for convenience.)

    Baby steps would include, but not be limited to, desert and high latitude greenhouses/biospheres, underwater and floating habitats, and integrated arcologies. If we can build any of these on Earth, it is a simple extrapolation to extend them into space. Once in space it becomes a commercial necessity to improve propulsion methods, and from there we get the push to go to the stars.

    But it begins with our understanding of how to create a self-contained environment, and so far that has eluded us. Until we have that, any dream of a starship is just a dream.

    It makes far more sense to establish orbital stations and a lunar base than going straight to Mars. As The Martian proved, it takes far too long to do a rescue mission to Mars than it is to rescue someone in Earth's orbit or on the Moon.

    it would be harder to build hab on the moon, because of the unique abrasive nature of the moon dust.
    Under the Moon, in lava tubes (they appear to exist). That also gives you protection from solar radiation during the two-week-long days. OTOH, a lunar base isn't terribly useful; it would have pretty much all the drawbacks of an orbital station, without the advantages of microgravity and launching from outside a gravity well. (Luna's one-sixth gee might not be much, but it's still more gravity to launch against than you'd experience from a HEO or Lagrange-point station, no matter which Lagrange point you chose.)

    I've heard a lunar base on the opposite of the moon would be useful for telescopes. You would avoid the pollution from Earth sginals of all kinds, since the moon shields you from most of it. And astronauts might fare better in low gravity than no-gravity.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    brian334 wrote: »
    Aside from we're not technologically there yet, we're not culturally there. In the early 1970s we transformed away from an intense desire to achieve in space, and that has never recovered. Our culture as it stands now would never countenance even a fraction of the expense required for such an undertaking.

    It's why I advocate baby steps. We're not even ready for a Mars Colony yet, though it's right at the limits of what can be done with technology now, and should be a major goal of everyone interested in maintaining the health of our biosphere, (because nothing will push the technology of the Green Revolution like forcing people on Mars to innovate without fossil fuels and waste-manufacturing for convenience.)

    Baby steps would include, but not be limited to, desert and high latitude greenhouses/biospheres, underwater and floating habitats, and integrated arcologies. If we can build any of these on Earth, it is a simple extrapolation to extend them into space. Once in space it becomes a commercial necessity to improve propulsion methods, and from there we get the push to go to the stars.

    But it begins with our understanding of how to create a self-contained environment, and so far that has eluded us. Until we have that, any dream of a starship is just a dream.

    It makes far more sense to establish orbital stations and a lunar base than going straight to Mars. As The Martian proved, it takes far too long to do a rescue mission to Mars than it is to rescue someone in Earth's orbit or on the Moon.

    it would be harder to build hab on the moon, because of the unique abrasive nature of the moon dust.
    Under the Moon, in lava tubes (they appear to exist). That also gives you protection from solar radiation during the two-week-long days. OTOH, a lunar base isn't terribly useful; it would have pretty much all the drawbacks of an orbital station, without the advantages of microgravity and launching from outside a gravity well. (Luna's one-sixth gee might not be much, but it's still more gravity to launch against than you'd experience from a HEO or Lagrange-point station, no matter which Lagrange point you chose.)

    What about a Lunar Orbital Tether which passes through Lunar L2 and extends out to +g far enough to offset the mass of the cable in Luna's gravity well?

    In this scenario we place a rotating hula-hoop station at LL2 with the Darkside Tether passing through its hub. Vessels dock at Hula Station and are moved via cable cars to Terminus where they are "dropped" into space at 3000+ miles per hour. Cars could also travel to Darkside Station to visit the moon, if they wanted to. The tether would also provide a means for Lunar raw materials and manufactured goods to access orbit relatively cheaply. Bonus: the tether to Luna need not be as robust, nor as long, as that of Earth to LEO, and would have no interference from the atmosphere or the Earth's magnetosphere.
    That seems a bit much. I mean, a beanstalk from Lunar surface, sure - it'd be a lot easier than one from Earth, to be certain - but anchoring it to a rotating orbital station sounds like adding just a tad more moving parts than would really be necessary. I'd go with a separate station if you want it to rotate - you can always use the beanstalk's counterweight station to "drop" ships into space, if you don't mind the wait for the elevator from the surface, and then you can have a big ol' inner-tube-looking station rotating for "gravity" (or, if you want to get really fancy, an O'Niell cylinder, but then why use the Moon for anything but construction materials?).

    It just looks like Luna might not offer that much in the way of said materials, that's all. Assays have been low in metals, and the legendary H3 you could supposedly scoop off the surface would only be useful in a very specific range of fusion reactors that may or may not even work. I'd prefer to mine asteroids - as Heinlein famously observed, once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere, so you can get to asteroids for the same energy budget as landing on the Moon, and how to get the materials back was illustrated (rather well, I thought) in Donald Kingsbury's "To Bring In the Steel" (smelt metals on the asteroid using a solar furnace, use the slag as reaction mass for an ion drive powered by solar energy - acceleration is low, but steady, using constant thrust. Get water from Ceres, if it's in the right position, and if not prospect for water ice on other asteroids, as it seems to be as common there as everywhere else in the system).
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.