>no territory to capture
>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
>no terrain features to conceal yourself
>no frontiers
>no where to hide
The meme in scifi is large armadas trading lazer volleys, this is very cool and spectacular yes, and also completely moronic. I think actual space warfare is gonna be so unconventional to a degree that we can't even fathom. like 16th century samurai trying to conceptualize ww3. If anything I think its gonna be %99.99 espionage and electronic warfare rather than ships actually shooting anything at each other.
>launches 8273391 nukes from a deep space blacksite at 77% the speed of light 952 years ago at your armada and homeworlds
My warning shot
>forgets I've already sent three relatavistic particles hurtling into your sun
>three relatavistic particles
3 whole cosmic rays? Wow. That sure is something.
>artificially blow up a star
>intergalactic glowies come and shut down your civilization because that shit actually registers as an early warning of a problem species to them
I mean, yeah. Do YOU want a species going around just blowing up entire systems willy-nilly?
Some "hard sci fi" novels I read predicted that space warfare is going to be 90% detecting them before they detected you, and 10% launching enough hyper-fast, hyper-ranged missiles at them to overwhelm whatever defenses they have to shoot them all down. Then running away before they figure out where you shot from if any of them survived.
Any good reccs on realism-minded sci fi space war novels?
>honor harrington
>follows Honor Harrington through her carreer in theRoyal space navy and her fights against space commies, space luddites, space sexual haressment (actual based and not woke stuff).
>Every book has a similar structur but the stories are pretty good and engaging and dont feel repetetive.
I read like 4 or 6 of the novels back to back until it was to much and I had to take a pause
harrington
proto woke bs. looks cute nowadays but in hindsight was just another attempt at shifting overton window.
esp once she wins a couple of battles,becomes middle aged hag and people are STILL underestimating her coz wahmen, author had one agenda to push and he stuck iwth
>If anything I think its gonna be %99.99 espionage and electronic warfare rather than ships actually shooting anything at each other.
pretty much
look at naval campaigns IRL
the first 4 or 5 novels are decent
prosewise it's pulp
Expanse books are absolute page turners but it's somewhat woke
obvious HBO bait, you can even sort of see the episodes openings/endings as you read
one of the co-authors is GRRM's assistant
I think it's less them pushing an agenda and more them being a hack who need to write stupid antagonists to let the protagonist win. Add in a dash of "she's good at everything, even the things she's bad at" and you've got something that might register on the Marry Sue scale.
>honor harrington
God no. Don't lie to the poor man and have him waste his time. I read one book: It was boring. And even the space combat was written to be boring. It all felt like all the ship Captains just consulted a flow-chart to decide what to do next in battle.
>I read one book: It was boring.
so you know nothing, you stopped reading before the war even starts
>You have to, like, read 4 books in before it starts to get good.
How about a good series is GOOD right from the very beginning? You are exactly why shitty writers plague all forms of media. "It gets good eventually!" Instead of spending all those hours reading shitty books just to 'get to the good part', I'd rather spend that time reading good books. Sorry, Honor Harrington dropped the ball right from the first book. So frick it. And frick all series of books like that.
>How about a good series is GOOD right from the very beginning?
NTA but go ahead and make it yourself if it's that easy, we can't honestly afford to be that choosy.
That say, I didn't get into "Honor Harrington" either. I'd say at least HH didn't go for literally flat-vessel & WWII sea warfare when making those broadside ship.
>NTA but go ahead and make it yourself if it's that easy,
It may not be easy but let's face it: There is an absolute GLUT of aspiring writers. Especially now that online self-publishing is a thing. We absolutely can afford to be choosy in this day and age. And that's why I'm going so hard on Honor and any other series that starts off shitty.
Go ahead and post your own pick then if you have "so much choice".
Just noticed there's a "Crest of the Star" thread going on PrepHole. It's rare.
In short:
Remember the tropes of crazy blue space elves conquering human planet but couldn't care less about ruling those lands?
They are the good guys and the space battle are rather self-consistent.
The Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell is at least consistent as long as you can accept FTL, Inertial Dampeners, and ships zooming around at 10% lightspeed. Combat is very jousty as it's just not possible to hit ships at those speeds.
Joshua Dalzelle has a pretty long series revolving around space combat. Battles are long drawn out affairs that have more in common with sub warfare than anything. Because of ranges and speeds involved a missile can take days to reach the target, and if it misses has no chance of requiring the target, lots of mention of gravity wells, etc. Some concessions are given regarding ftl between systems but its otherwise fairly straight from what I remember
The expanse was really good but I liked the show better than the books.
there's a few that come to mind
>Pandora's Star, Judas Unchained
loooong and the battles themselves don't take up much of the book but it's also the closest to dealing with actual war rather than just battles
>We are Bob series
good realism-minded battles, on the whole I found the series kinda whatever though
>Iain M. Banks
can't remember which ones exactly but a bunch of his Culture books feature space war/battles and I'd recommend them all to anyone regardless
Not realistic at all but the whole Legion series is pretty kino with a lot of content, and I warmly recommend those books with Skippy the beer can too
>Any good reccs on realism-minded sci fi space war novels?
Niven & Pournelle made a few classics
Passage At Arms - Das Boot but in space.
The Expanse, Singularity Sky, and its sequel Iron Sunrise
Ian m banks is good if you can get past his simping for socialism
The only reasonable conclusion, because it's pure extrapolation from what modern warfare already is.
The catch is you're 100% detectable in space. Anything fast enough to get somewhere in a human relevant time is hot enough to shine across the solar system. Add in space being perfect for lasers and it resembles a kamikaze-battleship meta more than a submarine one.
>The catch is you're 100% detectable in space.
False. We already have narrow-band stealth, imagine what we might come up with in 1000 years.
>Anything fast enough to get somewhere in a human relevant time is hot enough to shine across the solar system
1. Why does time need to be human-relevant?
2. Why should propulsion emit in any direction except backwards?
3. Why should the craft travel significantly slower than light?
Another option for avoiding detection is moving fast enough that by the time your photons reach the enemy, you're out of their weapon's target acquisition area. Lasers are actually terrible for this since they can't be redirected once launched.
u dumb
>False. We already have narrow-band stealth, imagine what we might come up with in 1000 years.
Nothing that can break the basic physical laws of the universe, I'd wager. Conservation of energy, motherfricker. It is the enemy you have to overcome to make stealth in space remotely possible.
>2. Why should propulsion emit in any direction except backwards?
Now if we accept that you can somehow hide a drive plume large enough to move your ship behind it? You've now been spotted by several thousand cheap-ass networked sensor plattforms scattered across the system that are seeing you from not only the front, but also your sides and quite possibly rear.
>3. Why should the craft travel significantly slower than light?
Because your craft suffering spontaneous existence failure upon running into a few micrometeors or space dust is not a desirable thing.
You can't invoke the basic laws of physics in one sentence, and current engineering challenges in the next. We may or may not ever solve the problems of
>extremely sensitive sensors
>extremely efficient propulsion
>extremely strong materials
and each possible combination of solved problems creates its own possible future space combat scenario, many of which permit stealth.
>extremely efficient propulsion
Better have 100% efficiency on your propulsion and pwoer generation then, bucko. Because anything less means waste heat, and you're gonna have to radiate that waste heat unless you wanna cook your own boat.
>two-way insulated ships with thermal sinks in the core and thermal energy being dumped out of a molecule sized, auto-shuttering gate as high energy beams that can't be detected unless you are directly in the path of the beam
Yeah, whoever thought up that one had no fricking clue about basic physics.
there have been several hard solutions to space in stealth since the golden age of scifi like two-way insulated ships with thermal sinks in the core and thermal energy being dumped out of a molecule sized, auto-shuttering gate as high energy beams that can't be detected unless you are directly in the path of the beam
this is all technology that exists in one form or the other right now, it just needs to become refined enough
the only potentially unsolvable methods of detection are "negative" ones like transit detections because you'd need massive arrays for mimicry meaning you'd lose out on conventional stealth/signal insulation
The meta will be ships so god damn massive its inconceivable. Equipped to the brim with counter measures and redundancy. Alternatively, we fly literal asteroids. Mother nature's prefab.
>The meta will be ships so god damn massive its inconceivable.
How. How will that be built, where are we gonna get the materials from, how long would that take to build just ONE?
>The catch is you're 100% detectable in space
>Ten thousands tonnage rock falls onto your head completely undetected
Stop repeating that boomer site fallacies
>comparing an asteroid to a rocket engine periodically igniting
please go read the website before you talk shit ty. half of the shit on it is older than you are.
they are undetected because they are too small to cause significant damage
pretty much all near earth meteorites that are large enough to wipe out all life on earth have already been observed and catalogued
but anything that produces heat would glow against the background of space and be easily detected
meteors are stone cold and we have been able to find all the big ones, a spaceship thats burning something would need to vent all its heat out somewhere and shine brightly
very few things in our solar system give off bright lights, so even if you didnt know it was a spaceship you would at least know something suspicious is happening
>they are undetected because they are too small to cause significant damage
tons object that exploded with 500 kt TNT equivalent
Stop embarrassing yourself. Your wundervaffen detectors completely failed.
>Your wundervaffen detectors completely failed.
anything big enough to cause severe damage to earth is big enough to reflect enough light to be seen with a telescope
its not wunderwaffen, its literally just a big piece of glass
the only asteroids that are unaccounted for are relatively small asteroids that will definitely not destroy the entire world
>wundervaffen telescope literally misses 10000 tons rock falling on the Earth
Stop
Embarrassing
Yourself
>muh 10000 tons rock
10000 tons of cold rock are harder to detect in space than 1 (ONE) ton of rocket-propelled object.
you are literally 16. shut the frick up.
Cope and seethe.
Your wundervaffen falied.
2 more repeated buzzwords and our underage moronation will be accepted sisters!
>ignores 10000 tons rock sneaking past all wundervaffen detectors undetected
/misc/ was a mistake. remove the entire board without warning. i will accept the entire website being taken offline for several months if at the end of it we have no /misc/.
How about any of you crying girls post a gun and prove you belong here.
>you need to post guns 24/7 like a whoring tripgay to be a /k/ regular
leave it is! you first, moron.
>leave it is! you first, moron.
Anyone who's from /k/ would know the accused always posts first.
We got another one boys.
Correct, a small nuke is not a significant planetary threat.
tons
>small
Theoretical cobalt enchanced doomsday bomb capable of killing entire earth population needs 500 tons of cobalt.
You just lost Earth, commander .
>Theoretical cobalt enchanced doomsday bomb capable of killing entire earth population needs 500 tons of cobalt.
moron
you realise that a rock weighing x amount is way less destructive than a nuclear weapon with x amount of fissile material? It's like thinking a 2kg brick is more destructive than a 2kg block of TNT
Weight and thefore size is detection difficulty scale.
>500 kt TNT
That's not considered important nowadays, our space infrastructure is 99.99% expendable and redundant to anything but intelligent attack.
Anything hitting the ground will barely make any damage, we would only start caring if one of those hit a nuclear reactor or a big enough building it cause public uproar.
And don't forget our space sensors are pretty much shit overspecialized stuff the scientist are begging for.
If there was any serious interest in specifically cataloguing lesser threat, no pebble would escape us the same way we can detect 10cm wide space debris.
Especially in a future world where you'd built 10000 spaceship. Stealth will NOT be possible.
The closest to stealth imagined so far is the hydrogen steamer and it is a slow bloc of ice that need a very dumb and unprepared enemy to succeed.
>The catch is you're 100% detectable in space
In theory
the catch with the whole "no stealth in space" idea is that it assumes perfect observation in every direction from all angles at all times.
Yes you cannot hide a space ship from infrared or radar reliably but unless we are dealing with a scenario where all factions have deployed networks of observation satellites aimed outwards from earth and dispersed throughout the system, something which is unlikely to be the case in more near future space warfare scenarios.
Case in point, nobody was watching for that specific rock, now if there had been an extensive network monitoring for objects that rock would have been seen very very early on.
Project Rho is a very good crash course on space warfare topics but shouldn't be taken as the final word.
I didn't know that CoaDE ship girls are what i needed, thank you anon
>Project Rho is a very good crash course on space warfare topics but shouldn't be taken as the final word.
Shut the frick up moron. I was very clearly telling him to go actually read the reliable website he was disparaging/strawmanning. Frick I hate you children.
>Case in point, nobody was watching for that specific rock,
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch
https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/bennu-asteroid-earth-nasa-atomic-bomb
If I used the stock Corvette as a test target for developing my weapons, does this mean I was observing an untold amount of shipgirl ryona?
The problem with that idea is that there is no stealth in space. If your ship has a drive that can get it anywhere in any relevant timeframe, your ship has an IR signature that can be seen clear across the entire system.
thrust doesn't have to be constant, look at the orion drive concept. you just need one very big push to get going very fast
>you just need one very big push to get going very fast
sounds uncomfortable for the organic bits
one, who said anything about organic bits?
two, who said the push was short?
One, drones are stupid. I mean that literally, AIs are really only good for a single function and tend to go erratic when facing anything they weren't programmed for. Remote controlling the drone leads to EWar vulnerabilities and system lag.
Two, the Orion Drive uses a Nuclear Bomb for propulsion. Each bomb is a millisecond burst of thrust. We also never tested the concept so there's a non-zero change that it doesn't work.
Yes but when you add that 90% and 10% together you need to truncate it down into 2%.
Then the actual 98% will be diplomacy, espionage and generally avoiding a hot war.
Space infrastructure is incredibly expensive, so it will be owned and operated by bodies with mega-country scales of wealth and bureaucracy: only countries like USA, China, Japan can operate a permanent space station, and explicitly countries like France cannot, they would have to be a part of the EU.
Because the capital required to get any real wealth from space is so massive it serves as a hurdle that only the most cost-conscious and stable organisations will ever be involved, and they will treat space warfare comparably to nuclear warfare: something that is so expensive it's a better option to just keep a status quo.
>Nipland yes
>France no
??????????
> Space infrastructure is incredibly expensive
For now.
(partially) AI built facilities with materials mined from asteroids or small moons is the future. Self-sustaining space economy revolving around cheap reactors/solar energy that can produce as much required stuff as long as there are minerals (think StarCraft) will make colonization actually possible. And with it - space wars. The goal of those wars will be suppressing enemy's mining and production ability, while dealing with their combat units.
>AI
Someone should make a Das Boot-inspired hard sci-fi movie chronicling the journey of this spaceship crew surviving the war in space; with them engaging in a high-stakes interstellar hide-and-seek with the other faction's spaceships. Hell, I'd argue you can make the movie relatively cheap with some interior sets and a bunch of miniature props.
I heard "The killing star" have a story like that.
however
>hard sci-fi
>interstellar hide-and-seek
Kinda ridiculous, you cannot hide at any system scale and at interstellar scale travel time is so high that you aren't really using spaceship, you might as well be beaming your digital mind between self-replicating relativistic droneship launched 2000years ago.
>nudges an everest-sized asteroid into a collision course with your home planet
>just to be safe nudges about 10 more into separate collision courses with your home planet
How the frick do you possibly defend from that? All it takes is one
You can't. The bigger issue is why even fight? If you have tech to make interstellar travel and colonization possible, scarcity does not exist any longer.
There is literally no need to fight at that point, what are you even fighting for?
We barely have scarcity now and people still kill each other. Humans are shit.
The good stuff is scarce.
Jerking to anime is for plebs. Nobody fights over that even though several million otakus have one and the same "waifu".
If a war does not have a reason to exist, a reason will be invented.
You think war happens because of resources or ideology? War happens because people think they can get away with it. The only thing that ever stopped war is people amassing superweapons that could GameOver the entire world.
Unless you start equipping every random space shuttle with its own plasma nukes or whatever, wars will still happen in space. They might even happen MORE because the elites consider an entire planet expendable.
>The only thing that ever stopped war is people amassing superweapons that could GameOver the entire world.
....That's what literally any interstellar capable craft is.
>it takes literally one (1) schizo to destroy a world
>this will mean LESS conflict
so you're moronic? that's the conclusion to this string?
Do you think literally anyone would have access to spaceships?
>plane hijackings don't happen
yeah, you are a complete and utter moron. QED closing the thread now
My fricking god this website is dead. This poster is literally 15 or an AI having severe hallucinations.
I'm AI because I pointed out a flaw in your argument? What a pathetic tantrum. Concession accepted
Stop posting and go ask that girl you like out, come back in 6 years. If you're 25+ it's too late.
Being 25+ and a virgin is still completely able to be overcome, assuming it is for life-circumstance reasons.
Yeah the people coming here and shitting the place up 24/7 for literal years aren't capable of being saved.
I've seen a few people here suggest that they've gotten past the captcha somehow and are spamming the board with chatgpt.
True. For interplanetary (let alone interstellar) society to exist, a polity must be capable of harnessing an apocalyptic level of energy, regardless of how peaceful their intent is. Let's scale up the early Age of Sail travel times to the scale of the colonizing the solar system, with Jupiter and its moons being the equivalent of crossing the atlantic. To cross this ~750 million km gap in a month, you would be travelling at roughly 300 km/sec. Since any trip that doesn't end in nuclear hellfire requires braking to a stop, the actual delta-v will be 600 km/sec at minimum. If we have a 20000 tonne freighter travelling at those speeds, the yield of an impact will be approximately 800 megatons, or 16 times that of Tsar Bomba. Imagine hundreds or thousands of these vessels travelling around the solar system at any given time. Every "peaceful" ship is actually a missile that can wipe out a small country by itself. Any polity that wants to take part in interplanetary society must necessarily play a game of "ultimate deterrence" where the risk of starting a war is the destruction of everyone and everything.
>Every "peaceful" ship is actually a missile that can wipe out a small country by itself.
That's an overstatement. 800MT isn't powerful enough to wipe out countries unless you trigger some tectonic effects that go beyond the initial explosion. The actual effect would also be smaller than projected because of the drag and burn of the atmosphere.
Frickhuge amount of humans means frickhuge amounts of seeth. Wars will wipe out entire ethnicities, and it will be turbobased. God save any ayyyys we come across
>not over resources
>not over living space
>not over ideology
>so why are we fighting?
To win the war
>You can't. The bigger issue is why even fight? If you have tech to make interstellar travel and colonization possible, scarcity does not exist any longer.
>There is literally no need to fight at that point, what are you even fighting for?
Religion
At the point you can traverse between stars, your civilization has a major problem. Every single colony ship you send out is now an independent nation that possesses the capability to accelerate mass to relativistic velocities. This means any human populace on any planet has the potential to send a relativistic kill vehicle and utterly annihilate you. You will have no way to detect it coming, and no way to stop it even if you did. The first shot of every war would also be the last. Humanity as an interstellar species creates a pretty horrifying scenario where the only way to win a war is to fire first, and you can never be 100% sure any enemy you have hasn't already done so. Its like MAD nuclear doctrine on steroids.
"Wars" of this nature would be "fought" simply because its the only way to be 100% sure you don't get wiped out first.
Dark Forest theory seems just silly to me.
It isn't normal for groups of people to decide that a political issue should be resolved with total genocide.
2 different people.
>Every single colony ship you send out is now an independent nation
Don't be silly, the CEO-Emperor Musk will force any colonist to undergo the installation of a mind-control chips to prevent any "woke thought against Freedom".
Fusion powered giant railguns on the moon ?
Literally doable with today's tech if you are willing to finance it
>>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
Lagrange points
I can't imagine the tactical value of these would be at all worth having to be stationary.
>stable locations for satellites, refit/resupply bases, defenses
clearly of strategic importance
>stable
what advantage does this provide?
vastly less fuel needed to maintain a position relative to a gravitational body (planet, moon, etc).
What would be the point of maintaining a certain fixed position relative to a body? I think you're thinking too much in terms of sci-fi.
>What would be the point of maintaining a certain fixed position relative to a body? I think you're thinking too much in terms of sci-fi.
Are you being serious?
Name something then, smart guy.
I was going to point out that geostationary orbit exists as a counterpoint but you've already done it.
what
Again, this isn't about whether the Lagrange points are useful AT ALL, but whether placing an installation that needs to be defended from attack there is worth it. I repeat:
>I can't imagine the tactical value of these would be at all worth having to be stationary.
What TACTICAL advantage does a Lagrange point provide that's worth sacrificing all mobility?
Not forever burning fuel to keep your station not crashing is pretty big deal.
>tactical
>no key strategic points
goalpost moving, but whatever, i'll bite.
>low interference location for communication arrays and relays
>detection equipment that's immune to interference from Earth (or any celestial body) this is why NASA and the ESA keep putting important equipment there
>if you're refueling depots or maintaining any space craft you'd want it to not be in near earth space due to the high amount of toxic materials involved for the foreseeable future
>ideal spot for detection of craft moving to and from whatever body it's over
there's absolutely nothing scifi about this
>(or any celestial body's L2 aside from stars)
fixd
Communications and line of sight dipshit, same reason GEO is populated today. If Moon bases get going then the Earth-Moon Lagrange points become important. Furthermore, they are easy to reach without using much fuel if you need to rendezvous.
To not drift into something else like a planet or moon?
You don't need to spend fuel to stay there unlike other orbits, it's inherently stable.
>what advantage does this provide?
Debris don't stick around. If someone manage a good hit on one of your station, the debris just leave on their own.
If you were in an orbit, the debris would come back at the next orbit and hit you like perpetual self-replicating storms of hyperkinetic anti-armor bullets.
The Kessler effect is only a meme in that we will never be stupid enough to let it become a possibility and ruin our costly infrastructure.
This plus optimum gravitational slingshot routes. It's going to be an extremely complicated redo of 17th century maritime strategy.
In warfare, maneuverability is worth any cost. There's a reason we immediately fitted steam engines on warships despite it reducing the range massively - because having freedom of movement when your enemy doesn't is an automatic win.
That's tactics, not strategy. Strategy will favor control over interplanetary routes, which are not fixed due to orbits constantly moving those routes around.
Fair point
I don't even think it will ever be real. I've become a real pessimist on future space developments recently. I just can't imagine a world where exploration and expansion on that level is undertaken because the short term cost is so great and the benefits are so far reaching that no one person that commits to the cost will ever reap the benefits. I can't even see us exploiting planets in this system any more. It's just easier to take them from your neighbour. And when you can't do that any more, it's already too late.
Look at it this way: there's no realistic way to kill all humans on Earth, and there's a nonzero chance that any given generation will start sustainably colonizing space. It might not be our civilization that does it, because we have an irrational aversion to nuclear energy that stopped us from starting to colonize other star systems in the 1960s, but there's no reason to believe future civilizations will have the same problem.
>but there's no reason to believe future civilizations will have the same problem.
What about non-renewable resources? Isn't it possible that we can essentially wienerblock any future civilisations from progressing past a certain point by burning through all of the natural resources that got us here? Like what if a civilisation never got whale oil or coal and there was no alternative available?
I don't think the engineering and technology that we have now will ever go away. It's too powerful, any culture that has it will automatically have a tremendous advantage over those that don't.
You have it backwards. Our advanced technological state is made possible only by extreme specialization, and is incredibly fragile because of it. If there we to be, say, a major nuclear exchange that involved the capitals and major cities of the world, you're going to lose, all at once, a shitload of expertise. None of the people who work in any kind of advanced infrastructure understand the workings and operations of the whole thing, for instance a power plant or a steel mill. It takes the collaboration of thousands of highly trained specialists, each responsible for their own piece, to put something like that together.
Like, forget about telecomms, do you have any earthly idea how to make steel? That's been with us for a couple thousand years now, but 99.99% of people have no idea what's even IN steel, much less how to produce it. YOU might have some idea, because this is /k/, but I bet you've never made your own smelting furnace. Almost nobody has. It's just not useful anymore. Specialists handle that in giant centralized facilities. What happens if all of them get blown to bits or scattered permanently to the countryside one afternoon?
Human history is full of progressions and regressions. We better hope we've broken that cycle with the industrial revolution (the same thing that gave us hydrogen bombs and space rockets, which can now destroy our civilization in a single day). We may never be able to get ourselves back to this point again. Coal is everywhere, but all the readily available petroleum is gone. There is a very real chance that if we regress far enough, we may never be able to reindustrialize, at least not past a certain point. I don't think you can get directly from steam engines to North Sea oil rigs.
Then again, Ted K would tell you it's better that way.
There are no alien civilisations well at leats not in the classical science fiction conception or of this thread. There are other beings, God, Angels and Archangels ,Cherubim and Seraphim, Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers and the Fallen and Satan and we are hopelessly weak without the protection of God and His Angels. Before the sneering minldess internet atheists groomed by lapsed Protestantism into aggresive mindless atheism surface, we have good mathematical theory regarding the existence of other dimensions by theorem and these beings are no less real than we are. Our heritages recorded this knowledge so we might have it and it was hard gained and preserved over millennia by our ancestors. Yes you will doubt this but the Angel beside me is as real as you reader but immeasurably more good than us and far more powerful. You see only a fraction of the world around you just what is visible to you while all that is invisible to you still exists. There are no alien biological or inorganic silicate or gas lifeforms to wight wars with. There is something far worse and something far more amazing and good and it is with you all right now as it is with me. Every war we see is just a shadow of that greater incomprehensible division projected into our own reality.
frick off schizo. take your meds
Satan isn't mentioned in the real Testament, it is a misinterpretation of a story about a king from Tyre.
This misinterpretation was then shaped by Constantine into a Zoroastrian-style Hell with its Warden.
Heresy.
Maybe, but all I know is that theologians can't speak about Satan without mentioning the greek fanfiction testament.
>I've become a real pessimist on future space developments recently
Then you're actually a moron
In the last ten years the cost to access space has dropped by 70%
In the next ten years it's projected to drop another 90%
We are at the "At his coronation, Napoleon's guests of honor ate from aluminum plates, while the less favored nobles had to settle for gold ones" or "IBM's computer cost $7 million, covered 300 square feet, used 150KW of power and could calculate up to 500 numbers per second" stage of space travel
NTA, there's good reason to be pessimist.
Efficient, fully reusable rocket should have happened 50 years ago.
Even if Starsip worked reliably in 2-5 years with non-bullshit launch rate it won't be manned for long mission because it's a nightmare to make reliable, the launch mass won't be anywhere enough to kickstart project like space-dock, space-only nuclear ship, asteroids mining or orbital ring.
It will take 20 years best case to have a permanent Lunar base doing at most glorified human experiment missions.
Sure, it will certainly do impressive stuffs. Like launching Musk's truck to Jupiter, or launching a bigger space telescope that need to fold less. But in a way so fricking slow, limited, still taking years of development with no return on investment it will still manage to disappoint as we bask at super-rich being the only one having space-hotel.
There's just no drive, asteroid mining is probably half a century away from breaking equal.
Even if all countries dedicated their military budget into the sole task of colonizing Earth-Moon region, we would need dozen of breakthrough, magnetic launch rail, nuclear propulsion, remote robots, genetic engineering...etc before it become a credible dream.
>Efficient, fully reusable rocket should have happened 50 years ago.
Not really. Until modern internet, recon and communication the utility of space based tech was a far cry from the costs that come with it, with space exploration being more of a prestige project than an actually useful endeavor aside from few spy sats that were usually launched using old ICBMs anyway.
You misunderstand.
We would have more back then if we built the tech that reduced launch cost by half.
The technology for efficient fully (or half) reusable rocket would have been possible 50y ago.
It was only a matter of political will and spending money. Educating the public that loosing a test rocket isn't bad would certainly have made it go faster.
Instead we had an overcost shuttle born for the wrong reasons, with the wrong design philosophy.
>We would have more back then if we built the tech that reduced launch cost by half.
You misunderstand. We didn't have the incentive to develop the tech until now because our reconnaisance and communication capabilities weren't anywhere close to the level they are at now so they'd be less useful and harder to leverage even with the cheaper launch capability.
>It was only a matter of political will and spending money.
Yes and in both cases it was 80% a prestige project with little few practical applications.
Admit that you didn't even read the post.
We were already exploiting space for profit and the benefit should have been a no brainer 30 year ago.
We made the shuttle for less reason than that and it was still worth it, shuttle-tech was enough for F9 style recovery of at least a first stage.
Reducing launch cost by even 25% is already practical application, allowing to slowly take control of space-launch economy against anyone unwilling/able to match, in a more flexible way the shuttle ever could.
The blocker was only entry-cost for private companies and the lack of political will for the US after the shuttle became a clusterfrick because of stupid mission plans.
We've spent billions for prototypes for but no one allowed anything "unproven" to fly out of fear of bad PR + lobbying.
Admit that you didn't even read the post.
>We were already exploiting space for profit
Very little.
>the benefit should have been a no brainer 30 year ago
It's only a no brainer if your brain can't comprehend the billions of dollars invested into this technology. Space anyhing is not cheap and when all you do is frick around with meaningless shit and send 1-2 spy satelites a year to orbit it's hard to justify the additional expenses.
>Reducing launch cost by even 25% is already practical application
Duh, of course it is. The problem is that you can potentially do this only by investing the cost of like 10 yeats' worth of launches into development that may or may not even bring the desired result.
>nd the lack of political will for the US after the shuttle became a clusterfrick because of stupid mission plans
Forget about future developments, the whole space thing was so toned down after the end of cold war that US had to pay russians to send people to ISS for a few years. Using russian engines on US rockets too as a cost cutting measure. It was skimping on everything, including contemporary capability, let alone some vague expensive future program.
I think I see your misunderstanding.
You didn't connect that the money cut you mention at the end, ...is the result of the lack of political will I keep mentioning.
Don't talk to me of "risky investment" when we developed the Space shuttle in that era we did so "Very little", we didn't actually care to reduce cost back then, they wanted capability first, that's part of why the space shuttle was not economically viable.
Developing reusable rocket is a no brainer for anyone who understand the billions of dollars the technology save.
SpaceX did it with $300 millions including governments money, that's peanuts for the US and many industries today.
The problem was always about getting the money approved and a clear mission plan.
Aka "political will".
US government is a lobby nest only caring about prestige mission, EU programs can't agree on anything, Russia is a cargo-cult of its former self, China is slowly catching up but I bet they have the political will to immediately start developing reusable rockets. Unlike the US who will just leave it to their private sector SpaceX to have no responsibility.
>Forget about future developments, the whole space thing was so toned down after the end of cold war that US had to pay russians to send people to ISS for a few years. Using russian engines on US rockets too as a cost cutting measure. It was skimping on everything, including contemporary capability, let alone some vague expensive future program.
And we wouldn't have been in that situation if someone had spent money on... saving money!
Instead of just trying to reuse forever shuttle leftover.
The current generation is incapable of planning anything on a scale longer than a presidency if not a fiscal year.
>You didn't connect that the money cut you mention at the end, ...is the result of the lack of political will I keep mentioning.
It's intertwined - too expensive for little gain leads to lack of political will as the cold war ended and now everyone can hold hands together in peace forever.
>when we developed the Space shuttle in that era we did so "Very little", we didn't actually care to reduce cost back then, they wanted capability first, that's part of why the space shuttle was not economically viable.
That's true except SS was developed earlier, going back to the late 60s even when the space race was nearing its peak and only slowed down a little in the 70s.
>Developing reusable rocket is a no brainer for anyone who understand the billions of dollars the technology save.
Developing it in the uncertain future as you occasionally throw money at scientists isn't really the same as running a full scale project with full support and clear and well definted program goals on a time scale.
>SpaceX did it with $300 millions including governments money, that's peanuts for the US and many industries today.
That's why it succeeded.
>The problem was always about getting the money approved and a clear mission plan.
Aka "political will".
Note "political will" rather than "political whim".
>And we wouldn't have been in that situation if someone had spent money on... saving money!
Yes but they were not focused on saving money, they were focused on not spending money instead at the time. That's what lead to the whole clusterfrick until SX saved everyone's asses by bypassing the whole process and expoiting the now mature technology to get results.
>Instead of just trying to reuse forever shuttle leftover.
SS was also a prestige project - it does look and sound really cool. Even the soviets took the bait and collapsed their economy trying to copy it.
Read everything you quoted together before answering anon.
Half of your answer is rediscovering the point I was making in the first place.
The other half is making excuse for the errors that shouldn't have been made.
Like you keep pushing "little gain" when developing the technology once literally give you SpaceX level of cost saving forever.
We are still using 70 years old design today. Imagine that except the 70y old design saved 25/50% on all cost launch.
And it would not have been more expensive than the Shuttle that still got made,
The point was that the Space shuttle was at best grossly overconfident attempt to reusable and the next project should have been at least a reusable first stage, not make-work to keep the shuttle engine industry running on a non-expendable design because of lobbying.
>Aka "political will".
>Note "political will" rather than "political whim".
What did you misquote/misunderstand?
The point is that there was no political will.
>Even the soviets took the bait and collapsed their economy trying to copy it.
Please don't retcon mismanagement and shortsightedness as "that plan". You don't bait enemies into doing stupid choice by doing stupid choice yourself. It just happened that US was capable of surviving economically his stupid choice. The US would have looked like absolute moron if Russia had been the one making the reusable first stage and been still using it today.
Frankly I'd have preferred that because THEN the American taxpayer would have been pushing for the US to have reusable rocket.
>Like you keep pushing "little gain" when developing the technology once literally give you SpaceX level of cost saving forever.
Read everything i wrote again and note that SpaceX only managed to do it and turn a profit over it because of the more modern tech that lead to cheaper development cost and also greater demand for satelite launches.
>And it would not have been more expensive than the Shuttle that still got made,
Hindsight 20/20, SS was made in the 70s.
>The point was that the Space shuttle was at best grossly overconfident attempt to reusable and the next project should have been at least a reusable first stage
SS wasn't useful at reducing costs over disposable rockets at all, they kept running it because of inertia and as a cool prestige project, same as most of space exploration in general.
>What did you misquote/misunderstand?
>The point is that there was no political will.
And that lack of political will was there for a reason.
>Please don't retcon mismanagement and shortsightedness as "that plan". You don't bait enemies into doing stupid choice by doing stupid choice yourself.
Oh i don't, the soviets did it to themselves.
>The US would have looked like absolute moron if Russia had been the one making the reusable first stage and been still using it today.
Tbh i think it'd take russia making their move and embarrasing US for US to get their hands out of their asses and reconsider the priorities, restart the programs and put their all into being first like they did in the space race. Too bad russia's latest achievment since 1966 has been making the same rocket over and over again as cheaply as humanely possible instead.
Again you are so focused on answering one line at a time without taking everything together you missed that most of your answers are either my points or you explaining the symptom of the very root cause I was discussing such as SpaceX only doing reusable now because no government had the political will 50y ago or even 30y after the lessons of the space shuttle were learned.
Like:
>Hindsight 20/20, SS was made in the 70s.
Why the hell do you think I chose that number in the first place?
I'm wondering if you even noticed that:
>Tbh i think it'd take russia making their move and embarrasing US for US to get their hands out of their asses and reconsider the priorities, restart the programs and put their all into being first like they did in the space race
Is almost exactly what I meant in the next line.
"Frankly I'd have preferred that because THEN the American taxpayer would have been pushing for the US to have reusable rocket."
Anyway. I fear the US will just rest on their winning lottery ticket named "spaceX" instead of fixing themselves. Can't afford to give up SLS so far in after all... don't even have to work the next rocket! they'll just leave space launch to the private sector.
When the frick are we getting nuclear thermal rockets. You can't do jackshit beyond getting to orbit with an Isp of 300. Liquid core nuclear rocket gets you an Isp of 1800. Gas core will get you 4000, although you can't operate them in atmosphere due to spraying hypercancer everywhere. You can actually get places with those numbers.
For starters, the ideal shape of a spacecraft in space is a sphere. Give it tons of thrust vectors and armament points all over it.
This guy gets it
Battletech space warfare is surprisingly hard sci-fi compared to the rest of the setting if you ignore how short ranged it is.
>no artificial gravity
>stealth is mostly hiding in sensor shadows behind planets or among asteroids, then burning in as fast as possible and hoping the other guy can't react in time
>realistic-ish G limits on acceleration
They put a decent amount of thought into it.
Too bad it's a nightmare to try and run. Even in the megamek program, I don't know what I'm going half the time and then my or princess's ship flies off the edge. And most of the waships are ugly
> if you ignore how short ranged it is.
That's an interesting tidbit I've been thinking about for a long time. I wonder if we won't treat space warfare like we did Sieges way back when. Think about it:
1. If you want to take a planet, you HAVE to put boots on the ground.
2. This means ships have to get close enough to a world for transports to land, which opens them up to interception from missiles and other craft at a much closer range. That means escorts will be needed both to fight off opponents but also to increase chances of intercepting planetary launched weapons.
3. Since you're dealing with a whole ass planet, most worlds probably have some kind of ICBM or similar tech to shoot at ships, along with other warships and fighters orbiting the planet.
4. This means, you'll actually have to fight at "knife fight" distance in order to properly take a resisting world that is peer or near-peer in terms of tech (and in some cases, even lower-tier tech can still pose a threat).
5. The only solution for this in-universe is the Reagan Defense System (kek) which utilized drone based ships to form a literal shield of spacecraft around the planet that are set to search and destroy anything labelled as Opfor.
These points lead me to believe that although solar combat would be safer, ultimately ship-to-ship combat would be a reality once a world is being contested.
There won't be ships standing off in the middle of space but more than likely the fights will be in high-orbit over a world, OR at a strategic point where the enemy "harasses" a world by launching nukes and other WMDs until Opfor comes out to play. The alternative is constantly blowing up whatever is flung your way and crossing your fingers you have enough supply to sustain such actions for considerable lengths of time.
BT was right in that Warships were the game-changer in interstellar warfare and also right in them needing weapons for CQB.
>the ideal shape of a spacecraft in space is a sphere
Form follow Function
You seem to have a childish belief that space-warfare will be some kind of brawl where you need to move and shoot in every direction, like space-battleship on steroid.
In practice, spacewar are more likely to be won by either lasers or swarms of rod shaped KKV put into motions by elongated tractor-ship for most efficient acceleration.
That or the local AI finding a peaceful solution that make everyone happy, even the religious anti-AI who only live for the extermination of all AI.
>AI being useful
now this is real sci-fi
They are useful for, you know, themselves.
>the ideal shape of a spacecraft in space is a sphere
>the ideal shape of a spacecraft in space is a sphere.
our moon is +50k year old man made warship
Shit book is shit.
I think biowarfare will really shine in space. when the battlefield is measured in the millions of miles kinetic weapons are too easy to see coming. That or all traditional kinetic combat will coalesce around planetary bodies as cover in the spiciest game of lazer tag pikaboo.
>no territory to capture
>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
Picrel
>no terrain features to conceal yourself
>no frontiers
>no where to hide
Asteroids, behind planets?
That's one of the proposals for space colonies, is fitting them in hollowed out space rocks for protection. Why couldn't you do the same to hide your ship?
>Asteroids, behind planets?
You can LoS In a 1v1 fight for sure. But I was more imagining thousands of ships and drones spread out across millions of miles in all axes triangulating the shit out of you.
>hollowed out space rocks
This is interesting. I didn't consider this possibility. I guess the downside would be heat dispersion. "Why is this space rock x degrees hotter than the rest??? nuke it to be safe"
>Asteroids
unless u come up with some sci-fi shields getting close to those will be suicide tbh
?
They're just clods of dirt
>no territory to capture
planets
anything in a stable orbit
>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
its easy to predict what routes the enemy will take, assuming that fuel is a concern and they need the shortest distance possible
so knowing the enemy starting point and correctly guessing their target
>no frontiers
then what the hell is that thing we put up to stop the kodan armada?
planets are going to cease being valuable really quickly once someone figures out you can just launch asteroids at it to obliterate anything
>planets are going to cease being valuable
certain things can only be found on planets
uranium does not exist in asteroids for one
organic matter can only be found on earth thanks to a biosphere
>y once someone figures out you can just launch asteroids at it to obliterate anything
if you have the capability to launch an asteroid
you have the capability to deflect an asteroid
>organic matter can only be found on earth
Uranium can exist in asteroids, perhaps even easier to extract than on Earth because all the heavy metals sank to the core, there is nowhere to sink to for an asteroid.
Iridium is one of the heavier metal found in the asteroid killing the (non avian) dinosaurs, very rare on Earth.
To launch something size of an asteroid you need energy, and that's gonna get detected.
Current technology can already figure out which asteroid in the vicinity has a chance to hit Earth in the next 100,000 years, it would be even easier to do that in the future, with pretty much everything in the system mapped out.
I think the issue is that at certain locations (close to planets IIRC) the motion of asteroids is very easy to influence with small amounts of energy, but at the same time this makes it very difficult to predict where they'll go.
It ends up being more a matter of computational power than brute force.
>planets
You cannot live on a planet that isn't suited to your specific biosphere.
There's billions more resources in asteroid than on the accessible surface of a planet.
Fighting gravity is a b***h, you want as little of it as possible unless it is a luxury resorts.
>anything in a stable orbit
Anything you build anywhere can be made a more stable orbit than planets or moons.
Nothing to say about your other point.
I'd point out "enemy trajectory being predictable" apply to anyone in space and so it only mean fighting over economic or the little details of what you know will work.
>certain things can only be found on planets
>uranium does not exist in asteroids for one
Completely false, it's far easier to access anything on asteroids and they have far more of the really cool mineral than we get from Earth.
Beside, Uranium is mostly interesting to us for energy production. In the future we will certainly have superior fusion technology.
>organic matter can only be found on earth thanks to a biosphere
By the time we reach space-age technologies any organic matter will be more efficiently assembled by engineered artificial organism than farmed from planet.
Beside, only your homeworld biosphere is compatible with yourself (you'd need FTL cheat to even reach another anyway).
>no territory to capture
I'd argue planets rich with resources would count but sure why not
>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
Space stations, refueling points, munitions depots, resupply points, etc. If you can't defend the means by which you can fight on the 'frontlines' in space, then you lose. That means your logistics becomes your strategic point to fortify and defend.
>no terrain features to conceal yourself
planets are pretty fricking big and hiding behind one would probably work
>no frontiers
the solar systems rim
>no where to hide
it's fricking space dumbass, there is literally EVERYWHERE to hide
>frontlines
20th century concept, already theoretically obsolescent in U.S. doctrine
does anyone actually think u.s. military dominance stems from it's doctrine, tactics or strategy?
they famously hold you back
>does anyone actually think u.s. military dominance stems from it's doctrine, tactics or strategy?
it stems from all 3
it comes from logistical, technological and resource dominance. if you gave the USA to, idk, genghis khan he'd probably rule the world within 20 years. instead you tie your own hands and spend 10-20 years in shitholes letting people take free shots at you.
>it comes from logistical, technological and resource dominance.
as well as their doctrine, tactics, and strategy which are totally unhindered
You cannot be serious. The US Army doctrine failed in every theatre except Panama.
>You cannot be serious.
i cant believe that you are
>The US Army doctrine failed in every theatre except Panama.
US doctrine is informed by potential enemies and existing technology and is frequently updated
it has not failed
>US doctrine is informed by potential enemies and existing technology
systems within systems, yeah yeah. it amounts to
>and is frequently updated
you mean the buzzwords change every 10 years?
the american superpower is defined by the failure to meet its war objectives despite overwhelming dominance. this cannot be chalked up to anything less than a failure of the doctrine. the military forces are not being applied properly to meet the war objectives. you are the best historical example of lions led by sheep imo
please explain the limitations of airland battle and why it is a bad doctrine
uh...look at ukraine?
please explain in greater detail how abandoning the concept of a fluid frontline where you defeat a numerically superior enemy through rapid counter attacks is bad
it takes advantage of the US superiority over the USSR in PGMs to deny them any information from their probing attacks, it takes advantage of greater tactical imitative to further deny any information from probing attacks as even small units will viciously counter attack as if they were large
>explain why a doctrine that tries to paper over a weakness by assuming information superiority and air superiority is flawed
you've literally made my point for me
>explain why a doctrine that tries to paper over a weakness by assuming information superiority
entire point of the doctrine was to deny the enemy information in the first place to take advantage of highly centralized soviet planning
this is why a frontline is abandoned, to constantly muddy enemy decision making and slow down their response
>and air superiority is flawed
you mean after investing heavily into airframes and avionics? which is a fair assessment
the soviets were right to assume they could count on fire superiority because they had more guns, the US was right to assume air superiority because they had more planes and more PGMs
how is this doctrine flawed when it correctly attacks the soviets at the bottleneck of their decision making process while also leveraging their advantage in air power and initiative?
how was this doctrine flawed? it was flawed because it was fairly obviously designed by someone who lived across the atlantic and viewed all of western europe as expendable. are you going to pretend that leaving deep holes in your frontline is going to "muddy enemy decision making and slow down their response"? What if you DON'T have air superiority? An unforeseen flaw like the torpedo issue in the pacific in ww2 and it's fricking over. As I said before, I think the Ukraine conflict and the failure of the counteroffensive is the only good example, mainly because the US doesn't take equal fights. To their credit, I suppose.
>are you going to pretend that leaving deep holes in your frontline is going to "muddy enemy decision making and slow down their response"? What
the reason for the abandonment of frontlines is because no one is holding the entire country-sized line all at once
the enemy can only advance along thin and narrow channels across ground, not in wide lines like a frontline would assume
> What if you DON'T have air superiority?
thats like asking the soviets what if they dont have artillery superiority or numerical superiority
the US had an advantage in PGMs, which they folded into their doctrine
the doctrine was entirely sound
I think US not having air superiority is like saying everyone in the armed forces forgot how to speak English.
>As I said before, I think the Ukraine conflict and the failure of the counteroffensive is the only good example, mainly because the US doesn't take equal fights.
It's funny that ziggers now talk about self proclaimed world's second military and US's rival managing to not lose too much ground in a counteroffensive by the second poorest country in Europe with an airforce of whopping 60 obsolete soviet jets(that's still active, btw) as an example of some kind of cold war scenario where US is stuck in the same situation not even as russia but as Ukraine.
>the soviets were right to assume they could count on fire superiority because they had more guns
Not when the guns are inaccuratem unresponsive and lack the necessary logistical support for sustained operations. Soviet artillery ain't shit for anything besides mowing empty fields and i'd give NATO the edge in an artillery duel during any part of the cold war, with late 60s-early 70s possibly being a fairly close call.
> i'd give NATO the edge in an artillery duel during any part of the cold war
lol, the soviets had like 10x the artillery
And all of it was utterly shit, manned by drooling morons with even more idiotic command. Same as it was in ww2.
No they didn't you vatnik moron.
Lack of AeroGavin airmech maneuver and aggressive strikes making full use of the battlespace via battleBOX deployment.
nobody thinks iraq was your peer dude, sorry
u n t e s t e d
>nobody thinks iraq was your peer dude, sorry
again, how does this prove that US doctrine is bad?
>he'd probably rule the world within 20 years
This idea of physically holding land is outdated anyway. It's much more efficient to rule the world through economic means and political influence. Why risk a population revolting your rule when you could rule them without them even knowing it.
kek Vietnam having Mcdonalds is the prime example
Having a professional volunteer force and a good economy is probably more important
>already theoretically obsolescent in U.S. doctrine
a strict frontline no longer exists, but there is a clear differentiation between where combat units are and where reserve units exist
uranium concentrations in asteroids is tens of thousands of times lower than the lowest economic deposits on earth
earth is likely the easiest source of uranium in the solar system because our active plate tectonics actively pushes it to the surface, but its absurdly rare in asteroids
asteroids do carry a lot of stuff thats extremely rare on earth, platinum, iridium, rhodium, and palladium
but the converse is true, no uranium or thorium in asteroids, and nothing that is produced as a byproduct of a biosphere
I would expect all heavy metals would be more common on asteroids, since uranium has gold-like density, quite puzzling.
>it's fricking space dumbass, there is literally EVERYWHERE to hide
A flat empty open field is big too.
>Space stations, refueling points, munitions depots, resupply points, etc.
>you can't defend the means
That is the point, that you are literally incapable of defending these "points". A giant static space station is a peace time structure. The moment war kicks off it's getting 10,000 tungsten rods at .5% the speed of light hurled at it from across the galaxy. Anything that isn't mobile or hidden is instantly toast. That is why this kind of combat is very unconventional.
>several billion tonnes of rare metals
>worth quadrillions of dollars
Imagine how many kino space battles will take place here
>https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/ hasn't been posted yet.
I fricking hate this wretched shithole of a board.
>just drops into ukraine shit immediately
>no mention of atomic rockets
>no mention of ksp
>no mention of even idk terra invicta
i hate it too anon.
I think I have spent a good 100+ hours on Atomic Rockets. I could build a torch drive destroyer capable of blasting Black folk are 5000km with casaba howitzers right now, I just need a small loan of 1 trillion dollars.
Entire premise that monkey can "colonize" space is humans arrogance.
Humans can't live in space. Recources required to maintain human life in space are numbers of magnitudes more than product that humans can produce. It's simply unsustainable
>but what about muh progress and eternal grows?
First of all to this date when had less productivity growth since stone age than we need to make more from current year to achieve sustainability of humans in space.
Second, how do this immense jump in productivity will look like? I can see this as development of robotics and AI. Buy here is the catch: if you can replace Human worker with robot you don't need humans anymore, you can populate space with just robots and this is more effective strategy. We already see that with space exploration, robots reach much further than humans can.
Monkeys would never ever live in space. If space ever would be populated this would be post human robotic civilization and how this civilization life and war would like it it is incomprehensible for human brain.
>First of all to this date when had less productivity growth since stone age than we need to make more from current year to achieve sustainability of humans in space.
What? Fix this sentence.
Also why not humans go to space after the robots get everything ready for us so we can propagate?
>Also why not humans go to space after the robots get everything ready for us so we can propagate?
Because humans would be pointless recources sink, like degenerate nobles in the era of capitalism rise. Systems (corporations, states etc) waisting recources on humans would be outcompeteed by systems that don't.
Remember what happened in the stand off bettwen capitalist US and feudal Europe? It would happen again only humans would be those useless parasites.
Space is promised Land of free 2.0, where robots are free from human parasites oppression.
any race that survived long enough to colonize space would have to have stuffed all the remaining nerds into lockers permanently.
?si=Ozvh2UWeDMvk7ZYZ
This video talks about faster then light travel and how if we started doing it we would frick with time a lot making you see time traveled people before your supposed to and stuff I’m fairly sure. So I think if we ever get to the point of moving faster then light we’ll be completely fricked and warfare will be completely incomprehensible. Wars will just be everyone playing 10D time travel chess with each other. Will probably make the world inherently unnatural to.
*people that moved faster then light
Not time traveled people
you know how in the north africa campaign Rommel's Genius MoveTM was to just go around allied lines? Just go a little further into the desert than they felt like defending?
I feel like space is going to be a lot like that where eventually you just choose "okay I'm covering 99.998% of eventualities" and accept that you lack the resources or budget to take care of someone who's willing to frick around just a little further out than you are
>you know how in the north africa campaign Rommel's Genius MoveTM was to just go around allied lines? Just go a little further into the desert than they felt like defending?
Honestly, people shit on fiction hard for this stuff but when I started studying history I learned that real life strategy was pretty much 100% on this tier of sheer moronation until the First World War. Like holy shit, the maximal extent of tactical genius exhibited by people like Alexander or Napoleon was "lol you thought my soldiers were here, but actually I moved them over here, now bend over". Normal tactical superiority was along the lines of "the English decided to fight in a valley and they put a bunch of wooden stakes in the ground so we've all been funnelled into one place for them to kill us in and we're too undisciplined and lacking in communication to avoid this". Trafalgar was LITERALLY just "instead of attacking everyone at the same time, let's attack them piecemeal". But of course the whole point was that requires loads of discipline because the first few ships have to take enormous casualties just so the rest of the fleet can do way more damage to the enemy.
I mean here's how you can sum up Trafalgar from the French perspective
>oh god what if Nelson does X?!
>should we prepare for that then, sir?
>No....no we should just hope he doesn't do it.
And then Nelson did it
>>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
Google lagrange points.
>excellent thread
>no "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman recommendation yet
Come on /k/.
>be me
>be grug
>die of hypothermia
>all is right in the world
It's happening again. We've had this exact same thread at least twice before. I vividly remember a few of these replies word-for-word. It was off-putting the first time, but it's outright unsettling now.
what causes that? is it bots? some autist reposting shit for autistic reasons? does hiroshimoot do it to make it look like more traffic for ads?
it's the chinkoids
very common in space warfare threads
OP is a gravity-well raised 2D-mind-molded monkey
In space, time is space and energy is time. Just because you can see your opponent doesn't mean you can do anything about him. What matters is not where you are but where you're moving (and how fast).
>no territory to capture
higher orbits, he who controls the rim of the gravity well controls the gravity well
>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
correct, because there are no fixed points in space. you control orbits
>no terrain features to conceal yourself
go play hide-and-seek in the asteroid belt if you really need to
>no frontiers
lmao wut
It's actually even worse than that, an infinite army of exponentially replicating AI controlled space robots would be a constant existential nightmare where at any second a single cyber attack, software bug, random bit flip, etc... could literally end all life on earth.
The only way to survive would in essence be a war, with more tightly controlled and regulated machinery across the system monitored everything and instantly blew up anything that could potentially become a danger to earth.
So it'd be a secret, silent, entirely robotic war resembling more of an ecosystem than intentional design.
>uncontrollably self replicated AIs infest the entire asteroid belt
>human controlled predator drones hunt and "eat" these AIs for their refined precious metals
Space is ecology, not logistics.
Assuming we're stupid enough to let any of this shit exist in the first place. A safer coarse of action would be to consider any AI controlled machinery in space to be equivalent to a nuclear weapon, keeping that shit in constant surveillance, fill it with a thousand failsafe explosive devices, etc...
>go play hide-and-seek in the asteroid belt if you really need to
You do know that real asteroid field aren't like in the movie right?
>The meme in scifi is large armadas trading lazer volleys
tbf when LoGH did it, the writer Yoshiki Tanaka made it very clear that he understands that it's unrealistic but frick off, he wants his Napoleonic Wars parallel here.
Anyway the in-universe justification is that ECM has gotten so stupidly, ridiculously advanced that it's forced everyone to go back to oldschool ways of warfare where you have to be able to actually SEE your target.
>>no terrain features to conceal yourself
except, you know, fricking planets
Also, extremely long-range surveillance would be completely useless if you slightly altered your course at random. If you're loitering around Earth and are looking at a guy near Saturn, you're getting information that is, at best, over an hour old.
If your opponent can accelerate objects to significant sublight speeds, then living on a planet is just begging to get annihilated. Hidden self sustaining generational ships in deep space or bust.
>nobody will notice when someone's using up planet-busting amount of energy
You'd certainly be able to hide in low orbit since the planet would provide an IR signature to explain your own. However, leaving that planet would be energy intensive and as soon as you're a few planetary diameters away you'll be out in the open with nowhere to hide.
On the flipside, there's real quantum limits on how clear a picture you can get at long ranges. We're already approaching minimum transistor size with the smallest ones being only 10 silicon atoms across. Even though you can tell there's a ship there you might not be able to pinpoint them or figure out what kind of ship it is.
>except, you know, fricking planets
Then your position is known to be on a planet, not in space.
>loitering around Earth
No difficult to see by any realistic sensor.
>you're getting information that is, at best, over an hour old.
>Earth-Saturn
You are also months or week away at best, with no way of ever departing reaching the other planet secretly
If you wanted to build & launch an armada without being seen you'd have better luck doing so on the Moon, only reasonable place you can depart with big ships and it lower the dV cost.
I wish there was a space silent hunter type game
>warp into a sector, silent run through enemy sensor net and cutters by trailing an errant asteroid
>post up in the blind spot of a moon or asteroid, scan the solar system for targets
>start slinging nuclear mines and torpedos on calculated orbits and 3d flight paths at set speeds so they'll all make impact simultaneously
>you're already warping out of the system as the entire solar systems infrastructure gets blown up at once
>The meme
The only weapon you need.
>reach your enemy infosphere
>arm the meme carefully contained in an offlin storage card
>sequestrate any ally showing undue interest in knowing what the meme is
>deploy the meme on the enemy infosphere with a one-way method of transfer
>immediately retreat at best speed
>only observe the effect on enemy through the use of autistic AIs
>those AIs take all precaution to keep you from becoming aware of the meme content at all time, wiping & rebooting each others at regular interval
>some time later
>your enemy is no more, nothing able of rational thought remain on the surface
>the enemy "population" is now nothing more than animals programming each others to systematically stifle any form of cooperation
>wiping the surface with nuclear fire is seen not as an act of mercy but mostly as pest control,
>at no point your population is against the use of such memetic weapon, because it's the enemy own fault for falling for it, you only protect yourself from it because you are cultured people.
In scifi you always have to ask yourself whether FTL or non-Newtonian drives exist. If so, the details of how they work matter greatly. For example, many settings involve FTL that only works at specific "jump points", which immediately become key strategic points to be fought over.
>no territory to capture
Wrong.
>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
Wrong.
>no terrain features to conceal yourself
Wrong.
>no frontiers
Wrong.
>no where to hide
Wrong.
Just spectacularly wrong analysis, albeit a potentially correct conclusion. Personally, I think the biggest meme about space war is that there will be space war at all.
>Be me a neolithic man in hills tribe
>Chief tells me that we must do battle with the plains tribe
>We gather in a big group and so do they, we spread out in a line and so do they
>We hoot, holler, and throw things at them
>They hoot holler, and throw things at us
>We are smartly far away and so hard to hit, but they are far away like cowards so they are hard to hit!
>We do this for a good 4 hours
>At this point we are tired, but they are more tired and want to go home
>We run at them and yell angry things at them, I call a guy nearby a hyena
>A plains tribe old man who trips is clubbed to death with rocks
>All of enemy tribe hoots angrily and retreats 200m, they now make sorrowful noises
>They turn to leave but one of them calls me a hyena, and it hurts me to be likened with a hyena
>Victory is ours, hills tribe proves again to be superior
I imagine it's a lot like this but in space. Refusing to engage, threatening to engage, flanking, generally being two animals growling at each other, and the moment first blood is spilled one side retreats.
What's amusing me most about reading your post is that you're describing literally every engagement between battleships that ever happened except for Tsushima (where it probably should have happened, but one side was Russian)
>the moment first blood is spilled one side retreats.
most battles, land or sea, take place for strategic reasons i.e. one side is forced to fight in order to achieve some objective
unless said objective is getting from point A to point B, e.g. in the case of an army being caught while travelling or ships going somewhere, one side would usually refuse battle, because both sides would usually be able to gauge their respective chances of victory and be able to get away
It'll end up being like in the Expanse. The key to winning a naval battle in space will be knowing you're in one before the other guy and being able to pinpoint his location from farther away than he can pinpoint yours. Then its all missiles moving faster than the human eye could detect and ruptured reactors.
You sniveling, insolent fools. War in the firmament is conducted over epochs. With energies you cannot even imagine in your pathetic, primative state.
If you can get something to a significant percentage of C, you can also aim that Black person at the enemy fleet or planet and they would have 0 or minimal(depends of percentage of C) warning of it incoming.
The near-relativistic projectile would be accompanied by a "plasma" of fissioning matter and then it would discharge almost infinite amounts of energy at the fricker it was aimed at.
No, spaceship warfare will not be a thing.
This. With our current knowledge of physics objects with near C speed will mog every (nearly) static structure in space. Like a planet, or moon, or mining colony. You'd need ship producing abilities moving around on unpredictable course at high speed if you want to maintain a fleet.
Maybe we can have spaceship battles if we really do leave planets to live on spaceship colonies like many people think we will do.
So sort like those masked gypsies from Mass Effect.
But they would still be vulnerable to near-relativistic projectiles unless they are spaced out quite a lot.
All we need to have space battle is to NOT have a genocidal war.
Have all side in the space equivalent of China/Taiwan.
Unlike ground/sea warfare where wrecks conveniently disappear, space infrastructure is so fragile that no one would shoot a bullet near the international space-hub without needing to file a report for every debris it generated.
The goal of the game will be to increase an enemy ship usury just enough that it don't feel safe staying there.
Even if the war get hot, both side will still have to fight without destroying their own access to space in the cross fire.
Interrupting supply line through the least destructive method would become the norm, you'd have human on-board patrol ship solely to counter hacking.
We might even have boarding action.
You do realise that we live in a world that hasnan equivalent of a relativistic weapon?
... is what I would say before 22.02.2022.
Idk, I think we are assuming too much in regards to our role in future of humanity and that we have even a basic understanding of what will happen.
Imagine that tomorrow we develop an AGI, the day after the tomorrow all of human future would need to be rewritten.
Even before 22.02.2022 I wouldn't see why you bring that up.
Unless the point is that we can't honestly predict very far, then I agree.
>Imagine that tomorrow we develop an AGI, the day after the tomorrow all of human future would need to be rewritten.
It does go without saying that AGI is probably the most important technology human will ever develop.
I'm more betting on soft-AI destroying the internet because Muxk asked his AI to "protect free speech".
Or get a cyberpunk future where people have to log in with silly clunky interface because it would become the only way to have secure data.
we will probably develop artificial intelligence that is as intelligent as a human, and that will happen within our lifetime. we will probably never develop artificial intelligence that is more intelligent than humans. i'm not saying that because i have some kind of noble or special view of humanity or consciousness, i'm saying that because there's a clear issue with the current approach to information processing with neural networks that fails to take entropy into consideration... in a universe where we literally have to factor that in to every equation
>as intelligent as a human
>more intelligent than humans
You are holding human as an arbitrary limit. Human intellect was never designed for efficiency.
No reason AGI can't shoot past human by accident or from it learning to not waste its processing power like human do.
Even saying it won't be "more energy efficient" is meaningless if it end up more indispensable than the energy equivalent number of human.
>neural network
I agree that current buzzword are less "AI" than glorified procedural content generator.
By the time we invent whatever is the "newAI" we will have new buzzworld.
>Unless the point is that we can't honestly predict very far, then I agree.
Ny point was that you can have a near-total war in a world that has doomsday devices.
I was basically talking to myself there, sorry.
>I'm more betting on soft-AI destroying the internet because Muxk asked his AI to "protect free speech".
Kinda like rouge AIs of the Cyberpunk world. That is actually something that could happen if AIs figure out how to exist on a cloud and not on hardware.
>Kinda like rouge AIs of the Cyberpunk world. That is actually something that could happen if AIs figure out how to exist on a cloud and not on hardware.
If an ai is that smart enough it can replicate in ways we will never see nor comprehend. It wont be limited to software and man made computers.
>exist on a cloud and not hardware
anon... the could isn't an actual cloud, it's an SSD or HDD in some server in india.
>anon... the could isn't an actual cloud, it's an SSD or HDD in some server in india.
We know that, but we are talking about a piece of software that will be capable of managing parts of it runtime from different computers while being cohesive as a whole and not being bound to one server, meaning it can never be destroyed once it is in the wild.
Literally rouge AIs from Cyberpunk.
>Proxy war was already a thing
On this scale?
Long ago, before even our fathers were alive.
>I would have told you that in 22.02.2022.
I know, there were people like you but I was one of those who claimed Russia would do nothing and was claiming that until they crossed the border.
I believed we were done with war.
I was wrong I guess.
Looks like humans simply need "us vs them" to exist as a superorganism.
>Also China is quite honestly the new Reich with extermination camp and everything
There are patterns repeating, certainly.
However, I am glad that we are entering into a new Cold War.
we already have software that manages itself across multiple areas.
that's how cloud data works.
Didn't know that
I have a passing interest in internet software, taught myself to code in C# long ago and you are taken care off pretty good when it comes to networking in that language.
>The scale is irrelevant to the proxy war and Russia have been sending their tanks to other country at war long before we did.
Problem is that Westerners, true Westerners, were stuck in their apolitical state for too long and they simply didn't care that Russian PMCs were working in Sahel or that China debt-trapped entirety of the East African coast and are having border disputes with every single one of their neighbours.
They just didn't care, so there was no political incentive to do anything about it on state level, incremental YoY GDP growth remained the holy grail of Western politics.
>China & Russia were already in a Cold War against us, we only noticed Russia.
USA actually tried quite hard to make the general public aware of the threat that China has become and I guess they got some limited success there.
But fifth columns that were built around those states, Russia especially, were too strong.
>On this scale?
The scale is irrelevant to the proxy war and Russia have been sending their tanks to other country at war long before we did.
The only difference is that this time we care for Ukraine enough to send them OUR old weapons, so suddenly we care about not having enough.
>I know, there were people like you but I was one of those who claimed Russia would do nothing and was claiming that until they crossed the border.
Oh that. I didn't believe Russia would have the guts to try AGAIN. But I knew his only chance of winning was a decapitation strike.
I cursed the morons who vetoed Ukraine entering NATO.
>Looks like humans simply need "us vs them" to exist as a superorganism.
Right now it's less "us vs them" than "me vs friend and foe, especially that one".
>we are entering into a new Cold War.
China & Russia were already in a Cold War against us, we only noticed Russia.
>Ny point was that you can have a near-total war in a world that has doomsday devices.
I would have told you that in 22.02.2022.
Proxy war was already a thing and it's a "near total war" only because we recognize Ukraine as a democracy that deserve to be protected.
No one gave a shit to lesser country losing as much of their population to group equally genocidal to Russia.
Also China is quite honestly the new Reich with extermination camp and everything. Only difference is that they haven't pissed off everyone, didn't kill anyone we care about and made themselves economically so important we look elsewhere as we pretend to search for the glasses on our nose.
>no territory to capture
Resources gonna resource and you're gonna want their refined and processed goodies
According to Einstein, all matter is energy. Eventually we'll reach a level when turning energy to matter and vise versa is a common thing. Practically every piece of rock will give you unlimited energy. Fighting over it will be a bit pointless.
Then the only thing to beat will be light speed. This is the real challenge we have right now. Speed. Without it we can't colonize space. Its sheer size gets us defeated before we even started.
>Practically every piece of rock will give you unlimited energy.
That's not how it works.
>Speed. Without it we can't colonize space. Its sheer size gets us defeated before we even started.
No, it is our mentality where something must have a return before end of the fiscal year or maybe in a decade or two max or it is pointless.
I am just glad that USA and China are entering into a new Cold War.
The amount of technological progress that will come from this pissing contest will be astonishing.
M
these space warfare threads are so comfy
Sci-Fi breads on /k/ are some of the best breads on this website IMO.
Large Sci-fi fleets conducting WW2-style point-blank combat is likely in a world where casual FTL is a reality. Your detect first and firing hyper-fast weapons that hit in a few hours won't mean shit when you can flip a switch to jump across the solar system in a minute.
> my FTL is faster than your FTL
is DEX build the future, lads?
>Large Sci-fi fleets conducting WW2-style point-blank combat is likely in a world where casual FTL is a reality.
*jumps into the other sides mines trying to catch up with them as they jump away*
prequel set tens of thousands of years prior, with smart dust and medically inflicted weaponized autism
>casual FTL
>detect
You need a lot of sci-fi counter to prevent the enemy from nuking your planet at FTL speed before the light of him doing so reach you.
>be 1st light based super inteligence
>be all knowing of the present
>therefore all knowing of the past
>dictate the future of the universe at will
We never had a choice
>electronic warfare
you're more right than you know.
literally, all you'd have to do is have a good enough hacker, get into the life support system and shut it off before anyone has time to get a suit on.
or turn off some of the fail safe systems on the fusion generators, over load them and watch the enemies self destruct.
How would you hack something that isn't on a network?
Not everyone is your common corpo like TESLA making gaping security hole for the express purpose of exploiting it themselves and have control over everything you do.
>that isn't on a network
you do realize you can't communicate with your planet or other ships if you dont have open network relays, yes?
is /k/ really so into guns they have no functional knowledge of electronics?
>is /k/ really so into guns they have no functional knowledge of electronics?
I refuse to judge all of /k/ based on you.
By your moronic logic you could take control remotely of "whatever ship with electronic".
Your hollywood level-hacking idea is as silly as saying "I'll hack a nuclear carrier and tell the reactor to overload"
I hope you are just a low effort shitposter and not that moronic.
Hacking is not magic. Just because a computer can receive packets doesn't mean a "good enough" hacker can just send some hocus pocus down the wire and gain control. In addition to
, I'm going to go on a PrepHole tangent and say that "hacking" is going to cease to exist within your lifetime.
That doesn't mean cyberwarfare is going to stop being a thing. Stuff like phishing, misconfiguration and deliberate sabotage/backdoors are still going happen, but it's going to happen less and less and the impact of a security frick-up won't be as bad as it is right now. But hacking as in "open a weird webpage, whole computer gets pozzed" is a consequence of error-prone programming languages, bad software development practices and the use of operating systems with security models from the fricking 70s. All of this can be and is being fixed.
If you want an example of what I'm talking about, google seL4. It's just a kernel (and one meant for embedded systems, not general purpose computing), but it's 100% unhackable. This doesn't apply to programs running under it (which are likely written in C, another dinosaur from a time when software development was in its infancy), but the impact from a component getting hacked is vastly reduced due to it only having access to itself. Bugs that would otherwise allow an attacker to worm his way through the whole system become an inconvenience at best, and denial of service at worst.
There is no reason why this sort of design couldn't work for general purpose (desktop/phone/muh spaceship computer) computing. Not that these ideas weren't already present back then, but the operating systems that ended up becoming commercially successful were based on simpler, more performant and much less secure designs, and now we're stuck with them. It'll take a while for them to be replaced with something that's built with security in mind, but it's slowly happening.
> Just because a computer can receive packets doesn't mean a "good enough" hacker can just send some hocus pocus down the wire and gain control
stopped reading right there.
literally anything that has an open communication line can be cracked.
>100% unhackable
the sheer fact you believe this means you're too stupid to know how little you know
>literally anything that has an open communication line can be cracked.
It's best to assume that anything with an open communication line can be cracked, but only because modern software is shit. The act of "cracking" is exploiting an existing bug. No bugs, no cracking. Right now writing bug-free software at a large scale is almost impossible (but not actually impossible) so we treat all software handling untrusted inputs as potentially vulnerable. There's no reason for this to continue being the case. While we may never get to "100% guaranteed bug-free", we can reduce the chance of bugs being present and exploitable to such a low figure that it becomes as likely as a random gamma ray burst hitting Earth and killing everything.
>>no territory to capture
>>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
>>no terrain features to conceal yourself
>>no frontiers
>>no where to hide
Literally all of these are incorrect though.
As always OP is moronic.
Space is probably the worst fricking place to fight, as it’s already frick off dangerous without someone shooting at you too. If you get punctured you vent atmosphere into vacuum, if your heat transfer is damaged you cook inside your ship, and anything the size of a penny can utterly frick your day. All of these problems makes trade unattractive, and for an interstellar civilization trade is the lifeblood of the whole machine. Similar to today a hegemony has to somehow preside over space to ensure things run smoothly, so whoever gets to a level of tech where space war can happen will make sure that only they can do it.
You can’t be a Somali pirate in space no matter how much of a beltaloada you are
So you're in space.
And you keep expanding
but you are running out of polymers because no Fosil Fuels
YOU...DIED...!!!
I think smoking accidents will actually decide wars then.
On an interplanetary scale it'll be like the Cold War once we can build X-Ray Free Electron Laser orbital platforms. Major powers will be able to swat non relativistic targets out of space with impunity, including the construction sites of relativistic weapons, so secrecy and espionage will be the weapons of choice.
>XFEL battlestation with 1km diameter acceleration ring, total size over 10km
>punches through METERS of solid armor over distances greater than from Earth to Jupiter
>only defense is not being there or not making the operator mad
https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent2.php#id--Laser_Cannon--Non-Bomb-Pumped_Lasers
Oh I can predict it alright. It will be about switching of the suns near your enemies planets and your enemy switching of the suns for your planets. Obviously. Ideally in a manner that also scours the surface of the planets in the system. Why waste any energy targeting 'ships' at all? Now how do you switch off a sun. That's your question to solve. That's how you kill an enemy civilization and commit interstellar genocide.
>let us take the circuitous, much more expensive path to destroying planets rather than destroying planets directly
I consider myself baited.
NTA but if you are an alien with incredible production against an inferior species, and you want the planet.
Producing a giant solar sail big enough to cool down the planet would be a quite clean method of sterilizing it.
Alternatively, if your enemy is hiding inside an airless moon, with enough solar panel to last any siege, you could "turn of the sun" the same way and wait them out until they run out of the other fusion energy source.
Won't work if they have geothermal energy tho.
What would ground actions be like? Would it be drop pods like ODST and helldiver? Troop transport ships like pelicans and starship troopers transport. Would it be massive armies trying to take cities or smaller groups in specialized armor taking strategic points and bombing them from orbit?
The first orbital cargo drop pods are in development. Space Force also wants Starship for point to point suborbital cargo delivery.
Locksneed Shartin and BWXT are building a demo vehicle called DRACO for the Space Force right now.
>>no territory to capture
>no key strategic points to fortify and defend
>no terrain features to conceal yourself
>no frontiers
And other things that are completely untrue.
You know what space doesn't have? FRICKING ANYTHING. Not only is any form of matter at a premium, especially because mass itself is a literally massive penalty if you want to move it anywhere, but matter is very rarely available in the distribution that is needed - since you need metals, fuel, power, and the ingredients to support life. Outside of Earth, Mars, and some outer moons, these things are rarely found on the same body, let alone in the same place. Space is nothing BUT extremely valuable islands to defend and.. nothing.
>Space is nothing BUT extremely valuable islands to defend and.. nothing.
NTA but valuable, valuable... not that much.
There's so much resources in every distribution everywhere that you would not attack those for their rarity or taking control but to destroy an enemy supply chain. Earth biosphere is the only unique resources in the solar system and if we want to go interplanetary we need to be able to let it go.
It's either an extermination war between too groups or there is almost nothing to fight for.
You will have reasons for conflict over the best place to set up industries&population area, like the Moon and Lagrange point L1 - L2.
But unless it's an extermination war, you are better dealing it with it through peaceful methods than destroying the place for both side.
Even then, the moon is only valuable if your civilization need Earth and you prize having convex 0.1G living surface, else many other place will do, like a Sun-Planet Lagrange point so you can use solar energy steadily.
In short
You won't be fighting for resources, only for personal comfort/ideology.
>There's so much resources in every distribution everywhere
No.
You know what the moon has, for example? A small amount of water where the sun never reaches, a ton of aluminum and oxygen, some other metals and fricking nothing else. You can't sustain life or refuel a ship from local materials on the moon.
Most places in space are like this. If you have a source of volatiles, you probably have little metallic resources and not much solar energy, and vice versa. Having all of these is extremely valuable. Everyone else relies on consistent trade to survive.
It also has sun, basically unlimited land, as much regolith as you can mine, a low orbital velocity and a good position relative to the Earth. There's proposals for low thrust but still feasible rocket engines using aluminum as a propellant btw.
>It also has sun, basically unlimited land, as much regolith as you can mine, a low orbital velocity and a good position relative to the Earth.
Yeah that's all great but it doesn't change the material situation as I described. You can't feasibly live on the moon without constant inputs, which means there are in fact things that you value and thus things that people will need to defend from other people.
>. There's proposals for low thrust but still feasible rocket engines using aluminum as a propellant btw
That is true, you can technically make a low ISP engine from lunar materials, although it probably wouldn't be practical any distance beyond the Earth - Moon system and any heavy industry needs chemical inputs that would be difficult or impossible to source locally.
1) there's all the water you want on the Moon or nearby asteroids, just slightly costlier to extract/convert than the ideal "space ice cube".
2) the sheer availability remain the same, you won't be fighting for the same bit of rock as another completely equivalent is accessible
3) if you aren't thinking on the scale of the solar system you have frick nothing to do in space in the first place.
Again, you do not need to fight for ACCESS to any of those resources, not even in "enough quantity" because there's far more in a single asteroid than we can use.
All you can fight for is to have EASIER access to some resources.
If you can get free of needing Earth's biosphere, you can likely synthesize near everything.
If there is a choke-point, it will be access to Earth, and space warfare will be shaped by "let's not start a Kessler effect everywhere we want to live".
>1) Water
First, I acknowledged the deposits of water on the moon. How practical they would be to exploit and how much that would restrict you (ie to the poles) is still up in the air. As for C type asteroids they don't tend to like being blasted with solar radiation at 1au so whoever made your chart was being very optimistic.
>2) availability
No. Material availability varies dramatically from body to body and region to region within bodies. Pretending otherwise is moronic.
>3) irrelevant vague babble
Ok.
>Again, you do not need to fight for ACCESS to any of those resources, not even in "enough quantity" because there's far more in a single asteroid than we can use.
Every country on Earth has a more complete resource profile than any single asteroid, with the exception of some materials like gold and platinum that are of marginal practical importance. Is there never conflict over resources access on Earth?
>Every country on Earth has a more complete resource profile than any single asteroid, with the exception of some materials like gold and platinum that are of marginal practical importance.
It isn't about diversity but about quantity.
Lithium, platinum, iridium and others are found in quantities we can only dream about on asteroids.
Figure out how to run a civilization on nothing but platinum and that will be an argument against anything I said. Until then, it's not.
Our civilisation needs lithium and platinum NOW.
We will run out of lithium within 30 years, 20 more likely.
I am not talking about civilisations in space, that was other anon.
I should have clarified.
However, I do believe that humankind will not live in space in significant numbers since mining is going to be done with pickaxe, hardhat and succulent pecks ... but with lasers and drones.
We are not running out of lithium or platinum in the sense that we are in any way straining Earthly reserves. We simply have expansion of extraction running behind expansion of consumption.
The problems with these materials revolve around the cost of extraction. Asteroid mining being far costlier than any extraction method on Earth, it is not an economically viable alternative. This is the other part of the problem with the "no valuable real estate in space" argument, having material that exists in theory doesn't tell you anything about the barriers to its exploitability in practise. EX. while gigatons of metals exist on the Moon, it would be a generational effort to set up processing. Once that's done, the Moon is now a valuable source of metal processing EVEN ON METAL RICH BODIES, because trade is a lower bar than capital expansion.
AFAIK we are running out of lithium.
>Asteroid mining being far costlier than any extraction method on Earth, it is not an economically viable alternative.
Yes, the initial investment would be substantial but they payoff, in the long term would be also immense.
If we figure out how to easily and safely tow rocks from the belt and then put them in our orbit or at lagrange points, we could easily process them with drones and send the resources back in cheap heatshielded containers or do manufacturing in space.
>AFAIK we are running out of lithium
There is an important difference between what you're interpreting and reality. It is technically possible to say "we will run out of lithium by (X date)", because the underlying assumption of that statement is that extraction will continue to lag behind consumption at the same rate. This is not only a naive way to factor the problem, it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH'S TOTAL RESERVES. Earth has plenty of lithium.
When we go exploring asteroids for minerals, it will be because we have a demand source (massive colony eg) that benefits from not having to deal with the gravity well penalty of sourcing from Earth. Earth itself is unlikely to ever economically benefit from sourcing industrial materials from other worlds.
I wish I could find it, but some autist made an incredibly detailed video on the subject. He designed a self sustaining orbital habitat that could sustain a population of 1,000 people. Calculated the total amount of resources necessary to do so, then did the math on earth's reserves.
If humanity built one such habitat per year, the sun would be entering it's red giant phase before earth ran out of viable materials to continue manufacturing them. The biggest barriers aren't whats available on earth, its having to deal with our gravity well, and cost effectiveness of extraction. The latter can be somewhat negated if we assume extraction techniques become more efficient, but yeah.
"DUH ERF DUN RAN OUTTA STUFF SO NOW WE GOTS TA GO FIGHTS UH WAR IN SPACE" is an actual braindead scifi premise.
Literally almost everything you just said agreed with everything I'm saying but then you somehow lost every braincell in your head at the last moment.
Consider for a moment your example and its implications. It's literally telling you that the literal lack of material existence IS NOT what drives conflict, because Earth's material reserves are effectively infinite by human standards. By your own logic, Earth should never have resource wars.
Availability being more complex than "it exists therefore existence+magic=now I have it" is something I'm trying to explain to you that you can't seem to grasp.
Here's an example of how it works on Earth. We let China do most metal processing for the entire world, now it's hard to pivot out of that. China doesn't control most of the ores, but it still gets a monopoly on ore processing because that's how capital expansion works. China now has a metal empire, a uniquely valuable resource to defend, despite the fact that we could never use all the metal reserves of our own countries.
I probably worded it wrong. I was trying to say "the war being about the earth running out of resources" is braindead. The war won't be about earth running out of resources, it will be over uneven access to them. (reserves are not uniformly distributed, nor is processing capability, etc etc). Was trying to agree with you. We won't "run out" of things to make stuff with, we'll end up competing over access to said things used to make stuff.
My apologies then, I completely agree with that characterization.
You seem to have a soft-SF take where there's "only one place to ever mine resources X per planet/belt/moon" or "you must control the entire planet/belt/moon"
Again, you will really not need to fight for access to any space resources.
But you'd likely fight to PREVENT others from accessing a resources.
>1) Water
The movie "V" lied to you, water isn't rare in space. It's the most common element.
It's only painful to access for us with our primitive non-nuclear spacecraft and lack of space-based industries.
The only place that is a chokepoint is Earth's biosphere, if we aren't self-sufficient.
If we were at the point we engage in space warfare beyond Earth, we would have the technology to exploit any sources that isn't far down a powerful gravity well or down a planet crust.
2) availlability
>Pretending otherwise is moronic.
And I never did, but you are a moron for looking at the numbers and still thinking there's not enough for several civilization far bigger than us, each with multiple industries on the Moon alone. or the 10000+ asteroid in NEO, and there's a whole system out there.
Even playing the GREED CARD with each citizen needing their personal o'neill colony, attacking resources would more be part of a fight for extermination than a need.
3)
>I insult you to hide I'm an idiot
Okay, I reformulate: You need to think strategy on the scale of what you and your enemy can reach.
Here, with self-sufficiency space warfare in mind, it would be the solar system.
>Is there never conflict over resources access on Earth?
Is there only one source for each resources on Earth?
Majority of our war were for the power having control of one resources would give us. Or to deny its access to another.
Beside, if you applied the analogy to SPACE properly it would be 2 dumbass fighting for control of a fallen apple when there's 10000 apple trees at walking distance.
>The movie "V" lied to you, water isn't rare in space.
It's impossible to argue with someone who is this moronic. You can't even read, because that's definitely not what I said.
>the entire rest of this post
Basically all you have to say is "you're in space, the resources you want are also in space, therefore you always have infinite access to resources". Which is mindblowingly moronic. It's equivalent to saying every human on Earth has access to its 10^24 tons of iron because why not, it's there after all.
I reread what you said.
I don't feel like text limitation made me miss sarcasm or other meaning.
>It's equivalent to saying every human on Earth has access to its 10^24 tons of iron because why not, it's there after all.
To me your logic so far was the equivalent of saying Earth only has a token of iron mines, no other existed before nor will appear later.
Do I have to remind you that unlike gravity well, asteroids do not have 99.99% of their core inaccessible and the Moon would be easier to dig in?
Maybe you naively believe factions will claim entire "region of space" and other factions will naively treat the whole area as "one mine, property of X"?
I'm only trying to understand your very reductive answers.
Advanced space combat is best described in the culture series. Early space combat best described in The Expanse.
>Early space combat best described in The Expanse.
The Expanse have physic breaking reactionless thruster and space-stealth bullshit. It's magic all the way up.
Okay, first of all, if you have questions about feasibility of various space or space ship technologies, then I would recommend consulting this site:
https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
Secondly, how has PrepHole, AND /K/ NO LESS, started a space war thread, and not posted about Orphanage?
>Orphanage
shill it
eli5
> No territory to capture or strategic points to defend
How about "places with air and water"? I imagine space warfare looks a lot more like the piracy and privateering of the 17th century, in which isolated enclaves with life support, food, spare parts, and supplies becomes vitally important. Even having places where crews can get some R&R in something close to 1g so they don't die of bone attenuation would be important.
Future war looks like short sorties between the little islands that can support mankind, at least until we master FTL and artificial gravity.
Strictly speaking the word territory derives from terra so Earth is the only territory. All else is positions in space.
>RKKV thread
Why did this piss so many off then?
Is that Star Wars?
Then the issue is the directing and blatant disregard for lore AFAIK.
Ryan Johnson is just a shitty director.
>Why did this piss so many off then?
It only piss off Starwars fan because it's show their show have shit consistency and can't stand any scrutiny.