Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What future space combat would really look like

forums.spacebattles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 235 posts

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#71

Post by JDulin »

A fascinating read and good outline for what space battles require, but not a predication of what future space combat will look like. By limiting the discussion to only technology that we could build today, the exact scenarios in here will never play out.

Large scale space combat will play out only when humans can build these weapons cheaply, and have an incentive to build them at all. That is decades from now. By the time a human society decides to construct the ridiculously expensive space warships and defenses the author talks about, we will have much more advanced technology (that is probably a lot cheaper to.)

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#72

Post by zeteo »

quanticle wrote: post #66
zeteo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy required to accelerate a big object to even half the speed of light is prohibitive. Even if the process was feasible, it would be a vast cosmic event bound to emit some radiation, which would still arrive much sooner than the object itself.

Well you don't have to accelerate it all at once. Remember, this is space war, and we're playing for keeps. Spending a millennium to accelerate a rock up to .5c might be worth the trouble.

If you take longer to accelerate it, that just increases the probability of detection by other means. It still doesn't change the argument that it should be much cheaper for the defender to detect and deflect your projectile than it was for you to launch it in the first place. Not to mention that an unmapped interstellar gas cloud, or an undetectable asteroid, is all it takes to deflect the projectile a few millionths of an arcsecond and make it miss its target.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#73

Post by dhs »

quanticle wrote: post #7

This essay isn't all that realistic. I found this one [1] to have a far more realistic view of what space war would look like. Tl;dr: it's much cheaper and much more effective to lob comets at your enemy's homeworld than it is to fight with ships. [1] http://www.gwern.net/Colder%20Wars

The "bugs" in Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers" make ample use of this idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7-PQIuWwLo

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#74

Post by rbanffy »

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #67

What if you launch a surprise attack by launching a missile at relativistic speeds?

Unless you are talking about yet to be invented explosives, at relativistic speeds you may as well launch a rock. The explosive power of your warhead will probably be irrelevant when compared to the kinetic energy of the projectile.

But, fairly enough, launching anything at relativistic speeds requires yet to be invented propulsion systems that will require energies much larger than any explosive we know today.

For maximum efficiency, you could launch a lump of antimatter at relativistic speeds. That should take care of the details.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#75

Post by zeteo »

rbanffy wrote: post #53
zeteo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would space war ships be manned when we're already flying unmanned vehicles on earth Because the longest distance on Earth is only about 0.07 light-seconds.

And why do you think they would be remote controlled? If you put a smart enough brain inside it, you could just upload a copy of the crew (assuming you can digitize and run human minds, of course, something that seems easier than interstellar travel). This way, the ship would not be limited by its crew. The crews responses would also only be limited by available processing speed. And, instead of lifeboats, you could…

"Unmanned" can mean many things, but considering the OP's quote "when we're already flying unmanned vehicles on earth", he clearly meant remote control.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#77

Post by modeless »

icefox wrote: post #68
amalcon wrote: post #63

There are three fundamental problems I see here: 1) Why put humans on warships at all? Algorithms are probably better at it. Computers would obviously do the heavy lifting anyway (calculating burn times). An algorithm knows no fear, shows no mercy, and does not flee or surrender unless programmed to do so. The only thing left is target selection, and it doesn't seem worth bringing a human along just for that. 2) If y…

On the same idea of not having humans I have been wondering when when we will see a war type video game where you play drones be it land air or sea rather than soldiers on the ground or flying a plane. The cost of sending humans is so high just around our little planet that I can't see how anyone would want to inject humans into any space attacking where the costs as mentioned in the article are so much higher.

RTS games have the player directing an army of autonomous AI-controlled drones. In a game like Supreme Commander they don't even pretend to be people.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#78

Post by zeteo »

amalcon wrote: post #63

There are three fundamental problems I see here: 1) Why put humans on warships at all? Algorithms are probably better at it. Computers would obviously do the heavy lifting anyway (calculating burn times). An algorithm knows no fear, shows no mercy, and does not flee or surrender unless programmed to do so. The only thing left is target selection, and it doesn't seem worth bringing a human along just for that. 2) If y…

> Why put humans on warships at all?

The whole idea of the article is to explore what's possible with current technology, and general-purpose AI is not part of that. Guided missiles are routinely defeated by counter-measures even when the flight only takes minutes.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#79

Post by amalcon »

zeteo wrote: post #78
amalcon wrote: post #63

There are three fundamental problems I see here: 1) Why put humans on warships at all? Algorithms are probably better at it. Computers would obviously do the heavy lifting anyway (calculating burn times). An algorithm knows no fear, shows no mercy, and does not flee or surrender unless programmed to do so. The only thing left is target selection, and it doesn't seem worth bringing a human along just for that. 2) If y…

> Why put humans on warships at all? The whole idea of the article is to explore what's possible with current technology, and general-purpose AI is not part of that. Guided missiles are routinely defeated by counter-measures even when the flight only takes minutes.

How would having humans a few light-seconds away from the missiles be able to help with that?

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#80

Post by maeon3 »

Information and stealth are the biggest assets in space war so maybe that is why we dont see aliens chit chatting all over.  A species wins a war by making the enemy think it has won, while hiding out at a new home base to build up weapons.I see earth as an extension and continuation of that war.  We don't know where our allies are, So that when they discover our position and interrogate us they won't find the rest of the hive.  the winners of war will be the species that hides the best.
Post reply on HN