What future space combat would really look like • Hacker News Board

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#211

Post by weavejester » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 6:38 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #160

brazzy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read TFA, it argues pretty convincingly that there will not be pirates because A) you can't hide in space and B) Any ship is a WMD, so governments will do anything to keep them out of the hands of criminals, and protection rackets would be a far more profitable use for them than raiding commerce.

You could apply the same arguments to why wooden naval combat shouldn't have happened. You'd think there is nowhere to hide on the ocean- but there is the horizon to hide behind (planets anyone?) and weather (electrical or magnetic storms?) to hinder visibility.

All you need is a few hundred monitoring stations scattered throughout the solar system and you'd have 100% visibility.

There's no phenomenon in space equivalent to planet-side weather that would regularly obscure or inhibit any monitoring system stationed in space.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#212

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 7:34 PM UTC

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.

When commanding the high energy technology necessary to transmute elements in useful quantities becomes widespread, then all resource contention is going to be about energy. Those with access to more energy will be more powerful. People will covet the bottoms of steep gravity wells and proximity to suns and black holes.

Others will value their freedom more and try to get by with less, and will avoid such political and literal hot spots. The vastness of space will be their most valuable resource. They may well be the final nomads and the last vestiges of humanity.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#213

Post by weavejester » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 7:36 PM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #202

brazzy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read TFA, it argues pretty convincingly that there will not be pirates because A) you can't hide in space and B) Any ship is a WMD, so governments will do anything to keep them out of the hands of criminals, and protection rackets would be a far more profitable use for them than raiding commerce.

Pirates are generally noted as coming after privateers. Privateers had plenty of places to hide. Notably privateers with letters of marque against Spanish shipping had British, French and Dutch ports to hide in. Piracy developed when the pirates could appear easily as privateers. If you didn't piss of your host nation, then you were free to loot the ships you wanted. Then pirates gained enough money and power that th…

I'm not sure you've understood the poster's arguments.

The worst a pirate captain could do with a single ship in the 1700s was to sink a few merchant ships.

The worst a pirate captain could do with a spaceship is to destroy an entire continent.

In the 1700s, a pirate captain could hide his ship from government navies, and take merchant ships by surprise.

The location of a spaceship is public knowledge; it cannot take anyone by surprise, and the authorities know exactly where it is.

You can see how there might be a little bit of a difference? There's a considerable incentive for any planet-side government to make sure pirate spaceships don't exist, and there's nowhere the pirate can hide.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#214

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 7:41 PM UTC

This whole thing about "stealth will be impossible, because everyone will have dispersed observation platforms," seems very handwavy to me. If detection is so easy across vast distances, then ultimately observation platforms shouldn't be able to survive unless they have stealth. Otherwise, no matter how cheap you can make your observation platform, you can make something else that will destroy it for much less.

I imagine space warfare to be a complex "cold war" of vast distances, with robot missile and detection ships tightly beaming waste heat and information in carefully chosen directions. There will be complex games of deception and counter-deception. It will be a matter of tricking the enemy into critical errors about what you know and don't know about the disposition of their forces.

The situation where everybody is using torchships, and everybody knows where everybody is at all times is similar to the Surface to Air Missile dominated era of aerial warfare of the 70's. There will be tremendous incentives to someone to develop workable stealth of some form.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#215

Post by MatthewPhillips » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 7:48 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #214

This whole thing about "stealth will be impossible, because everyone will have dispersed observation platforms," seems very handwavy to me. If detection is so easy across vast distances, then ultimately observation platforms shouldn't be able to survive unless they have stealth . Otherwise, no matter how cheap you can make your observation platform, you can make something else that will destroy it for much less. I im…

A destroyed observation platform is just as useful for defense as a working one :) I'll replace my cheap observation platforms after I've disposed of the threat that just gave itself away.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#216

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 7:50 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #190

ohyes wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are to try a blockade...

I'd accomplish a blockade this way:

Send a squadron of cheap robot ships that are painted in EM-absorbing materials, operate at cryogenic temperatures, communicate only on tight-beam lasers, and beam all of their minuscule waste heat in one direction. These ships would make a final course correction by ejecting cold mass, and take up station near the resource. When an enemy transport comes nearby, I'd send a command to activate one of my robot ships and have it launch a missile. Heck, since at that point it would be disposable, I'd have it spin-up to high-temp torchship mode and have it be the missile.

The enemy won't know how many of these things I have. However, the real purpose would be to get them to react and maneuver resources in place to detect my hidden ships, so that I could detect the energies of those maneuvers to set up the real attack.

Stealth won't be important, my ass!

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#217

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 7:53 PM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #215

stcredzero wrote: post #214

This whole thing about "stealth will be impossible, because everyone will have dispersed observation platforms," seems very handwavy to me. If detection is so easy across vast distances, then ultimately observation platforms shouldn't be able to survive unless they have stealth . Otherwise, no matter how cheap you can make your observation platform, you can make something else that will destroy it for much less. I im…

A destroyed observation platform is just as useful for defense as a working one :) I'll replace my cheap observation platforms after I've disposed of the threat that just gave itself away.

It will be a losing battle if the resource that destroyed your platform is cheaper than your platform. And while your're "disposing of the threat that just gave it self away," you're actually falling into my trap, for I've only sent that drone to get you to maneuver and give your other forces away, so my other disposable stealth drones can spin-up to high-energy missile mode and blow them up as well.

See, you can't just handwave stealth in space away. If you think you can, you just haven't thought it through quite enough.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#218

Post by MatthewPhillips » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 8:05 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #217

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A destroyed observation platform is just as useful for defense as a working one :) I'll replace my cheap observation platforms after I've disposed of the threat that just gave itself away.

It will be a losing battle if the resource that destroyed your platform is cheaper than your platform. And while your're "disposing of the threat that just gave it self away," you're actually falling into my trap, for I've only sent that drone to get you to maneuver and give your other forces away, so my other disposable stealth drones can spin-up to high-energy missile mode and blow them up as well. See, you can't j…

I see what you're getting at, but I wouldn't call that "using stealth". Surely the demolition of one observation platform isn't going to raise an eyebrow. If I'm defending a solar system I have tens of thousands of observation platforms that get taken out by asteroids and comets from time to time.

Trying to create a diversion isn't really effective at the scale of a solar system (or greater). While I might send a small fleet at your drones, you still have to get at me from somewhere, and that probably involves destroying more drones. But why bother? Getting to my base at the center of the solar system is going to take you more than a few minutes, I'm going to figure out where you're really coming from.

It makes more sense to use drones for reconnaissance, and then just go at your opponent with a bigger fleet.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#219

Post by nyrath » Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 10:08 PM UTC

zmj wrote: post #29

What's the difference between a spaceship and a missile once you remove the human passengers and pilots?

Not much. The main difference between a missile and a robot controlled spacecraft is that the latter has more propellant. The spacecraft presumably is intended to return while the missile is just has to arrive at the target. The spacecraft will have roughly 4x the propellant [1] propellant to enter mothership to target trajectory [2] propellant to slow to combat speed at target [3] propellant to enter home to mothership trajectory [4] propellant to slow to a stop at mothership. A missile only needs [1].

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#220

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 1:01 AM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #218

stcredzero wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be a losing battle if the resource that destroyed your platform is cheaper than your platform. And while your're "disposing of the threat that just gave it self away," you're actually falling into my trap, for I've only sent that drone to get you to maneuver and give your other forces away, so my other disposable stealth drones can spin-up to high-energy missile mode and blow them up as well. See, you can't j…

I see what you're getting at, but I wouldn't call that "using stealth". Surely the demolition of one observation platform isn't going to raise an eyebrow. If I'm defending a solar system I have tens of thousands of observation platforms that get taken out by asteroids and comets from time to time. Trying to create a diversion isn't really effective at the scale of a solar system (or greater). While I might send a sma…

I see what you're getting at, but I wouldn't call that "using stealth". Surely the demolition of one observation platform isn't going to raise an eyebrow.

You're forgetting that holes in your observation cloud open windows through which my drones can beam waste heat. Of course I wouldn't be trying to destroy just one drone. The point is not so much to divert, as to cause you to reveal your resources and to give mine more opportunities to use stealth.

Also, the scenario here is not the invasion of a solar system. I thought it was the control of a particular resource like an asteroid. But if you want to play "invasion of the solar system" then I'm game.

It makes more sense to use drones for reconnaissance, and then just go at your opponent with a bigger fleet.

Only up to a certain point. If you create a tremendous concentration of resources and industrial output such as an awesome battleship, you might have something that can beat any individual craft in a 1 on 1 battle, but you've also created an opportunity to hurt your side a lot with only a very small expenditure on my part. This is especially true with stealth.