[aw1621107]

> Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be

I mean, you did say:

> space battleship - one that never comes down to the surface, just sits in orbit.

So I think it's understandable for people to take that at face value.

Furthermore, if it isn't in orbit, then where would it be?

> and a lot more of tug-boating it into the exact right spot, in the way of earth, so that earth hits the asteroid - not anything complicated like the asteroid hitting earth.

From an orbital mechanics standpoint I don't think there's actually a difference. You're changing an orbit either way.

[Ajakks]

If I were holding earth hostage with my Space Battleship - I would sit in a lunar orbit. Also, I am not kidding about tug-boating - if I fly up, match an asteroids speed and velocity, why cant I just throw a tow strap on that, accelerate, and park it an area that only has to be accurate enough for a planet to hit it - I dont need to stop it, or have it flying at the earth, it only needs to be in the way, moving a little slower than the earth.

What if I make that the space battleship's job? What if a drone can do that?

Im not really worried about resupplying the space battleship holding earth hostage -> someone will "volunteer" to do that, bc they want to live life.

[aw1621107]

> I would sit in a lunar orbit

Ah, so by "orbit" you were talking about orbit around Earth specifically?

> why cant I just throw a tow strap on that, accelerate, and park it an area that only has to be accurate enough for a planet to hit it - I dont need to stop it, or have it flying at the earth, it only needs to be in the way, moving a little slower than the earth.

Again, from a high-level orbital mechanics perspective there is little difference between the two. You start with two non-intersecting orbits and you're changing one orbit to intersect the other at the same time and place. How you go about doing so is just a question of how much time/fuel you're willing to expend, for various values of "just".

That being said, assuming I'm interpreting you correctly what you propose is probably technically possible (e.g., change an asteroid's orbit to a slightly-larger-than-Earth-sized one), but it's also very fuel-intensive compared to skipping the "parking"/"in the way" part.

If you haven't tried it already I can't recommend Kerbal Space Program enough for experimenting with this kind of thing, especially if you are alright with playing with mods. Real Solar System (changes the in-game solar system to match the our real-life one) and Principia (replaces the simplified patched conics system KSP uses for orbits with n-body gravity) would be particularly relevant here.

[Ajakks]

I absolutely will check out Kerbal - I have done nothing more than thought experiments - which I'm sure is obvious, its obvious to me. I'm sure I am saying things exactly wrong - the idea is to save fuel and remove all of the difficulties that may arise with timing or aiming. Using more fuel is exactly opposite intent.

I may be confused but I dont mean a "larger orbit than the earth" -> I mean the exact identical orbit, the exact path that earth takes around the sun -> ahead (or behind, it does not matter) of where we are and instead of 365 days to circle the sun, the asteroid is moving at a rate that will take MORE days -> so the earth will smash into the asteroid, bc it can't do anything else. I dont mean "park" in the sense that I stop its movement, nor would I select an asteroid that has such an orbit that it couldn't be manipulated into position with little difficulty.

Like, imagine the solar system was a record on record player (I've never used one either) and the earth is on a line/groove - a choice asteroid is moving in the same direction on an immediately adjacent line/groove - the asteroid only needs to move onto the earth's groove (anywhere on that specific groove the earth occupies on the record works) and then the asteroid is then sped up or slowed down (not much tho) on that exact orbit -> either will result in a collision with earth.

The only real way to stop such activities is with spaceships. That is my entire argument - you are saying that is less feasible than making a missle out of an asteroid? I appreciate the explanation fr

Tbh, it wasn't until the game Terra Invicta that I really considered the solar system, as it actually is. That game has no other relevance to this particular conversation - good game, very different kind of 4x that I recommend but unrelated.

[aw1621107]

> I mean the exact identical orbit, the exact path that earth takes around the sun -> ahead (or behind, it does not matter) of where we are and instead of 365 days to circle the sun, the asteroid is moving at a rate that will take MORE days

Unfortunately that's not really possible. To a first approximation, Earth's orbit is a circle with the Sun at its center, and the size of that circle is determined entirely by Earth's orbital speed around the Sun. Assuming you're also in a circular orbit, if you move at Earth's speed, the size of your orbit will be the same as that of Earth's. If you move faster or slower, your orbit will be smaller or larger, respectively, unless you wish to continuously burn fuel to maintain your distance from the Sun. That's why I said the asteroid's orbit must be slightly larger than that of Earth's for an Earth-catches-up-to-asteroid-in-similar-orbit scenario.

Obviously things get more complicated once you consider non-circular orbits, but the end result is similar - you can't continuously hang out in Earth's path while moving slower than the Earth around the Sun without burning a stupendous amount of fuel.

> you are saying that is less feasible than making a missle out of an asteroid? I appreciate the explanation fr

I think it's more that I think that "making a missile" is likely to require less fuel since you only need to adjust the asteroid's orbit ~once (only need to get it on a collision course) instead of ~twice (get the asteroid on a near-collision course, then adjust it again for the "right" kind of collision).

[Ajakks]

I cant reply to your other comment - that is what I assumed you were saying but it does not make sense to me outside the process that naturally occurs - I'm assuming the suns gravity simply cant move objects of such different mass, at the same rate, and thereby the orbit and position changes accordingly?

The speed doesn't have to be much different - 366 days and earth will eventually hit asteroid - 364 days and it will eventually hit the earth.

Ahh, Im still having a hard time figuring out why that would take more energy - I'm going to be researching this all morning tomorrow.

Thanks for the help!

[aw1621107]

> I'm assuming the suns gravity simply cant move objects of such different mass, at the same rate, and thereby the orbit and position changes accordingly?

Kind of? An object moving in a circular motion at a constant speed must have an acceleration towards the center of the circle of (velocity^2)/(radius). This means that two objects in the same circular orbit moving at different speeds must be experiencing different accelerations towards the center of the circle.

In the simplified case of orbits around the Sun, that acceleration towards the center of the orbit is due to the Sun's gravity. However, gravity accelerates everything at a given distance at the same rate. As a result, you can't have two objects solely influenced by the Sun's gravity that orbit around the Sun with the same orbital shape but moving at different speeds. You'd need something in addition to the Sun's gravity to pull that off.

> The speed doesn't have to be much different - 366 days and earth will eventually hit asteroid - 364 days and it will eventually hit the earth.

Sure. When I said slightly-larger-than-Earth-sized orbit, I really meant it. Kepler's third law of planetary motion states (approximately) that (orbital period)^2 is proportional to (radius)^3. Assuming I did my math correctly, if your orbital period goes from 365 to 366 days your orbital radius gets ~0.18% larger, which is roughly 274000 km increase over the radius of Earth's orbit. That would fit inside the Moon's orbit (~385000 km from the Earth)!

> Ahh, Im still having a hard time figuring out why that would take more energy

At least the way I was thinking, the short answer is that one alteration to an orbit is likely to be cheaper than two, especially if you aren't particularly concerned in what manner the asteroid eventually collides with Earth.