I have read quite a few science fiction novels, and while most of them are very exciting and interesting, I find that even the "hard" end of the science fiction spectrum features space combat in a very unrealistic manner. We're used to shields, forcefields and small manouverable craft able to dodge most munitions fired at them.
I find that the most likely form of space combat-scenario would be huge lumbering craft firing swarms of missiles and counter-missiles at eachother from a great distance, and then hope for the best. The only viable strategy would be to have more missiles than the other guy, and having a lot of lasers/particle beams to take out incoming missiles before impact. A single hit to your ship would mean instant annihilation with nuclear warheads. The only thing you could viably shield your ship against would be the lasers and particle beams. Evasive manouvers wouldn't work, a ship would be much to slow to dodge any missiles.
The distances involved would probably be huge, since you'd want to be able to detonate your warheads as far away from the target as possible, while still inflicting damage. This would also mean that you'd want as great a distance between yourself and your warheads as possible before detonation. Thusly; huge distances between combatants.
A space battle would thus boil down to;
*Speed of missiles
*Power of warheads
*Amount of missiles
*Amount of lasers/particle beams
With so few factors to a battle, a ship AI would probably be able to calculate who would win with near perfect certainty before the battle was fought, or at least concluded. This would leave time for the personel of the losing ship to evacuate before the conclusion of the battle. Thus the only thing lost in space warfare would be ships.
Fuck you science fiction.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-07 17:16
Outside. You should check it out. There's all kinds of sunlight and fresh air. Other people even! And you can, like, interact with them!
#2
>There's all kinds of sunlight and fresh air. Other people even!
OP does not want. Trollan 4chan by night. Sleeping by day. I am the Science Nerd!
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-07 17:22
I like this idea, because it's essentially 17th century naval warfare, but in space.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-07 17:25
#4
The two great space empires each had one great commander.
Napoleon of the French Space Empire
vs.
Nelson of the Brittish Space Empire
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-07 18:47
Realistic interstellar warfare is when mere declaration of war takes millions of years due to distance, and actual melee is impossible due to distance, you fucking retards. That's realistic. So don't say the word again without understanding its implications.
>>6
you are assuming we'd be fighting someone outside our solar system. a war could easily be declared say, between mars and titan. and even if we were to fight an extrasolar faction, the closest star to earth is proxima centauri, which is only 4.2 light years away, thus a declaration of war could be made in only 4.2 years, not "millions of years".
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-08 8:02
>>9
Um. The closest star to the Earth is the SUN you jackass. Haha learn your fucking astronomy
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-08 8:13
>>10
Since I was talking about an "extrasolar faction", it goes without saying that the sun was excluded.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-08 8:15
>>10
That's why he said "extrasolor". God you're dumb
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-08 8:16
>>11
Hey. Fuck you for beating me person who made that post
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-08 17:57
How would the ship's AI be able to calculate who's going to be lucky enough to actually score a hit before flying off into deep space?
If a ship's AI is talented enough to accurately predict the outcome of a battle through simulation, we can probably assume that it would be more competent at commanding the ship or ships than any human could ever be. In that case, why would you even need humans aboard the ship? Remove the humans from the factor and you're essentially turning war into a matter of two idiots throwing money at each other from across the universe.
The more intelligent the AIs become, of course, the more war wraps back around to becoming a matter of life and death. Why should an intelligent being far more marvelous than any human could dare to be called be forced into near certain death over something that it's not concerned in the slightest with?
Depending on how "human" these AIs may be, it might even come to that same conclusion and decide not to fight at all. You can make machines that can grow your food and manufacture your goods without any intelligence, but combat is one of those fields that would require a much higher level of thinking, to the point of abstract thought being a requirement. Just look at the AI of any video game for an example of this; sure, it may have access to more information than the player has, along with better reaction times and excellent strategy, but if it's all preprogrammed then it can't take advantage of things like different level structures, gameplay changes, unforeseen engine quirks, etc. If it can't adapt, it'll become obsolete and useless the second anyone figures out how it reacts to situations. Thus, you'd have to give your AIs the capacity to learn, think, and apply reasoning, which are indeed human characteristics, to be effective.
Not that any of this matters. Wars are fought over territorial squabbles and lust for resources, nothing else (and don't let anyone ever try to delude you into thinking that that isn't true). With the statement that with space warfare is possible in this hypothetical situation, we can assume that humans can colonize other planets and live self-sufficiently; that is, without support from Earth. If we can assume this, then these civilizations already have all of the resources they'd ever need to live, thus making war over material useless. If we assume (contrary to reality) that finding a new planet or (more feasibly) building a new space station is practical, territory stops being a matter as well, since you've already got all the land you could need. Take the matters of the amount of time necessary for a space ship to even reach an enemy along with the fact that at long distances, even communication at the speed of light would have huge latencies, and the possibility of "intergalactic war for the glory of an empire" becomes remote. It is my firm and well-reasoned belief, then, that conflict in the space age would be limited to squabbles within neighboring colonies/space stations and wars fought on ground amongst local political factions.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-08 21:14
>>17
Wow. None of that is in any way interesting at all
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-08 21:24
>>18
This is the inevitable endpoint of any discussion about space combat. Commandos on your space station are about as far as it goes.
That's the point. In the future, wars (at least) are boring.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 6:02
The only feasible thing on a space scale, would be firing gamma bursts at enemy space stations/planets. That or approaching the target as a peaceful cargo ship, which on arrival lands an army of death. So either surprise warfare or money grindan.
>>17
The only thing I disagree with in your post is that resources would be abundant enough in any self-sustaining society to the degree where warfare becomes entirely impractical. Perhaps they don't exactly NEED an external resource to sustain themselves, but thier neighbor planet has something which would make everything easier. Diplomacy fails, war ensues.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-14 7:58
The Risen Empire and The Killing of Worlds, both by Scott Westerfeld. In that order. There's no FTL travel, though instantaneous communication is possible within that universe, it's extremely expensive for even the shortest messages. Orbital insertions of soldiers is handled realistically (and described in detail that made me squirm), and space combat is either long and drawn out as ships dodge and attack over and over, or fast and messy if the attack is a surprise. Weapons are kinetic, doing damage through force instead of explosives, which makes a great deal of sense for space-based combat. Also, the plot is brilliant.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-14 9:35
I remember Heinlein had a fair few ship-to-ship warfare bits, like in citizen of the galaxy. but then that was before AI became a genre trope.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-14 15:16
>>22
Kinetic weapons might not be such a good idea, since you'd be destabilised every time you fire, pretty badly in fact if you're putting out enough force to travel the enormous distances over which fights will likely occur.
I highly doubt space warfare would even involve missiles. Knowing that control surfaces are useless in space any sort of maneuvering would come down to retro's and apogee motors and gyros. Both are far mor costly than would be realistic to build en'mass the way you describe. More likely high energy beam weaponry would be the primary means of offense. Outside atmosphere there is little problem with 'blooming' and a tight beam can be lethal at incredible range. You fail as a science geek dumbass.
it's weird that u tried to find realistic features in science fiction a year ago. Anyway, the beauty of so-called science fiction is placed on the infinite imagination. Why don't you place your focus not on the technological or armament development, but on the new concepts or evolution.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-22 18:07
If you're looking for "hard science fiction", I guess you could do worse than, say, Orion's Arm http://www.orionsarm.com/