no bigger ships than battleships

[Surimi]

You wouldn't be able to see it on radar, that's for sure.

In atmosphere, yes, because interference from the atmosphere and the curvature of the earth will disrupt the radio signal past a certain distance.

In space, there is pretty much no limit on how far radio waves can travel, given enough strength, because space is empty. The power of the reciever and transmitter is the only limiting factor, and anything you are not capable of seeing with an active radar is also something you will not be capable of seeing with a passive detector.

Yes, you do. You keep bothering him for IFF or try to ping, that alone makes him aware of your presence and general direction.

You are travelling at 8 kilometers per second relative to your target. You send out a signal. You slow down to 7990 meters per second (10 meters of delta V, a very small change in speed and much slower than your ship will be capable of changing speed unless its thrust to weight ratio is very small). The signal takes four seconds to arrive. By the time they see you, you are somewhere between 32000 and 31960 meters from the position you appear on the monitor, leaving a possible 40 meters. This is a radius, however, because you could have moved in any direction. Simplifying a bit, the volume of the sphere in which you could have moved is 268km3.

So as you can see, even with a very small change in speed we produced a pretty huge space in which your spacecraft could be. And that's in 4 seconds. In 8 seconds, the time it takes for the opposing ship to be able to interact with you, the volume of the sphere has increased to 2140km3, so you can see that a tiny change in speed can very quickly produce a great deal of uncertainty.

He can then use high yeld missiles to try and take you down.

Let's cut out all the questions and assume it can immediately accelerate to be closing on its target at 100 kilometers per second. This is ludicrously optimistic, because "high yield" explosive weapons are by nature very heavy and so take far more delta v to accelerate than the small kinetic kill missiles which can still strike with the force of several tons of TNT. Now, 4 light seconds = 1199169832 meters. It will take our missile 11,992 seconds, or about three hours, to travel that distance. By contrast, the lasers which we will be trying to shoot down this missile or damage it's manoeuvring thrusters or guidance system still take 4 seconds. Odds do not favour the missiles.

Now, let's get to the detonation. Nuclear weapons don't work in space the way they do on earth. On earth, most of the destruction is caused by the shockwave of very hot air generated by the bomb going off. In space, there is no air and thus that doesn't happen. By contrast, the air also blocks some of the radiation emitted by the bomb, meaning the radiation can travel much further. Now, anything in space has to be protected against electromagnetic radiation, because electromagnetic radiation is a constant feature of space. The sun pumps out vast quantities of ultraviolet, infrared and x-rays, while radiation coming into the solar system from outside can be far more exotic and even more dangerous. Against this background, the radiation emitted by a nuclear detonation is simply not very much.. relatively speaking. It would be enough to deliver a fatal dose to a human over hundreds of miles, but hundreds of miles is nothing in space and our machines don't care about radiation poisoning anyway. If they are very close to the detonation, then the radiation striking the surface of their ships might cause slight heating effects and possibly damage vulnerable components, but overall nuclear weapons are substantially less powerful in space. Indeed, the same is true of all weapons which rely on atmospheric heating.

Kinetic weapons, on the other hand, are vastly more powerful in space.

Evasive manoeuvres will be difficult as by that point your ship probably already lacks fuel from constant change of course.

It takes over 4 kilometers per second of change in speed to get from low earth orbit into interplanetary space, or to return to low earth orbit. The change in speed described earlier was 10 meters per second. If a spacecraft cannot spare a few meters of its delta v budget to avoid a potential attack, then it has no business being involved in space warfare.

Automated drone will fire on not important targets, wastes ammo on them and fake radar reflections and star a war with alien empire if given a chance. All things "useless" human can stop.

How though?

As long as you remember you are describing yourself as well.

Addressing this directly because it's an interesting point. Probably the last point I'll make though, as I think this discussion has pretty much run its course. I don't know what fantasy I'm treading on here, maybe you like the idea that realistic space combat can still be heroic duels between honourable combatants, maybe you are uneasy about the notion of fitting powerful weapons to completely automated craft, maybe you are concerned about the whole "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. That's fine, I'm not telling you how you should feel about any of these things, all I'm saying is don't distort the basic nature of the universe we live in to conform to your fantasies.

What I'm doing is speculating and imagining, yes. In that sense my vision of space warfare is also fiction, but it's a fiction grounded in measurable facts which we know about space, hence why it's more "realistic" than the vision that space combat should be all about broadsides or dogfighting. Noone says that science fiction has to be realistic, in fact I greatly prefer science fiction with more fantastic elements or which explores interesting themes rather than simply trying to speculate as to what a realistic future might be like, but you have to maintain a distinction between speculating as to what is likely and indulging what would be fun and interesting, and in the case of space warfare it would be fun and interesting if it was economical for humans to be involved, or if humans could add anything meaningful to the process. However, even if we indulge the idea that they contribute a little, which I'm personally sceptical of anyway, they would still need to contribute an astonishing ammount to make up for the immense difficulties and costs associated with even having them there.

Hundreds of unmanned ships could waste all their ammo shooting rocks, and it would still not equal the cost of putting a single human and all its necessary life support into space.

 

[mocoman2001]

Because Mars is a planet. What kind of infrastructure do you wanna build on asteroids? Ideally we would haul them to our beautiful red planet for processing.

So you argue that mars would be a good place to mine because it lower gravity, but why would you drag asteroids there to mine, when there is even lower gravity bodies to operate on, like all the small moons in the solar system. The asteroid belt would be way easier to harvest, with rare elements easier to prospect and extract, and for what ever reason we need some sort of gravity for our robots to operate, mars is on the heavy side of potential places to set up operations.

Also I don't know you assume we need gravity for infrastructure. Its a fully automated robotic mining facility.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Because Mars is a planet. What kind of infrastructure do you wanna build on asteroids? Ideally we would haul them to our beautiful red planet for processing.

In real life it is fantastically expensive to bring things up and down a gravity well, but fairly cheap to move them around in interplanetary space. This cost is a function of mass. Therefore, you would want to process the metals as much as possible in space before landing them, so that the value-to-mass ratio is as high as possible.

 

[REDDQ]

In atmosphere, yes, because interference from the atmosphere and the curvature of the earth will disrupt the radio signal past a certain distance.

In space, there is pretty much no limit on how far radio waves can travel, given enough strength, because space is empty. The power of the reciever and transmitter is the only limiting factor, and anything you are not capable of seeing with an active radar is also something you will not be capable of seeing with a passive detector.

There is no limit how far radio waves can travel but there is a limit where radio wave information becomes not viable. Even our radars meant to track moving objects in space have limited range. Imagine that for a plane, travelling over Mach 1, you get ping one hour later. That's the definition of useless.

You are travelling at 8 kilometers per second relative to your target. You send out a signal. You slow down to 7990 meters per second (10 meters of delta V, a very small change in speed and much slower than your ship will be capable of changing speed unless its thrust to weight ratio is very small). The signal takes four seconds to arrive. By the time they see you, you are somewhere between 32000 and 31960 meters from the position you appear on the monitor, leaving a possible 40 meters. This is a radius, however, because you could have moved in any direction. Simplifying a bit, the volume of the sphere in which you could have moved is 268km3.

So as you can see, even with a very small change in speed we produced a pretty huge space in which your spacecraft could be. And that's in 4 seconds. In 8 seconds, the time it takes for the opposing ship to be able to interact with you, the volume of the sphere has increased to 2140km3, so you can see that a tiny change in speed can very quickly produce a great deal of uncertainty.

Indeed a big distance, but you will keep pinging constantly what in effect will lower uncertainty, but the problem is it will mostly lower your own. Now, part of SEAD system are ARMs ie. anti-radiation missiles. Every single time you use your radar they get a better fix on your current position meanwhile you try to aim at a ship aware of your presence which, according to your own estimates, might be anywhere inside of rather big sphere. And with your ping that gigantic space which normally passive sensors would have to constantly scan is reduced to extremely narrow direction.

Let's cut out all the questions and assume it can immediately accelerate to be closing on its target at 100 kilometers per second. This is ludicrously optimistic, because "high yield" explosive weapons are by nature very heavy and so take far more delta v to accelerate than the small kinetic kill missiles which can still strike with the force of several tons of TNT. Now, 4 light seconds = 1199169832 meters. It will take our missile 11,992 seconds, or about three hours, to travel that distance. By contrast, the lasers which we will be trying to shoot down this missile or damage it's manoeuvring thrusters or guidance system still take 4 seconds. Odds do not favour the missiles.

So now laser is introduced. The weapon we try very hard to get any efficiency from for past... 40 years? Maybe... maybe you would destroy one missile if you managed to get a solid ping before it detonates (laser is extremely precise weapon). You would be better with CIWS based on kinetic weapons you mention later. Not much but still better.

Now, let's get to the detonation. Nuclear weapons don't work in space the way they do on earth. On earth, most of the destruction is caused by the shockwave of very hot air generated by the bomb going off. In space, there is no air and thus that doesn't happen. By contrast, the air also blocks some of the radiation emitted by the bomb, meaning the radiation can travel much further. Now, anything in space has to be protected against electromagnetic radiation, because electromagnetic radiation is a constant feature of space. The sun pumps out vast quantities of ultraviolet, infrared and x-rays, while radiation coming into the solar system from outside can be far more exotic and even more dangerous. Against this background, the radiation emitted by a nuclear detonation is simply not very much.. relatively speaking. It would be enough to deliver a fatal dose to a human over hundreds of miles, but hundreds of miles is nothing in space and our machines don't care about radiation poisoning anyway. If they are very close to the detonation, then the radiation striking the surface of their ships might cause slight heating effects and possibly damage vulnerable components, but overall nuclear weapons are substantially less powerful in space. Indeed, the same is true of all weapons which rely on atmospheric heating.

Kinetic weapons, on the other hand, are vastly more powerful in space.

Nuke doesn't have to be big. It needs heavy cover which will produce thousand of fragments covering forward sphere of explosion. If cover won't withstand the explosion normal explosives will do the job just fine. Something will hit if not with the first explosion then with second. Now, imagine missiles with heavy cover homing for your radar emissions.

Kinetic weapon needs to actually hit the ship. Precisely. Not that it is bad idea, not atmosphere after all, but that ping delay.

It takes over 4 kilometers per second of change in speed to get from low earth orbit into interplanetary space, or to return to low earth orbit. The change in speed described earlier was 10 meters per second. If a spacecraft cannot spare a few meters of its delta v budget to avoid a potential attack, then it has no business being involved in space warfare.

That describes your drones. Constant change of course WILL drain your fuel reserves. That is inevitable characteristic of the system you propose.

How though?

How, how, how... well, for starters if alien empire turns up and they say "Hi!" human will respond with words, not with automated request for IFF signal followed by barrage. Automated ship may fire on asteroids, wreck or whatever, human obviously would stop.

Addressing this directly because it's an interesting point. Probably the last point I'll make though, as I think this discussion has pretty much run its course. I don't know what fantasy I'm treading on here, maybe you like the idea that realistic space combat can still be heroic duels between honourable combatants, maybe you are uneasy about the notion of fitting powerful weapons to completely automated craft, maybe you are concerned about the whole "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. That's fine, I'm not telling you how you should feel about any of these things, all I'm saying is don't distort the basic nature of the universe we live in to conform to your fantasies.

What I'm doing is speculating and imagining, yes. In that sense my vision of space warfare is also fiction, but it's a fiction grounded in measurable facts which we know about space, hence why it's more "realistic" than the vision that space combat should be all about broadsides or dogfighting. Noone says that science fiction has to be realistic, in fact I greatly prefer science fiction with more fantastic elements or which explores interesting themes rather than simply trying to speculate as to what a realistic future might be like, but you have to maintain a distinction between speculating as to what is likely and indulging what would be fun and interesting, and in the case of space warfare it would be fun and interesting if it was economical for humans to be involved, or if humans could add anything meaningful to the process. However, even if we indulge the idea that they contribute a little, which I'm personally sceptical of anyway, they would still need to contribute an astonishing ammount to make up for the immense difficulties and costs associated with even having them there.

What for you are "facts" for other people is fantasy of a person with no understanding of warfare. This whole conviction about your own infallibility, that you figured it all out and arbitrary deemed human factor useless, while everyone else is spewing nonsense about, let me quote, "broadsides or dogfighting" is the biggest disadvantage of your theory. It is like second or third time I have to repeat that automated drone made to your design will most likely start a war with any alien civilisation and the only answer is "How though?". Danger of copying or obtaining IFF signal left no impression.

Automated drones like that could only serve as glorified minefield at best.

Hundreds of unmanned ships could waste all their ammo shooting rocks, and it would still not equal the cost of putting a single human and all its necessary life support into space.

I wonder how you calculated that. Because hundred of unmanned ships could literally waste ammo in infinity.

So you argue that mars would be a good place to mine because it lower gravity, but why would you drag asteroids there to mine, when there is even lower gravity bodies to operate on, like all the small moons in the solar system. The asteroid belt would be way easier to harvest, with rare elements easier to prospect and extract, and for what ever reason we need some sort of gravity for our robots to operate, mars is on the heavy side of potential places to set up operations.

Also I don't know you assume we need gravity for infrastructure. Its a fully automated robotic mining facility.

In real life it is fantastically expensive to bring things up and down a gravity well, but fairly cheap to move them around in interplanetary space. This cost is a function of mass. Therefore, you would want to process the metals as much as possible in space before landing them, so that the value-to-mass ratio is as high as possible.

I hope you don't mind I will address both posts.

Indeed costs of moving stuff in interplanetary space is fairly cheap. But so is the cost of sending materials down (to Earth as well) and on Mars getting things up and down is cheaper because of low g. So we have a planet where we can create big infrastructure supporting processing of minerals in any quantity that makes economic sense.

Now, even most automated facility among asteroids will require oversight and repairs and that means human prolonged presence in 0g. Remember that we are talking about heavy duty mining, not Curiosity taking pictures. Not to mention questions like: from where get enough power to process ore, obviously powerful nuclear reactor comes to mind (also rather sizeable construction), how to deal with heat, how to shield it and so on. And on Mars we can have all that, underground, on surface, in size, able to support population, with space to build factories if needed and resources on its own etc. I believe that ore melting alone in 0g might be a big engineering problem.

Imho beats hovering over cesspool of acid and hellish temperature in oversized balloons. And sure, maybe I am wrong but NASA seems to still think about Red Planet. And with schedule I might just live long enough to witness.

 

[The_Red_Star]

wtf is this? He creates a quasar by shooting at a massive star? That makes absolutely no sense.

Star Ruler is a very silly game.

 

[REDDQ]

Star Ruler is a very silly game.

ROTFL

 

[Cannes]

Star Ruler is a very silly game.

LOL That starship would literally have to be made out of black holes.

 

[The_Red_Star]

LOL That starship would literally have to be made out of black holes.

Who needs weapons when your gravitational influence will destroy whole civilizations without you even noticing?

 

[lwarmonger]

What for you are "facts" for other people is fantasy of a person with no understanding of warfare. This whole conviction about your own infallibility, that you figured it all out and arbitrary deemed human factor useless, while everyone else is spewing nonsense about, let me quote, "broadsides or dogfighting" is the biggest disadvantage of your theory. It is like second or third time I have to repeat that automated drone made to your design will most likely start a war with any alien civilisation and the only answer is "How though?". Danger of copying or obtaining IFF signal left no impression.

Automated drones like that could only serve as glorified minefield at best.

What I am seeing in Surimi's arguments is a scientists or engineers approach to warfare. Limiting your thinking to simple mathematics makes sense when you've got things controlled in the lab or in the confines of your mind. Real life is more complex. Short of a human like AI, humans will be needed to deal with those complexities. Robots can be used to augment in very simple and limited circumstances (missiles, mines, clearing underground tunnel complexes, interrogating the aforementioned threats, actually plotting the trajectory of the guns or targeting the lasers, etc), but removing humans from the equations means either you wanted to get stomped by thinking humans, or you want to serve a new mechanical human-like overlord.

 

[Bladrov XII]

wiz sayd there are no bigger ships than battleships
i was hoping for 2 bigger ship classes
something like

class 1. big carrior ships , titan ships, battlestar gallactica size ships, the big romulan ship in star trek 10 ,,,

class 2. doom star , super star destroyer, tactical bork cube ,,,

,,,,,,,,,
on a side note i do find the ship battles with all the fancy colours a bit of a chaotic mess ,, sadly
the sizes of the engines , thrusters, missles, torpedos, lasers , have almost the same size of all those ships
i would like some more clarity ,, less mess ,, maybe some bigger ships would help see the battle better what exactly is going on

A carrier is just a battleship fitted to carry smaller attack craft rather than big guns. You have to remember that the four are meant to be hull sizes, not combat roles. You can fit a given size for a number of different combat roles.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Indeed costs of moving stuff in interplanetary space is fairly cheap. But so is the cost of sending materials down (to Earth as well) and on Mars getting things up and down is cheaper because of low g. So we have a planet where we can create big infrastructure supporting processing of minerals in any quantity that makes economic sense.

Let me teach you something about orbital travel.

The cost of moving something around the solar system is expressed in kilometres per second; this is known as Delta-V and can be thought of as the fuel cost. When you read these numbers remember that all this fuel has to be either transported into space somehow, or else generated up there. If it's transported up then that's just as expensive as moving any other fuel; if it's generated up there then we need large amounts of infrastructure in space.

The largest asteroid is Ceres. In order to get one kilogram from Ceres to Earth low orbit, you need 9.7 km/s of Delta-V. You then need to land it. As you point out, de-orbiting is cheap because you can use atmospheric braking, but it's not free: you need another one or two km/s to do it properly.

For reference, it takes about 10 km/s of Delta-V to get from Earth's surface into orbit. This is not a small quantity. Look at a picture of the Saturn-V rockets used during the Apollo program: this is what this sort of Delta-V looks like. It's extremely expensive.

By contrast, taking something from Ceres to Mars costs 8.2 km/s of Delta-V, and de-orbiting it costs another 3.6 km/s. It's expensive partly because Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere and so you have to slow yourself for the descent via rocketry.

This means that moving the unprocessed ore to Earth rather than to Mars is actually cheaper. That last 3.6 km/s of Mars cost really hurts. This is what I mean by "at the bottom of a gravity well." Generally, you don't want to descend to planet surfaces if you can avoid it.

A lot of people have the impression that stuff is easy to just "drop" from orbit. This isn't true: stuff in orbit tends to stay in orbit, and costs energy to be de-orbited. If there's no atmosphere then things cost as much Delta-V to be taken from orbit to the ground as they do to be taken from the ground to orbit. (You can save a little energy by impacting hard rather than making a gentle landing, but if you impact too hard then it can be unhealthy: ask anyone who's been to Tunguska what happens if heavy things land with an impact.)

But wait, there's more!

Once you've refined the metal, it then needs to be lifted out of Mars' gravity well and taken to Earth. This costs another 9.3 km/s of Delta-V, plus the cost of de-orbiting to the surface of Earth. The total cost to move that ore from Ceres to Earth via Mars is about double (in Delta-V terms) what it would cost to move it straight to Earth.

But wait, there's even more!

For reference, copper ore is currently extracted on Earth at concentrations as low as 0.15%. That means that by shipping the raw ore, you're moving roughly six hundred times as much raw bulk, which needs six hundred times as much fuel. That's just copper: actually rare stuff like iridium is found at even lower concentrations.

Imagine six hundred Saturn-V rockets. How large is the profit margin on this mining again?

The alternative is to set up an orbital facility, using centrifuges to fake enough gravity for humans to live in and for industry to occur in, and use that to reduce the ore to just the valuable part. It would be an engineering challenge, as you point out, but it would have the chance of being profitable, unlike shipping unseparated rock to Mars for refining.

EDIT TO ADD:
Delta-V is a weird measure in that a) it's the cost per kilogram and therefore stays the same regardless of how much mass you're moving; and b) that cost changes radically if your fuel is a non-trivial portion of your total mass, like it is with present-day human rocketry.

Nonetheless, the numbers give you an idea of relative expense of travel. They go up significantly as you move up and down gravity wells. To travel from near Mars to near Venus would only cost 2.7 km/s, which is only slightly more than to go from geostationary to low orbit around Earth. It's always cheaper to stay in the black.

 

[Surimi]

What I am seeing in Surimi's arguments is a scientists or engineers approach to warfare.

This may be true. However, doing anything in space is, first and foremost, a science and engineering challenge, and one in which computers have been indispensable at every stage.

The very first manned orbital spaceflight followed a trajectory which had been calculated on a computer. At that point, computers were the size of rooms so the data had to be transported across country from where the computer was stored to the launch site, at which point it was fed into the automatic control which flew most of the mission. The Apollo missions which took astronauts to the moon were launched and for the most part flown by several (at the time cutting-edge) computers, as human pilots would not have been able to achieve the required accuracy.

There has never been a point in the history of space exploration where good old human eyeballing somehow supplanted the need for mechanical precision, clever engineering and, above all, loads and loads of maths. That isn't something which is confined to the lab, it has been proved in real life over and over again.

 

[chassepatrick]

This may be true. However, doing anything in space is, first and foremost, a science and engineering challenge, and one in which computers have been indispensable at every stage.

The very first manned orbital spaceflight followed a trajectory which had been calculated on a computer. At that point, computers were the size of rooms so the data had to be transported across country from where the computer was stored to the launch site, at which point it was fed into the automatic control which flew most of the mission. The Apollo missions which took astronauts to the moon were launched and for the most part flown by several (at the time cutting-edge) computers, as human pilots would not have been able to achieve the required accuracy.

There has never been a point in the history of space exploration where good old human eyeballing somehow supplanted the need for mechanical precision, clever engineering and, above all, loads and loads of maths. That isn't something which is confined to the lab, it has been proved in real life over and over again.

The thing is you are so right at the moment but for there to be space combat you'd need FTL travel or near FTL travel (I know it is probably impossible, but hey you never know) and the powers to get to that would require science that makes the technology to create craft that can escape earth's gravity and creating an artificial environment for humans inside the vessels look like a year 2 science project...

As for the Humans in combat, you always sort of need humans involved. unless you develop actual sentient AI then computers will be good but they wont be able to make those crucial decisions...

A good example is the Eurofighter Typhoon... Turn off the computers and the pilot wouldn't be able to fly the aircraft. yet without the pilot the plane wouldn't fly... It's probably that space battles would have the same sort of balance. Lots would be done by computers but the final decision making will be done by humans.

 

[REDDQ]

Let me teach you something about orbital travel.

The cost of moving something around the solar system is expressed in kilometres per second; this is known as Delta-V and can be thought of as the fuel cost. When you read these numbers remember that all this fuel has to be either transported into space somehow, or else generated up there.

The largest asteroid is Ceres. In order to get one kilogram from Ceres to Earth low orbit, you need 9.7 km/s of Delta-V. You then need to land it. As you point out, de-orbiting is cheap because you can use atmospheric braking, but it's not free: you need another one or two km/s to do it properly.

For reference, it takes about 10 km/s of Delta-V to get from Earth's surface into orbit. This is not a small quantity. Look at a picture of the Saturn-V rockets used during the Apollo program: this is what this sort of Delta-V looks like. It's extremely expensive.

By contrast, taking something from Ceres to Mars costs 8.2 km/s of Delta-V, and de-orbiting it costs another 3.6 km/s. It's expensive partly because Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere and so you have to slow yourself for the descent via rocketry.

This means that moving the unprocessed ore to Earth rather than to Mars is actually cheaper. That last 3.6 km/s of Mars cost really hurts. This is what I mean by "at the bottom of a gravity well." Generally, you don't want to descend to planet surfaces if you can avoid it.

A lot of people have the impression that stuff is easy to just "drop" from orbit. This isn't true: stuff in orbit tends to stay in orbit, and costs energy to be de-orbited. If there's no atmosphere then things cost as much Delta-V to be taken from orbit to the ground as they do to be taken from the ground to orbit. (You can save a little energy by impacting hard rather than making a gentle landing, but if you impact too hard then it can be unhealthy: ask anyone who's been to Tunguska what happens if heavy things land with an impact.)

But wait, there's more!

Once you've refined the metal, it then needs to be lifted out of Mars' gravity well and taken to Earth. This costs another 9.3 km/s of Delta-V, plus the cost of de-orbiting to the surface of Earth. The total cost to move that ore from Ceres to Earth via Mars is about double (in Delta-V terms) what it would cost to move it straight to Earth.

But wait, there's even more!

For reference, copper ore is currently extracted on Earth at concentrations as low as 0.15%. That means that by shipping the raw ore, you're moving roughly six hundred times as much raw bulk, which needs six hundred times as much fuel. That's just copper: actually rare stuff like iridium is found at even lower concentrations.

Imagine six hundred Saturn-V rockets. How large is the profit margin on this mining again?

The alternative is to set up an orbital facility, using centrifuges to fake enough gravity for humans to live in and for industry to occur in, and use that to reduce the ore to just the valuable part. It would be an engineering challenge, as you point out, but it would have the chance of being profitable, unlike shipping unseparated rock to Mars for refining.

I would like to start with a piece of advice... stop being patronizing before I start being sarcastic. Of course you need speed (thanks for the data anyway).

Now, for the question: How large is the profit margin on this mining again?

Depends how much would cost operating orbital mining and processing facility (fyi, I was responding to the idea of such construction in actual asteroid belt)vs all that way to Mars. I don't see calculations between "but waits" so you merely assume it is more profitable. Tough to tell really as Mars facility would be actually possible to be built and it would have additional benefit of processing Red Planet's own resources.

 

[REDDQ]

What I am seeing in Surimi's arguments is a scientists or engineers approach to warfare. Limiting your thinking to simple mathematics makes sense when you've got things controlled in the lab or in the confines of your mind. Real life is more complex. Short of a human like AI, humans will be needed to deal with those complexities. Robots can be used to augment in very simple and limited circumstances (missiles, mines, clearing underground tunnel complexes, interrogating the aforementioned threats, actually plotting the trajectory of the guns or targeting the lasers, etc), but removing humans from the equations means either you wanted to get stomped by thinking humans, or you want to serve a new mechanical human-like overlord.

Exactly. I was never against computers or automated devices but they all need constant human oversight.

Saddest conclusion about space warfare is that it might just be impossible. Not with current tech.

 

[lwarmonger]

This may be true. However, doing anything in space is, first and foremost, a science and engineering challenge, and one in which computers have been indispensable at every stage.

The very first manned orbital spaceflight followed a trajectory which had been calculated on a computer. At that point, computers were the size of rooms so the data had to be transported across country from where the computer was stored to the launch site, at which point it was fed into the automatic control which flew most of the mission. The Apollo missions which took astronauts to the moon were launched and for the most part flown by several (at the time cutting-edge) computers, as human pilots would not have been able to achieve the required accuracy.

There has never been a point in the history of space exploration where good old human eyeballing somehow supplanted the need for mechanical precision, clever engineering and, above all, loads and loads of maths. That isn't something which is confined to the lab, it has been proved in real life over and over again.

So we aren't disagreeing. And in modern warfare, geometries and ballistics are very important as well. And computers could greatly aid that accuracy and add a great deal of precision. But purely robotic armies would get destroyed by human armies. Purely robotic ships would be destroyed by human ships. And robotic aircraft (assuming they weren't hacked) would get massacred by human aircraft. Because war isn't just about aiming a rifle accurately, or firing a shell where it is intended, or getting a missile from point A to point B. War is about operating a system with limited information in highly variable terrain, against an enemy system that is continually changing to attempt to gain an advantage. There are enormous numbers of ambiguous decisions that must be made, and it is precisely those decisions that computers make poorly or don't make at all.

Engineering and science is important in war today, and will be in the future. But it won't win our war for us. There are very good reasons why engineers and scientists are not our military leaders.

 

[lwarmonger]

Exactly. I was never against computers or automated devices but they all need constant human oversight.

Saddest conclusion about space warfare is that it might just be impossible. Not with current tech.

Wherever humans go, warfare is always possible. That is an axiom I can stand by.

 

[The_Red_Star]

Look if the actual astrophysicists and rocket engineers say that humans would at best be liabilities in their field of expertise I'm inclined to say they're right and the generals are wrong when it comes to space.

 

[lwarmonger]

Look if the actual astrophysicists and rocket engineers say that humans would at best be liabilities in their field of expertise I'm inclined to say they're right and the generals are wrong when it comes to space.

Engineers and scientists say all sorts of stupid things. Inside their lab they are fine. When exposed to real life... I've lived dealing with those people. I have zero faith in an engineer or scientists' opinion on anything military. They know their specific gadget... and that is about it. How it fits into a warfighting function is much too large of a scope for them. Once again. Scientists and engineers don't come up with doctrine, and they NEVER execute anything in the field. You pit their toys up against a living and breathing opponent with similar toys designed to aid him rather than replace him, and you'll get back scrap.

 

[stumason]

Engineers and scientists say all sorts of stupid things. Inside their lab they are fine. When exposed to real life... I've lived dealing with those people. I have zero faith in an engineer or scientists' opinion on anything military. They know their specific gadget... and that is about it. How it fits into a warfighting function is much too large of a scope for them. Once again. Scientists and engineers don't come up with doctrine, and they NEVER execute anything in the field. You pit their toys up against a living and breathing opponent with similar toys designed to aid him rather than replace him, and you'll get back scrap.

Hey, don't lump all Engineers into that category, I am one and come from a Military family - I am well aware of military things. Not to mention half the Engineers I work with are former military, the best kind!

But I was going to reply to that post myself with this comment:

"Bah, liberal-lefty Academics - they just don't want the military involved in Space at all, they regard it as their domain."

So, slightly hypocritical of me, I know...