Planetary landers

[PeZook]

TBH the problem with hitting a base on the far side of the moon is, well, finding it in the first place. Let's say the evil aliens are starting to set up shop: we know they're doing SOMETHING, but they shot down the LRO (trivial), so we don't actually know where, exactly, it is that they're doing it. We'd need to find out somehow, and they control lunar orbit (plus, jamming our probes just wouldn't be very difficult, plus they can lob some missiles at our tracking networks before they even start).

[MrDakka]

TBH the problem with hitting a base on the far side of the moon is, well, finding it in the first place.

You don't need to aim if you just blow up the entire moon, just chuck all of humanity's nuclear arsenal at the big round thing in the night sky; that's bound to do something:D

[Batman]

Yeah. It's going to make the moon slightly less inhabitable than it already is anyway and waste Earth's entire nuclear arsenal for little to no effect and that's assuming we can even hit the dark side of the moon. All those nice area effect...effects you get with nukes on Earth simply aren't there without an atmosphere. I also think you seriously overestimate the size of humanity's nuclear arsenal.

[Simon_Jester]

Congratulations, you've made a few thousand one-mile craters in a 2000-mile moon!

Hint: 2000 one-mile craters do not equal one 2000-mile crater; areas of circles don't work that way.

[chornedsnorkack]

I suppose this comes from my assumption that the reason we need a there-and-back lander is to conquer the planet and establish a base there. Hitting it with a rock redirected from the outer solar system should be easy for an interstellar traveler, and since they've been waiting at least decades as it is,

Which is why they would not travel in the first place unless they first have a practical way of travelling faster than light.

[someone_else]

Yeah, but hiding behind a rock work both ways. The first time they get their asses out of the moon's shadow they will trigger a massive launch of whatever the first world nations thought was appropriate. (I'd throw neutron nukes)
So unless they really have a fuckton of ordnance, they won't pass. It's "smallish alien invasion force on a crappy moon" VS "Earth with the US that has finally found an excuse to build and deploy fucktons of expensive weapons like back in the Cold War" I mean let's not underestimate that.

Besides, they won't know what is going on on Earth just because of the same reason, whatever gets out from the shadow gets blasted.

So yeah, they are in a safe relatively impregnable base, now what? Do they start fucking like rodents and build missiles for the next 2-3 decades hoping to outnumber us?
That's a stalemate, and we don't give a fuck about them keeping us under siege.

Also let's not forget that the dark side of the moon is already crawling with Decepticons and Space Nazi, which will cause enough problems already.

[MrDakka]

Yeah. It's going to make the moon slightly less inhabitable than it already is anyway and waste Earth's entire nuclear arsenal for little to no effect and that's assuming we can even hit the dark side of the moon. All those nice area effect...effects you get with nukes on Earth simply aren't there without an atmosphere. I also think you seriously overestimate the size of humanity's nuclear arsenal.

I was joking Batman, but then again you hate jokes
But yes, conventional nukes with surface detonations aren't exactly practical against these hypothetical aliens. There are roughly 17,300 nuclear warheads in the world according to FAS: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/n ... tatus.html

I'd throw neutron nukes

I'll roll with nuke pumped lasers

[Ultonius]

That works for a lander (see below), but not so well for hypersonic aircraft in atmosphere. Under those conditions you might be able to aim a laser, but the turbulence and superheated air right around the craft is a serious problem for the kind of precision you need for antimissile work. It's also hard to stick the laser on the hypersonic aircraft in a way that won't cause drag problems, but that's a probably-solvable problem.

Would adaptive optics be of any use in compensating for the turbulence and superheating? They would probably be needed anyway for adjusting the laser's focus for different ranges. The drag problem could be solved by placing the rotating turret behind a transparent, streamlined outer shell, though the streamlining could restrict firing angles.
If lasers are ineffective, would missiles be the best option for defence as well as attack?

[Me2005]

I suppose this comes from my assumption that the reason we need a there-and-back lander is to conquer the planet and establish a base there. Hitting it with a rock redirected from the outer solar system should be easy for an interstellar traveler, and since they've been waiting at least decades as it is,

Which is why they would not travel in the first place unless they first have a practical way of travelling faster than light.

Again my assumptions appear to be incorrect, here I was assuming they needed a realistic lander because they had similar tech to what we do; or at least stuff understood by physics to be possible - what kind of FTL do they have? Presumably the "Warp factor 5" or the "We've jumped into the outer system" type, otherwise they might not need the lander.

Also let's not forget that the dark side of the moon is already crawling with Decepticons and Space Nazi, which will cause enough problems already.

More reasons to just glass the whole thing and be done with it.

[Simon_Jester]

Which is why they would not travel in the first place unless they first have a practical way of travelling faster than light.

That is not a self-evident truth. Prove it, or consider cases where they might NOT do it the way you describe.