An animated scene from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

[a425couple]

An animated scene from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

https://vimeo.com/359653317?fbclid=IwAR0CRK1o2-N3KJQQwzuVM-_HoiEGjCrcHGtwsd2RDzDnI7M6lh0h3VMjyn4

Operation Hard Rock
a 3:54 'vimeo'
Animation inspired by 'The moon Is A Harsh Mistress' by
Robert A. Heinlein. Commissioned by the late Bruce R.
'Spike' MacPhee, this is a monument to his patronage
of the Arts and a tribute to great Science Fiction.

I seem to recall, that someone, somewhere, was saying that
Heinlein's math was all wrong. And that throwing rocks at the
Earth would not cause the political rethinking he wrote that
it would. That these 'rocks' would not really be the
equal of military weapons that would force Earth to give
up rule.
Any thoughts?

[a425couple]

On 8/6/23 09:45, Kym Horsell wrote:

> It would seem the moon would be out-gunned.
>
> Given unguided rocks
From the book - they were well guided 'rocks'.

> from the moon would have only a 15% chance of even hitting land
(given a rough calc of the spread of reentry tracks from lunar orbit) ,
let alone something vital,
> you would expect a space-launched thermonuke could hit even dug-in
critial air or water plants of a moon colony pretty easily bringing an
and to any potential threat of bombardment.

But, that would be worse than Russia using nukes on Ukraine.

As I recall, The Earth's population was needing the grain that
was being grown underground on the moon.

Go ahead and check out the wiki on "The moon is a harsh mistress".

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <ZqeAM.533195$AsA.4...@fx18.iad>,

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As I recall, The Earth's population was needing the grain that
>was being grown underground on the moon.

But the grain on the moon thing was not sustainable. Mycroft's
analysis was that, pending some major changes that Earth refused
to even consider, grain production was going to crash, everyone
on the moon would starve to death, and then Earth would be without
Lunar grain anyway.

(That's my recollection, anyway... need to re-read it.)

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

[a425couple]

On 8/8/23 13:24, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <ZqeAM.533195$AsA.4...@fx18.iad>,
> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> As I recall, The Earth's population was needing the grain that
>> was being grown underground on the moon.
>
> But the grain on the moon thing was not sustainable. Mycroft's
> analysis was that, pending some major changes that Earth refused
> to even consider, grain production was going to crash, everyone
> on the moon would starve to death, and then Earth would be without
> Lunar grain anyway.
>
> (That's my recollection, anyway... need to re-read it.)
>

I certainly and fully agree with your:

> But the grain on the moon thing was not sustainable.

Heinlein's stories had many devices of trading food between
planets and moons.
The trade they show in "The moon is a harsh mistress" by
catapulting grain containers from the moon to a planned
soft landing off the coast of India is actually one of his
almost plausible devices.
It was certainly far beyond the pale the idea from 'Dora's
Story' (actually, "The Tale of the Adopted Daughter")
from "Time enough for Love" where on a planet
they get around by foot and mule, while growing grain
to transport by FTL (faster than light) space ships to
planets around other stars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love
also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Earth

Meanwhile, what 'items & materials' might be economically
feasible to transport between planets and moons?

In Arthur C. Clarke's "Imperial Earth" they
"Titan's economy has flourished based on the harvest and
sale of hydrogen mined from the atmosphere, which is used
to fuel the fusion engines of interplanetary spacecraft."