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

81–90 of 235 posts

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#81

Post by philwelch »

rbanffy wrote: post #64
philwelch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete economic isolation from the earth seems very unlikely, at the very least because it wouldn't actually benefit anyone.

If the outer solar system dwellers become self-sufficient, they would have no need to go down the gravity well of the Sun to have commerce with earthlings. The further out those colonies are, the lesser their contact with Earth will be. If they live off the Oort cloud, the would be about one light year away from Earth and it's very hard to imagine a shared culture with such a communication lag.

Why, exactly, would people dwell in the Oort cloud? The idea of having an isolated, self-sufficient colony in the Oort cloud seems like an even poorer version of North Korea, except you'd have to ship all the people out there.

There's no good analogy with colonialism on Earth, because most of that involved getting very very rich by trading with the mother country, and if there's anything to be won, economically, from the moon or the astroid belt or even the Oort cloud, it'll be from Earth trade. As far out as the Oort cloud, you'd be better off sending robots than human colonists for the very same reasons you point out.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#82

Post by bitwize »

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

It seems you and Heinlein are of like mind; remember Mycroft's conclusion in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that the best way to fight the Earthen forces was to "throw rocks at them"?

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#83

Post by zeteo »

amalcon wrote: post #79
zeteo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Eh? My point was that humans on board can improvise (remember Apollo 13) and carry out their objectives even in the presence of a forewarned and intelligent opponent.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#84

Post by sp332 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #59
sp332 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think melting is that big a deal. It's still the same amount of mass, only now it's molten steel instead of steel rods.

It'll start breaking into little blobs, though, which will have less and less power.

It doesn't matter. As long as each "blob" is heavy enough to resist deflection by the wind, the same total mass will impact at about the same speed. The only downside I can see is that the blobs might hit at slightly different times, which would reduce the instantaneous force on the target. But I think it would transfer the same total energy.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#85

Post by srl »

zeteo wrote: post #83
amalcon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Eh? My point was that humans on board can improvise (remember Apollo 13) and carry out their objectives even in the presence of a forewarned and intelligent opponent.

The real reason, of course, is that war is just so much cooler when people are dying. Sources: G. Carlin.

Honestly, though, I fully expect AI to advance sufficiently in the next 20 years that a 10s delay is sufficiently small, and the AI can handle anything likely to occur in under 20s on its own.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#86

Post by zeteo »

srl wrote: post #85
zeteo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh? My point was that humans on board can improvise (remember Apollo 13) and carry out their objectives even in the presence of a forewarned and intelligent opponent.

The real reason, of course, is that war is just so much cooler when people are dying. Sources: G. Carlin. Honestly, though, I fully expect AI to advance sufficiently in the next 20 years that a 10s delay is sufficiently small, and the AI can handle anything likely to occur in under 20s on its own.

>I fully expect AI to advance sufficiently in the next 20 years

Yes, people have been expecting AI to become human-like within 20 years for the past 6 decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intellige...

("Researchers expressed an intense optimism in private and in print, predicting that a fully intelligent machine would be built in less than 20 years")

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#87

Post by stcredzero »

Against space piracy:

First, it requires that FTL ships be cheap enough that criminals can acquire them. This is another area in which the analogy between the age of sail and the space age breaks down. Sailing ships were skill-intensive but materially cheap. You had to have people with the right skills, but once you did all you needed was wood, rope, and cloth. But spacecraft are going to follow a post-industrial revolution paradigm of being materially expensive as well as skill-intensive. They are likely to require sophisticated, precision-manufactured components and expensive fuels like helium 3, fissionables, or antimatter. Imagine Captain Jack Sparrow commanding a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and you’ll get an idea of the kind of difference we’re talking about.

If technological trends continue, the degree of technology available to the average citizen and the average criminal will continue to increase. As an individual, I have access to more media distribution than Queen Elizabeth could even imagine. As an individual, I can build a device like a CNC machine or a 3D printer from off the shelf parts.

Skillfully crafted wood, rope, and cloth would seem like miracle items to someone from the stone age. A CNC laser cutter would represent miraculous technological savvy and princely embodied wealth to someone from the 1400's. The equivalent to an Orion ship might well be within the rech of rogue elements of the late 21st century.

That said, space piracy probably won't happen, or at least won't resemble piracy from old movies in the least, but the technology being out of reach won't be the reason why.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#88

Post by ohyes »

Space combat seems pointless to me.

What exactly would they be fighting over?

Presumably you want to reach space for resources, so asteroids, planets and moons with minerals, stuff like that. You might also want planets/asteroids/moons that are 'good' for colonization (easily terra formed or already life sustaining).

You probably wouldn't see many fights where you are firing at the resource itself. No one with the money to fire at earth, will actually fire at earth, because it is more valuable as an inhabitable planet. If each side can obliterate whatever is being fought over, you basically have an instant MAD scenario.

Similar with moons/asteroids. I'm not going to fire a massive kinetic weapon at a moon or asteroid (and blow it to pieces) if my objective is obtain that object to profit from it. More likely I'll pay people very well to infiltrate and sabotage it, repeatedly. I wouldn't even bother trying to invade.

Why not an invasion force? Well, you could send an invasion force, but that would be fairly pointless. It is easy to defend an entrenched position that your enemy does not want to shoot at (sabotaging just the defenses might be too obvious, and i think would have too high a possibility of failure). On top of this they can use massive force to repel you, and you cannot (you don't want to obliterate your objective). So an invasion fleet is probably not likely.

A far more likely scenario would be to simply drive your competitor out of business. If they keep getting sabotaged, it becomes unprofitable for them to operate (it becomes a 'cursed' outpost, wages go up, you have to make repairs). Then you can easily take their stuff (or buy it on the cheap when they are going out of business).

This gets you into interesting things, you would end up with extensive background and history checks, genetic tests to prove that you really are who you say you are, mental/psychological screening, mind-reading, brainwashing, complex hacking of the computers that do background checks, genetic 'doping' to make a person pass as someone else, brainwashing.

Your competitors will also likely try to assassinate you if they every figure out that you are the one ordering the destruction of their outposts (it should be easy to figure out, as there will be few entities with resources to profit from this).

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#89

Post by amalcon »

zeteo wrote: post #83
amalcon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Eh? My point was that humans on board can improvise (remember Apollo 13) and carry out their objectives even in the presence of a forewarned and intelligent opponent.

Ah, I see. Here's the thing: when you're sitting in a glorified tin can far from any resources or support, you don't have a whole lot of options. The great triumph of Apollo 13 was simply not dying. It was a great triumph, but it's not like they completed the mission of landing on the moon in the face of multiple mechanical failures.

What, exactly, would a warship do after realizing that the plan had failed? Their options are basically: run, surrender, die. Running is not even an option given current technology. It's not like they can ditch the ship and land somewhere. It's not like they can hide or fake destruction. They are sitting in a glorified tin can, which is (as stipulated) unable to follow the parameters of the mission. About all they could do is select a different target.

If you want the capability to improvise, the best (and really only) option is the saboteur. I suspect saboteurs would play a substantial role in interstellar warfare for that reason.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#90

Post by gospelwut »

amalcon wrote: post #79
zeteo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Why do we use drones piloted by humans?

I think given the sophistication of modern financial algorithm and counter-algorithms, it's easy to see why humans will always be necessary to wage war even if they're not on the ship. Perhaps, yes, aircraft carriers will be reduced to remote proxy bases for drones and missiles, but I imagine humans will always be at the helm even if the helm is miles away.

Post reply on HN