Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Stars)

On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> At 16:39 30/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> >> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> >> > 1) Planets without magnetic field.
> >they cannot be any worse than raw space, and starships seem to do
alright.
> >build your mining plant to starship quality levels (shields,
perhaps), 
> >limit excursions and follow a proactive medical programme, and you're
ok.
> >alternatively, go the Kim Stanley Robinson on Mercury route and only 
> >colonise the dark side of the planet. this may well involve building
a
> >moving colony. deal with it.
>	Starships survive one pressumes because the hull is shielded
against
> exactly this kind of thing. If on a planet then you need to be
underground
> which, according to most visions, will even the case for Mars which is
> further away from the Sun than we are.

yes, going underground is the cheapest way to shield your buildings.
building them on the surface and installing screens and lead plates,
etc,
would be a pain, but would give you a colony on the surface (i don't see
why anyone would need one, but i suppose it's nice to have the option).

mars will need underground habitats until it has a proper atmosphere,
which may or may not ever happen.

> War tends to require lots of
> excursions outside.

why? it only requires excursions outside because you have to go outside
to
get between your cities and his cities. now, in the early stages of
colonisation of a planet this is a likely scenario, as the habitats will
be far apart and not connected by many subsurface tunnels (just main
rail
tunnels, not hugely useful for a surprise attack).

however, this does not mean that the fighting will all be on the
surface;
a valid tactic might be to get into the target area, go to ground in the
outlying tunnels etc, and then assault the habitat itself.

later, when the planet is riddled with tunnels (for mining, farming,
communication, etc - think The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (iirc)), you
will
be able to run your troops in by the tunnels, never having to go onto
the
surface at all.

thus, on early-stage planets, your plans would be motivated by the need
to
get on top of the target quickly and get underground; you would be wary
of
fighting surface engagements, but if you were a defender, you would try
hard to keep the other guy on the surface, where the sun is providing
free
ortillery support. however, tunnel fighting would still be common.

in later-stage planets, the tunnel-fighting would be the rule. your
troops
would still need enviro suits, as the tunnels are unlikely to be
pressurised, but the radiation problem would not be so bad.

> The effects were meant to represent not nessicarily
> people getting ill but also people nicking off and finding a nice
shielded
> bunker to hide in until dark.

not a bad idea. perhaps they only fight at night, much like trying to
fight / survive in the desert. that or very heavy rotation of personnel.

>	Remember that one of the most talked about problems with getting
a manned
> (peopled to be PC) mission to Mars is radiation during the trip
> particularly during sun flare activity.

i assume that if man is roaming the stars on a daily basis, this problem
has largely been solved.

Tom