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

181–190 of 235 posts

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#181

Post by romey »

ohyes wrote: post #176
baddox wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you always supposing that ships would be firing at valuable planets, then debunking that? Just extend the idea of a nation's airspace to a planet's "spacespace." Establishing space supremacy around a planet would obviously be a useful military tactic. You can stop extraplanetary supplies and commerce (think the blockade from Star Wars) and eventually take over a valuable planet by starving them out (assuming…

Well, let's say I want to gather minerals from an asteroid. My primary defense would probably be to paste a big honking weapon on the asteroid and shoot anyone who wants to take over my valuable mining facility. If I put my defenses on something next to my planet, I'm an idiot. If he destroys my defenses, I want him to also have a high chance of destroying whatever he's attacking me for. So I build a big weapon as we…

Two things: First, I don't think that huge kinetic weapons would be the ideal choice for this kind of combat. If I'm attacking an asteroid with a huge ass gun on it, I'd first like to have some type of EMP type weapon developed to simply shut down the tracking/aiming/power supply of the asteroid's defenses. Just the threat of an attack like that from orbit would probably be enough, as it would likely shut down life support on the rock as well.

Secondly, assuming that such a weapon isn't developed, depending on what you're mining, it seems likely enough that it won't matter what shape the asteroid is in. For mining solid materials, it would probably be best just to blow these asteroids into manageable pieces and send the whole lot through your enormous space processing plants for extraction and refinement. In this case, you'd need space fleets to protect your "planet crackers" and to protect your processing vessels from other companies, pirates, etc.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#182

Post by losethos »

legions of angels.

When God goes to war, He drops big bangs.

God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WEALTH.TXT

shelter in it.

It does not seem necessary that the expense of those public works should be defrayed from that public revenue, as it is commonly called, of which the collection and application are in most countries, assigned to the executive power. The greater part of such public works may easily be so managed, as to afford a particular revenue, sufficient for defraying their own expense without bringing any burden upon the general revenue of the society.

A highway, a bridge, a navigable canal

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#183

Post by saulrh »

electromagnetic wrote: post #162

The OPs problem here is that in the attempt to change the analogy from naval combat to aerial warfare is that he fails to grasp the medium again. Space is big, space is empty. FTA this means everything is easily trackable, not only are thrusters visible from across the solar system (except perhaps if you're headed directly for someone, but the thrust required there would be insane), but even every object in the solar…

Mines are just as detectable as anything else. Problem: how does your mine know when to go off? If it has sensors, it has electronics; if it has electronics, those electronics are running at something above 3 Kelvin; if you're running anywhere above 3 Kelvin, you can be seen against the cosmic background.

Also, asteroids are incredibly vulnerable, because they can't move. You don't even need to get into range; just boost up another rock and nudge it into a collision trajectory.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#184

Post by transphenomenal »

ew wrote: post #175
sliverstorm wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argue this over in your head a lot, but it's really quite simple in my mind. If we assume space travel becomes relatively easy (that is to say it is used for more than initial colonization) there will be interstellar commerce. If there is unprotected commerce, there will be pirates. Any time there are pirates, protection will develop. Let us call these peace-keepers the Navy. If you engage in commerce and you…

Unless we can effectively teleport, there won't be any interstellar commerce. Everything is too far away. Interplanetary, maybe, but within our solar system.

There was commerce between the Romans and ancient china that took around 10 years one way. I don't remember what was being traded, except for the silk from china, but it shows that distance and time are not absolute limiters for trading.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#185

Post by [deleted] »

weavejester wrote: post #137
sliverstorm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until you can fabricate matter in your MrFusion6000, material resources in some form or another will continue to be valuable. Once you CAN fabricate, Einstein tells us you will need a TON of energy to do so. So, even if that day comes, you will still need to acquire energy.

Sure, but even today, raw material resources tend not to be the sort of things criminals target directly. You rarely get thieves trying to steal lumber, or iron ore, for example, because they have a low price-to-weight ratio.

[deleted]

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#186

Post by archgoon »

weavejester wrote: post #137
sliverstorm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until you can fabricate matter in your MrFusion6000, material resources in some form or another will continue to be valuable. Once you CAN fabricate, Einstein tells us you will need a TON of energy to do so. So, even if that day comes, you will still need to acquire energy.

Sure, but even today, raw material resources tend not to be the sort of things criminals target directly. You rarely get thieves trying to steal lumber, or iron ore, for example, because they have a low price-to-weight ratio.

I think you need to pay more attention.

Lumber: http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-CRIME-c-2011-12-05-19041...

Iron: http://allafrica.com/stories/201112210073.html

Steel: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11280/1180364-455.stm

Copper: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/16/idUSLG73912 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/sheffield-cop... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-06/copper-theft/2873346

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#187

Post by JDulin »

sliverstorm wrote: post #129
ohyes wrote: post #88

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…

You can argue this over in your head a lot, but it's really quite simple in my mind. If we assume space travel becomes relatively easy (that is to say it is used for more than initial colonization) there will be interstellar commerce. If there is unprotected commerce, there will be pirates. Any time there are pirates, protection will develop. Let us call these peace-keepers the Navy. If you engage in commerce and you…

I think your argument is aiming at the right target, but is using the wrong ammo.

The essay outlines why piracy is not possible (or at least practical) for space commerce. However, it is very plausible that nations will fight over shipping routes and try to destroy each other's freighters and merchant ships. Like you said "Anywhere you have commerce, you are liable to develop conflict." This will be true, but probably only between political states.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#188

Post by JonnieCache »

nl wrote: post #174
electromagnetic wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Piracy denotes the theft of goods or money. When you can print goods, money is worthless. Your soul resources become matter and energy, and most matter is easy to come by. Piracy would likely extend solely to the theft of energy resources. Similarly, so would war but on a bigger scale. Piracy of goods would only extend to things not easily replicable by the present technology, or not easily replicable on many…

most matter is easy to come by Endless wars over oil, rare earth metals in Africa and the ever increasing price of iron ore would tend to indicate you might be wrong about that. Just because a single 3D printer won't use much won't magically make resource constraints disappear.

I guess he's imagining some cheap way to rearrange subatomic particles.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#189

Post by Qz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #93
51Cards wrote: post #36

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…

AFAIR they did that maneuver on Battlestar Galactica a few times. But still, it's a good point.

Babylon 5 did this a lot as well.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#190

Post by vidarh »

ohyes wrote: post #177
stcredzero wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably wouldn't see many fights where you are firing at the resource itself. No, but if you can control travel to and from the resource, then you can park your forces there, and say, shut off the population's air supply. Better yet, threaten to do so, unless they all get onboard a shuttle. A far more likely scenario would be to simply drive your competitor out of business. If they keep getting sabotaged, it bec…

No, but if you can control travel to and from the resource, then you can park your forces there, and say, shut off the population's air supply. Better yet, threaten to do so, unless they all get onboard a shuttle. Sure, but the important part is perfect visibility. You and your opponent know exactly where each other are at all times. If you blockade, you will be a sitting duck for surface to ship weapons. You have to…

If you are to try a blockade, I'd have to assume you'll bring enough matte with you to start dropping relatively heavy chunks of matter onto anything you see missiles being launched from.
Post reply on HN