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

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#221

Post by Udo » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 1:26 AM UTC

weavejester wrote: post #213

electromagnetic wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This idea that you can't hide in space betrays a lack of imagination. As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection. And those are just the things we can realistically grasp with our current technological understanding.

The other point that a rogue ship can wage war against an entire planet is correct, but it's also misleading because the assumption only works if the planet has no defense systems appropriate to the threat. The other argument that ships will be highly regulated because they're dangerous, powerful, and profitable is probably correct but at the same time it's important to remember that being outlawed per se doesn't stop anything. We should know better, because we tried this with drugs, terrorism and copyright violations - all of which are still going on despite the massive amount of resources employed to eradicate them.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#222

Post by redthrowaway » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 1:50 AM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #205

transphenomenal wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's a good article about traveling to Alpha Centauri[1]. It posits that it would take 85 years best-case-scenario technology and 81k years using current technology. Absent the discovery of new physics that allows us to travel through wormholes or something of that ilk, traveling to the other side of the galaxy for a vacation will, sadly, not be happening. Instead long-distance space travel will likely involve putt…

Why send humans at all? By that time I'd assume we'd have reasonable AI; just send it along with a bunch of frozen embryos anywhere you please. The AI can incubate and raise the children. It could even terraform the planet until it was habitable. You wouldn't even need to explore; just send out probes willy-nilly. If they never reach a suitable location, then it's no big loss.

A fire-and-forget method of human space colonization is not only far more feasible, but also far more economical.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#223

Post by electromagnetic » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 1:58 AM UTC

weavejester wrote: post #213

electromagnetic wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You've completely missed my point, like took the highway to the next state missed the point.

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

It wasn't that they sank the ships. Stede Bonnet is noted for capturing around 30 ships in under 2 years, noted in that there's a record of the ships he plundered. The money he took from this went to the ports he traded in.

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

Depending on the size of the vessel, it's a possibility, but not likely. It's going to be easy to tell if someone's approaching you at ridiculous speed. Also, this means anything you hit them with hits harder. When you're driving at a bullet at the speed of sound, it's definitely going to hurt a lot more. You're not only making yourself more obvious, but more vulnerable.

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

How? Is there some magic cloaking device that prevails the Caribbean ocean? Sorry, but the Navy can't stop drug smugglers by boat today with satellites, radar and whatever else.

They knew where they were going. Do you not think the Spanish knew that Henry Morgan was headed for Tortuga? He didn't have to hide from the British or the French, in fact he ended up an Admiral of the Royal Navy.

They took the merchants by surprise, because the merchants didn't know they were pirates, they thought they were just crossing paths with another merchant ship. Stede Bonnet captured three ships by pretending to trade with merchant ships (notable for their short crews) and rushed them with his 130 men.

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

Again, yes and no. Just because you can see everything, doesn't mean you can watch everything. You're assuming one universal government and data sharing between governments or agencies.

Sorry, but it's eventually going to be in one nations best interest to economically harm the other and harbour privateers.

> 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.

Earth based governments, maybe. Do you think the colonies are going to turn down building materials for 1/2 the cost? Or protection for harbouring pirates? Anything that increases government revenues will be protected.

Governments will harbour pirates because they have before. The French made piracy rampant by issuing letters of marque simply to damage everyone elses economic ability.

Governments war over limited resources, but they sabotage when there's plentiful resources.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#224

Post by doku » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 2:42 AM UTC

Those monitoring platforms if they emit any signals they can be detected and destroyed. During the early days of Iraq war, Iraq had a GPS disruption device that floods the wavelength with their own GPS signals. The first thing US did was to send a missile that use disruptor's own signal to track it down and destroy it. Establishing enemy's fog of war would be first priority.

It is very unlikely battle's will occur in open space if both sides knows each other's capability. The side with slight disadvantage will seek to level the playing field by heading towards asteroid field or unmonitored planets.

Once they arrived at the planet, one strategy for the orbital battle field is to go into an extreme elliptical orbit. The more skilled pilot will be able to calculate the opponent's possible orbit and tries to outwit his opponent. As the pilot approach the perigee of the orbit, the cinematographic tense scene panes to the pilot's face as the ship slows to the escape velocity in the upper atmosphere. Only to escape tattered and draught, and approaching the enemy hidden by the planet horizon.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#225

Post by electromagnetic » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 5:37 AM UTC

Udo wrote: post #221

weavejester wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This idea that you can't hide in space betrays a lack of imagination. As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection. And those are just the things we can realistically grasp with our current technologic…

Don't forget that motor vehicles are well regulated, dangerous, powerful and profitable. It still doesn't mean dad won't hand the keys to his 17 year old kid and said kid won't try doing 160 and take out a hotel lobby.

We wilfully put aeroplanes in the hands of thousands of pilots. It doesn't stop them coming to work drunk, or falling asleep at the wheel, or heck snapping.

The reason governments won't strictly regulate space ships will be the same reason governments don't strictly regulate driving. It costs too much.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#226

Post by j_baker » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 6:44 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #105

j_baker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never know. I'm sure you could have a more "distributed leadership". I'm sure this could be accomplished with a clever enough application of paxos.

I agree with the author in that it's unlikely we'll get a Star Trek scenario where a single ship can continue taking hits without much consequence. In all likelihood the first hit a spacecraft takes will destroy it. In that environment you really want as many small ships as possible - large capital ships really work against you. Any centralized command system would also be trivially easy to destroy by concentrating f…

Right, but with Paxos, you could elect a new leader as soon as the old one is destroyed.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#227

Post by lloeki » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 1:02 PM UTC

schiffern wrote: post #158

troels wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that ever be a goal?

You should read The Killing Star: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Star Spoiler Alert! In the late 21st century, Earth is at peace, sending fleets of Valerie spacecraft to the stars. Without warning, relativistic kill vehicle obliterate the surface of every planet, and a mop-up fleet of ships begins hunting down the humans that remain. The last two humans on Earth are kept as zoo specimens. They ask why thei…

Classic case of MAD. "The only winning move is not to play".

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#228

Post by weavejester » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 1:48 PM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #223

weavejester wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You've completely missed my point, like took the highway to the next state missed the point. > The worst a pirate captain could do with a single ship in the 1700s was to sink a few merchant ships. It wasn't that they sank the ships. Stede Bonnet is noted for capturing around 30 ships in under 2 years, noted in that there's a record of the ships he plundered. The money he took from this went to the ports he traded in.…

> Depending on the size of the vessel, it's a possibility, but not likely. It's going to be easy to tell if someone's approaching you at ridiculous speed.

So if you a voting citizen of Earth, you'd have complete confidence in your planetary defences, and see no reason at all to send the military after the rogue spaceship that could potentially destroy your country?

Can you imagine a national government saying today, "Yes, we know the terrorist has nuclear bombs, and yes, they're currently in a remote location within strike range of our aircraft, but no, we're not going to take them out because we're 99.9% sure they'd be unable to get those bombs into our country."

> How? Is there some magic cloaking device that prevails the Caribbean ocean?

The atmosphere, the curvature of the earth, primitive communications, and obstructing land masses are all problems 18th century ships had to deal with.

> Sorry, but the Navy can't stop drug smugglers by boat today with satellites, radar and whatever else.

And how many large, hard-to-hide pirate vessels do you see nowadays? How many pirate battleships, or pirate aircraft carriers are there?

Pirate vessels today are small, short-range craft that can be easily hidden, because communication and observation technologies are so much better today than in the 1700s.

> They took the merchants by surprise, because the merchants didn't know they were pirates, they thought they were just crossing paths with another merchant ship.

That trick would only work once. Once the pirate attacked, everyone in the solar system would see them, and their little green icon would permanently change into a little red icon.

> Sorry, but it's eventually going to be in one nations best interest to economically harm the other and harbour privateers.

Why? That doesn't happen today. The US doesn't sponsor pirate battleships to attack the French, for instance.

Privateers made sense in the 1700s, where raw materials still had a lot of worth, and war could be waged between world powers without mutual destruction.

But today, piracy doesn't make economic sense for anyone with any wealth. It's much more profitable to invest than steal.

> Do you think the colonies are going to turn down building materials for 1/2 the cost?

Yes, because everyone will see them doing it, and in a high-technology civilization, raw materials are ultimately not that valuable.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#229

Post by weavejester » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 3:04 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #221

weavejester wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This idea that you can't hide in space betrays a lack of imagination. As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection. And those are just the things we can realistically grasp with our current technologic…

> As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes.

Maybe in science fiction.

The main problems you have are:

1. Space is big and mostly empty. A few hundred probes could cover every blindspot in a solar system.

2. Going anywhere requires venting hot gas that's highly visible. Even small ion drives are detectable light minutes away with current technology.

> There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection

Shielded how, exactly?

Also, how are these unmanned devices going to get close to their targets? Space is big, so a ship isn't going to blunder near one by chance. Perhaps if you knew the ship's route ahead of time, but then even a small randomizing factor introduced into the route would prevent that.

> we tried this with drugs, terrorism and copyright violations - all of which are still going on despite the massive amount of resources employed to eradicate them.

Drugs, C4 and digital files are small, easy to hide, and relatively inexpensive.

A spaceship is none of these things.

Re: What future space combat would really look like

#230

Post by weavejester » Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 3:08 PM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #225

Udo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that you can't hide in space betrays a lack of imagination. As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection. And those are just the things we can realistically grasp with our current technologic…

Don't forget that motor vehicles are well regulated, dangerous, powerful and profitable. It still doesn't mean dad won't hand the keys to his 17 year old kid and said kid won't try doing 160 and take out a hotel lobby. We wilfully put aeroplanes in the hands of thousands of pilots. It doesn't stop them coming to work drunk, or falling asleep at the wheel, or heck snapping. The reason governments won't strictly regula…

There's just a slight difference between taking out a hotel lobby, and removing an entire continent filled with billions of people off the map.