91–100 of 235 posts
It was definitely an interesting read, however, I feel that fundamentally, for humans to reach the point where space combat is even feasible we will have solved so many more important problems that there won't be a need for fighting in the cosmos. Earth, in general, is at peace. We are largely struggling against terrorism, radical groups, and internal genocide rather than full scale, nation-on-nation wars. No two dem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can that be? Space is big, we cannot even properly comprehend how big it is. I'm talking just in our immediate vicinity. If I took, say, three of the world's largest ships, put them together to form one ship and then placed it in a random spot somewhere within the orbit of Pluto; how long would it take you to find it? Keep in mind I'm not talking within the orbital plane, I'm saying within the sphere of the solar…
Well yes, there are quite a few telescopes that constantly scan the sky for tiny changes. And it's not just the size of the ship, but the burning fuel from its engines as it navigates near our solar system.
Ships CAN be bright, we have the tech now to make them dark.
True, burning fuel is a big problem. Especially if they were traveling rather fast towards us and they flipped over to reverse thrust to slow down. But what if you don't burn fuel as a means of propulsion?
I'm going with the assumption if that if someone wished to do something bad, say invading a neighboring solar system, they would take precautions in being detected.
Still only part way through and though I don't entirely agree with all the conclusions the thought experiment is proving to be fun. This however is my favourite point so far as I had never really thought about it this way when watching popularized SciFi. Another thing about motion in space is that changing your ship’s orientation does nothing to your speed and vector unless it is accompanied by firing your main engin…
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.
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 o…
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 mo…
Plus I'm willing to bet you could obliterate the surface of the planet using kinetic weapons and still have plenty of resources left over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can that be? Space is big, we cannot even properly comprehend how big it is. I'm talking just in our immediate vicinity. If I took, say, three of the world's largest ships, put them together to form one ship and then placed it in a random spot somewhere within the orbit of Pluto; how long would it take you to find it? Keep in mind I'm not talking within the orbital plane, I'm saying within the sphere of the solar…
It's two things basically: -You can do a full survey in about 5 hours with one telescope these days. -Ships are very bright, don't look anything like stars and CCDs are very sensitive. http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php has a good break down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Also because the guidance-in-atmosphere problem is much more difficult than the guidance-outside-atmosphere problem.
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.
This isn't really an "engagement" as we think of it now, it's more of just a fire-and-pray scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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")
Perhaps I'm reading your posts wrong, but it seems a fairly conservative prediction to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
Oh, come on. Tank and plane crews are also "sitting in a glorified tin can", but that didn't preclude, say, WW2 from being vastly more strategic than any preceding conflicts. The crew still has to decide where and how the vehicle moves, what targets to fire at, with which weapons, which field repairs can and should be done etc. etc. etc.
That was because military doctrine had adapted to the invention of radio at that point. That would actually go away at the kind of distances we're talking about. Thirty-second communication lag is enough to ruin the command battlefield view.
Almost all of those things were actually decided by the officers commanding the tank / plane battalions, not the crews of the tanks themselves. Those officers had unprecedented battlefield knowledge. None of this would be true of spaceships.
That's not even considering that spaceships operating at interplanetary speeds have far smaller effective maneuvering envelopes than any WW2 vehicle. Even the clumsiest terrestrial vehicle can turn around and leave. A realistic spaceship cannot, unless it had planned for it in advance.