Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Humanity should spread across galaxy as soon as possible! One planet is sooo fragile. One hit and all humans will die. If we will run out all resources on the planet without leaving it...

 Smacks wrote:
Okay let me put it this way. Imagine you were a frontiersman living in Europe, and you and your family have the whole continent to yourself. You have everything you need right there to build a life for yourself, all the trees are yours to cut down, all the animals are yours to hunt etc... Now imagine your nearest neighbour is another frontiersman living in Canada. Are you really going to have a feud with that guy? You'd have to travel thousands of miles just to meet him (which is nothing in space terms). Would you really go all that way just to steal his wooden house, or his trees? When you have your own?

That's what life in space would be a bit like. Space is huge, and there are billions of tones of resources just laying around. Why bother fighting people for stuff that you can find in abundance anywhere?

You're discounting 'population bloom', humans have a tendency to rapidly multiply to fill available space. Take the area currently known as the United States which went from 350 non-aboriginal people (excluded because we have no record of how many there were until 1860) in 1610, to 331,000 in 1710, to 7 million in 1810, and 92 million in 1910. Keep in mind that immigration almost never accounted for more than 10% of annual growth, that is to say that 90% of population growth occurred as a result of birth rates. I think it safe to assume that interstellar colonies would see the same sort of rapid growth provided they had the necessary resources to sustain life - which is the real limiting factor, there might be tons of 'free gak' just lying around, but very little of it is easily accessible by humanity.

 Smacks wrote:
Okay let me put it this way. Imagine you were a frontiersman living in Europe, and you and your family have the whole continent to yourself. You have everything you need right there to build a life for yourself, all the trees are yours to cut down, all the animals are yours to hunt etc... Now imagine your nearest neighbour is another frontiersman living in Canada. Are you really going to have a feud with that guy? You'd have to travel thousands of miles just to meet him (which is nothing in space terms). Would you really go all that way just to steal his wooden house, or his trees? When you have your own?

That's what life in space would be a bit like. Space is huge, and there are billions of tones of resources just laying around. Why bother fighting people for stuff that you can find in abundance everywhere?

That is not what life in space would be like. You can't just settle down in empty space on your own. You'd at the very least need some kind of spaceship, which requires more than one person. And to keep alive in space, you need a lot of things. You'd likely need a large group of people just to get everything up and running.
Besides, people simply don't want to live like that. People always group together, no matter how much empty space is available. Who wants to be a hermit?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That's what life in space would be a bit like. Space is huge, and there are billions of tones of resources just laying around. Why bother fighting people for stuff that you can find in abundance everywhere?

That is not what life in space would be like. You can't just settle down in empty space on your own. You'd at the very least need some kind of spaceship, which requires more than one person. And to keep alive in space, you need a lot of things. You'd likely need a large group of people just to get everything up and running.
Besides, people simply don't want to live like that. People always group together, no matter how much empty space is available. Who wants to be a hermit?

It's an analogy. If you are technologically advanced enough to live in space and have FTL travel, then it means you would probably have solved most of your energy issues, and it should be a piece of cake for you to recycle and synthesize any chemistry or biology that you need, and there are a lot of resources floating around.

The point was not that you live on your own, but that everyone would have abundance, and probably unlimited VR worlds to mess about in, and cybernetic implants that make life even easier still.

That doesn't mean that there won't be any conflict. But a lot of the reasons for conflict depicted in science fiction, would probably not exist for such an advanced race. For example aliens coming to steal our water is stupid. Even if they weren't able to synthesize water from hydrogen (which is everywhere) comets and icy moons would be a better source, than traipsing across the galaxy to steal ours.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You're discounting 'population bloom', humans have a tendency to rapidly multiply to fill available space.

The universe is a big place. When you consider that every human that has ever lived, lived out their whole lives on this tiny rock, that you'd barely be able to see from 1AU away. With all of outer space to fill up, I don't think space is going to be a problem, and with all their energy and resources taken care of, building new habitats shouldn't be a problem either (and that's assuming population size wasn't managed in some way).

chaos0xomega wrote:
Due to physics, weaponry would have to be laser based or missile (rocket) based, nothing else is a realistic option.

"Starfighters" will likely never become a reality given that engagement ranges are theoretically infinite (the only limiting factor is detection range, which would be realistically measured in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, kr even millions of miles). Even if they did, theyre never going to "dogfight" like you see in the movies.

Also, realistically, at least early on, I think space wars will be fought by "Space Forces", as in an Air Force in Space rather than by a Space Navy. In the US at least, Space is actually the Air Forces domain, and as such the majority of the US current military operations are either done by the Air Force or under the Air Forces supervision.

The bigger reason you'll never see Starfighters is because of how engines in space work.

In atmosphere, fighters have an advantage because they can go where their carrier cannot and they are faster. In space, the ship can go wherever its fighters can AND its also going to be faster. The bigger you are, the bigger your engine can be, and the economies of scale really take off when you have no gravity and drag. The only thing a smaller ship would have over a larger one would be a tighter turning radius.

So we'll likely end up with something much like BFG. Very large warships that can't turn very well, but can achieve high speeds. Weaponry will be mostly lasers, missiles, and railguns(ship trajectory will be fairly easy to predict due to size limitations)

 Smacks wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That's what life in space would be a bit like. Space is huge, and there are billions of tones of resources just laying around. Why bother fighting people for stuff that you can find in abundance everywhere?

That is not what life in space would be like. You can't just settle down in empty space on your own. You'd at the very least need some kind of spaceship, which requires more than one person. And to keep alive in space, you need a lot of things. You'd likely need a large group of people just to get everything up and running.
Besides, people simply don't want to live like that. People always group together, no matter how much empty space is available. Who wants to be a hermit?

It's an analogy. If you are technologically advanced enough to live in space and have FTL travel, then it means you would probably have solved most of your energy issues, and it should be a piece of cake for you to recycle and synthesize any chemistry or biology that you need, and there are a lot of resources floating around.

The point was not that you live on your own, but that everyone would have abundance, and probably unlimited VR worlds to mess about in, and cybernetic implants that make life even easier still.

That doesn't mean that there won't be any conflict. But a lot of the reasons for conflict depicted in science fiction, would probably not exist for such an advanced race. For example aliens coming to steal our water is stupid. Even if they weren't able to synthesize water from hydrogen (which is everywhere) comets and icy moons would be a better source, than traipsing across the galaxy to steal ours.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You're discounting 'population bloom', humans have a tendency to rapidly multiply to fill available space.

The universe is a big place. When you consider that every human that has ever lived, lived out their whole lives on this tiny rock, that you'd barely be able to see from 1AU away. With all of outer space to fill up, I don't think space is going to be a problem, and with all their energy and resources taken care of, building new habitats shouldn't be a problem either (and that's assuming population size wasn't managed in some way).

When people live in space, space to them will feel like earth is to us, big but normal. So when a neighboring planet thinks that what we do to our oceans is bad and they get annoyed enough to threaten us to space people it is likely they won't feel "meh, space is huge, they will get over it" but instead react as if their way of life etc is being encroached upon or threatened.

It's funny you say "if they can do X then they won't need X" but humans are never happy, they will ALWAYS find something else they want. The drive to do more and so on is something humans rightfully have so even if they have an abundance of energy there will be something else to want/need.

I agree though, the reasons for conflict will probably be unthinkable for us (because we are too busy wondering why on earth they are fighting with all this cool stuff they have). But there will be war. There is no real reason to think that separate planets will be any different to separate countries. Heck, imagine a planet is having a civil war, so neighboring planets start aiding different sides only for to escalate from a single planet conflict to a "galaxy war" etc. I don't know, but I think it's naive to think war will not happen.

Also think about 2 groups of people settling the same planet, all it takes to start a space war (maybe) is those two groups having border clashes and it goes from there.


About Space Wars being done near planets, you would have to be careful because planets can have a fair few defenses of their own. Despite being immobile, restricted to a planet and so on, they can still contribute to the power of the defending fleet, would it not make more sense for the attacker to try lure out the defender to deliver a blow THEN take on the planet itself? (I mentioned this in OP too). Instead of attack the entire enemy force at once (planet + fleet). Otherwise the attacking fleet will likely suffer immensely. The defender has 2 choices, wait by the planet until the attackers lose patience or try deliver a knock out blow without the planets support.

Heaps of interesting stuff.

 Smacks wrote:

That doesn't mean that there won't be any conflict. But a lot of the reasons for conflict depicted in science fiction, would probably not exist for such an advanced race. For example aliens coming to steal our water is stupid. Even if they weren't able to synthesize water from hydrogen (which is everywhere) comets and icy moons would be a better source, than traipsing across the galaxy to steal ours.

Not necessarily. While you could harvest water from comets and such, you're gonna get way more from a planet that's covered in it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not necessarily. While you could harvest water from comets and such, you're gonna get way more from a planet that's covered in it.

You might be surprised. Most planets are "covered it", it appears to be quite abundant in the universe. And these amounts are literally "drops" in the ocean compared to how much water is tied up in comets and nebula. If you were harvesting water you would get "way more" by focusing on those. Earth just wouldn't be interesting, it has a relatively insignificant amount of water, which is hard to get at. It would be like an oil company travelling to the moon and building a rig there, just to drill up 6 pints of oil. It makes no sense (and not just because there shouldn't be any oil on the moon). Unless there was literally no oil left anywhere else, they wouldn't be interested, and even if that was the case, the moon is so far away and hard to get to, it still wouldn't be worth it.

Pretty much read this: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php

And then you can have a reasonable and informed discussion of what it might be like...

It's been picked over many, many, times by folks with varying degrees (literally and figuratively!) of expertise relevant to the topic from NASA engineers, to military analysts, to game designers, to you name it...

Valete,

JohnS

 cygnnus wrote:
Pretty much read this: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php

And then you can have a reasonable and informed discussion of what it might be like...

It's been picked over many, many, times by folks with varying degrees (literally and figuratively!) of expertise relevant to the topic from NASA engineers, to military analysts, to game designers, to you name it...

Valete,

JohnS

That looks like a fun read dude.

Well, I am not proud so looked at a few articles.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/chris-dumm/guns-in-space-still-just-science-fiction/
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunintro.php
So yeah, the mind reels a bit and it makes sense.
Main takeaways I see:
- whatever speed an object travels at remains constant unless gravity is applied or any impacts it may encounter.
- relative speed is king if using kinetic weapons: barrel velocity means little if your target is moving away faster.
- most gun like weapons need to be within "knife fight" ranges since slight course corrections can easily evade a shot.
- stand-off range needs ridiculous speed weapons like lasers or fully guided weapons to hope to hit their target.

I would be interested in figuring out if you apply a wide radar beam to detect a target: at what distance would it become too porus to detect an object some ten meters in size? This is a bit of a trick question because it would be more a matter of statistics where would a 10% failure of detection be sufficiently bad?

The concept of chaff countermeasures could both be very effective and dangerous at the wrong relative velocity.
Considering solder and paint chips are dangerous in orbit, it certainly gives one pause:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001ESASP.473..191H

I worked in an environment test lab that made use of vacuum chambers, we joked that three bags of Dorito chip bags launched in counter-orbit could shut down space travel (unless you launch in counter orbit as well). Typically for an added boost it is easier to orbit and land in the direction of a planet's rotation.
Speed = 12742 (earth diameter) x ¶ (pie) x 24 (hours) assuming ONLY at the equator.
Speed based on latitude is here http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html

The math makes sense but gets painful when I think how something "simple" like landing on a planet without getting a bearing on it's rotation is a death sentence.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not necessarily. While you could harvest water from comets and such, you're gonna get way more from a planet that's covered in it.

You might be surprised. Most planets are "covered it", it appears to be quite abundant in the universe.

Spoiler:

And these amounts are literally "drops" in the ocean compared to how much water is tied up in comets and nebula. If you were harvesting water you would get "way more" by focusing on those. Earth just wouldn't be interesting, it has a relatively insignificant amount of water, which is hard to get at. It would be like an oil company travelling to the moon and building a rig there, just to drill up 6 pints of oil. It makes no sense (and not just because there shouldn't be any oil on the moon). Unless there was literally no oil left anywhere else, they wouldn't be interested, and even if that was the case, the moon is so far away and hard to get to, it still wouldn't be worth it.

Titan is the only other object besides us in the solar system with clear evidence of water. Everything else is a guess (including Europa)

But regardless, lets say there are planets like Titan assuming we are working with real evidence, could powers simply control these water based planets and there is reason for war again?

I don't see why we are fighting for water though, we could be fighting for something as simple as living space for all we know. Hell helium is running out (from memory anyway), who knows helium could be limited in the galaxy, or maybe the guesses are correct and there are plenty of helium planets who knows. We sure don't until we can see it for ourselves (thats how we know there is water on Titan).

Gosh, darn, was ninjaed as I was researching, that rocket site is awesome.

 Talizvar wrote:
Well, I am not proud so looked at a few articles.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/chris-dumm/guns-in-space-still-just-science-fiction/
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunintro.php
So yeah, the mind reels a bit and it makes sense.
Main takeaways I see:
- whatever speed an object travels at remains constant unless gravity is applied or any impacts it may encounter.
- relative speed is king if using kinetic weapons: barrel velocity means little if your target is moving away faster.
- most gun like weapons need to be within "knife fight" ranges since slight course corrections can easily evade a shot.
- stand-off range needs ridiculous speed weapons like lasers or fully guided weapons to hope to hit their target.

I would be interested in figuring out if you apply a wide radar beam to detect a target: at what distance would it become too porus to detect an object some ten meters in size? This is a bit of a trick question because it would be more a matter of statistics where would a 10% failure of detection be sufficiently bad?

The concept of chaff countermeasures could both be very effective and dangerous at the wrong relative velocity.
Considering solder and paint chips are dangerous in orbit, it certainly gives one pause:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001ESASP.473..191H

I worked in an environment test lab that made use of vacuum chambers, we joked that three bags of Dorito chip bags launched in counter-orbit could shut down space travel (unless you launch in counter orbit as well). Typically for an added boost it is easier to orbit and land in the direction of a planet's rotation.
Speed = 12742 (earth diameter) x ¶ (pie) x 24 (hours) assuming ONLY at the equator.
Speed based on latitude is here http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html

The math makes sense but gets painful when I think how something "simple" like landing on a planet without getting a bearing on it's rotation is a death sentence.

More reading...

Interesting stuff though.

Perhaps, instead of actual solid weapons, clouds of ball bearing type things could be lunched continually where targets are likely to be traveling? This combined with guided weapons could be a scary combination (assuming lasers dont work).

Sneaking up on a ship in space could be simple with radar absorbing materials and shape, IR signature a little harder to hide, matt black paint would help as camouflage until optic detection notices too many stars obscured. Seems easiest if you are not in their path of travel and spotted them first. A bit like submarine warfare: active detection systems paint a big "here I am" on you but would render you blind to debris that may hit you. Good thing space is so vast odds are unlikely you will hit anything until you hit a gravity well.

I expect a lot of Missiles and mines. rather than traditional guns.
and lasers
Possibly Rail guns.

I also kinda wana see giant solar canons that focus beams on people.

since it gets fethin hot out there.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Perhaps, instead of actual solid weapons, clouds of ball bearing type things could be lunched continually where targets are likely to be traveling? This combined with guided weapons could be a scary combination (assuming lasers dont work).

That could be tough, assuming detection is all aimed toward the craft's path.
Maybe using a mass stealthed as outlined with limited thrust (steady move toward target, thrust on opposite side so no IR) to ensure it remains in the path (space mine?) would have best chance for success.
I think something you do not see coming till too late is the ideal.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Perhaps, instead of actual solid weapons, clouds of ball bearing type things could be lunched continually where targets are likely to be traveling? This combined with guided weapons could be a scary combination (assuming lasers dont work).

That could be tough, assuming detection is all aimed toward the craft's path.
Maybe using a mass stealthed as outlined with limited thrust (steady move toward target, thrust on opposite side so no IR) to ensure it remains in the path (space mine?) would have best chance for success.
I think something you do not see coming till too late is the ideal.

I agree, they key to success is to find your enemy first and hit him so he cannot evade, ideally anyway.

But if guided weapons are being used the the craft would surely have sensors etc to spot attacks from all directions because in space they could be anywhere. A guided weapon would likely chase the target (as it can accelerate). We also have to take into account defenses and the like. It sounds to me like firing upon an enemy in space is likely to be detectable as soon as your weaponry begins to close in. Immediately the target now knows where you fired from and can have an easier time finding you.

I propose that you will need to go with weight of accurate fire to minimize a ships ability to evade and deal an initial knockout blow in order to win in space.

Unless you can stealth your weapons in which case whoever spots the target first wins.

It appears to be a matter of management.
Handling heat for signature and any you pickup: laser hits, explosive acceleration transfers heat.
Hits from the front path need little: spacecraft momentum will probably wreck them.
Chasing weapons need huge acceleration to close the gap and probably explosives when it arrives.
Radar, lasers, IR and optical (computer assisted) tracking all would be needed to have a hope of hitting a target at early stages of engaging a them.
"Seeding" an area with spotter satellites could help with non-active targeting using tight beam communication (laser or microwave) to feed the information to a ship with the weapon system.
Space does not have GPS so relative coordinates could get interesting.
Need to hunt down more crunchy NASA brains on this topic, I like the puzzle of it.

 Talizvar wrote:
It appears to be a matter of management.
Handling heat for signature and any you pickup: laser hits, explosive acceleration transfers heat.
Hits from the front path need little: spacecraft momentum will probably wreck them.
Chasing weapons need huge acceleration to close the gap and probably explosives when it arrives.
Radar, lasers, IR and optical (computer assisted) tracking all would be needed to have a hope of hitting a target at early stages of engaging a them.
"Seeding" an area with spotter satellites could help with non-active targeting using tight beam communication (laser or microwave) to feed the information to a ship with the weapon system.
Space does not have GPS so relative coordinates could get interesting.
Need to hunt down more crunchy NASA brains on this topic, I like the puzzle of it.

Exactly why I think solid munitions has a place, provided you can hit.

Yes, rear hits would need to explode to cause maximum damage (although I hear explosions are limited in space or at least don't travel far), maybe they could carry some extra fuel to boost them at the last second to increase the impact.

Tracking and drones or targeting devices etc would need to be discrete, otherwise they could be traced to your position when done wrong.

Yea, co ordinates, wow didn't think about that one. Orientation in deeper space would be hard without a set target to go to.

The real problem with space combat is when it starts happening across distances far enough that light becomes a factor, where you are only seeing where ship "A", was an appreciable time ago. Only computers can perform such combat, or close combat where the ships are traveling at different angles to each other at any worthwhile interstellar speed, and they can pass completely by each other in a fraction of a second, and because of mass/energy it's the only time you get a shot for several hours/days for them to turn around.

The series the "Lost Fleet" are an awesome interpretation of space combat.

Ah! Hate to pose a problem without solutions: pulsar navigation act as (somewhat) fixed navigation features.
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/lost-in-space-use-the-pulsar-positioning-system-130528.htm
So some coordinate system could be laid down by these features in space.
This would lend non-active guidance for weapons.

I would also doubt the ability to trace narrow or directional communication: you have to cross it to detect it unless particles pass through it like misting to detect lasers in a heist movie.

Most conventional range tracking equipment depends on the "zip-crack" of direction of gunshot, bullet passage sound vs gunshot sound gets range.
We have no atmosphere for this fun so those methods are closed.
Mind-you IR is used to detect the heated barrel so masking after the shot would be critical.

I feel like I have gone down the rabbit hole in this.
"Atomic Rockets" keeps showing up, that site could stand more of my reading.
OP thanks, this is a neat topic.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The real problem with space combat is when it starts happening across distances far enough that light becomes a factor, where you are only seeing where ship "A", was an appreciable time ago. Only computers can perform such combat, or close combat where the ships are traveling at different angles to each other at any worthwhile interstellar speed, and they can pass completely by each other in a fraction of a second, and because of mass/energy it's the only time you get a shot for several hours/days for them to turn around.

The series the "Lost Fleet" are an awesome interpretation of space combat.

Yes I agree on all accounts. In the Op I talked about how the battles would take a long time with brief actual engagement. However it is also likely that little damage needs to be done to win the conflict making engagements even smaller.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Ah! Hate to pose a problem without solutions: pulsar navigation act as (somewhat) fixed navigation features.
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/lost-in-space-use-the-pulsar-positioning-system-130528.htm
So some coordinate system could be laid down by these features in space.
This would lend non-active guidance for weapons.

I would also doubt the ability to trace narrow or directional communication: you have to cross it to detect it unless particles pass through it like misting to detect lasers in a heist movie.

Most conventional range tracking equipment depends on the "zip-crack" of direction of gunshot, bullet passage sound vs gunshot sound gets range.
We have no atmosphere for this fun so those methods are closed.
Mind-you IR is used to detect the heated barrel so masking after the shot would be critical.

I feel like I have gone down the rabbit hole in this.
"Atomic Rockets" keeps showing up, that site could stand more of my reading.
OP thanks, this is a neat topic.

I started playing Firestorm Armada again and trying to come to terms with how cool the idea of space fighting is, but how incredibly complex, challenging and different the reality of it all is. So I thought id come up with this topic and see how it goes. Not disappointed in how its turned out at all. Heaps of reading to be had anyway.

Im about to read your link.


Read it, geeze that's a lot of KM of uncertainty. Obviously I lack the brains for a solution or even an idea but I suppose if we are fighting in space positioning is something we can assume has been worked out (but where is the fun in assuming).

 Swastakowey wrote:
Titan is the only other object besides us in the solar system with clear evidence of water. Everything else is a guess (including Europa)

Well I don't think that's fair. There in no question that there is large quantities of water ice on Europa, it's much more than a guess. Certainly, there is a lot more we'd like to know about it, but just because we haven't sent a probe there and physically sampled it yet doesn't mean everything know is wrong. And the Rosetta probe has physically confirmed water on comets.

But regardless, lets say there are planets like Titan assuming we are working with real evidence, could powers simply control these water based planets and there is reason for war again?

The abundance of water in the galaxy wasn't really critical to my point, it was just an interesting fact. Any ship could find a comet, and all their water needs would be taken care of for years, no one cares about Titan. However, a FTL capable technology, that isn't able to synthesize water, out of free hydrogen in space, and so needs to go around harvesting it, is incredibly far fetched. It would be like a society with computers and radios having not discovered fire yet.

I don't see why we are fighting for water though, we could be fighting for something as simple as living space for all we know. Hell helium is running out (from memory anyway), who knows helium could be limited in the galaxy, or maybe the guesses are correct and there are plenty of helium planets who knows. We sure don't until we can see it for ourselves (thats how we know there is water on Titan).

Seeing isn't believing, that's just some nonsense human cognitive bias. There are plenty of pilots who have died because they trusted their senses over their instruments, and eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Empirical evidence isn't necessarily better than any other kind of evidence. I'd trust my sense of reason over my eyes any day. Helium is one of the main products of fusion in stars, it's almost certainly the second most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen, and it's more stable. Not much danger of it running out.

Living space is a more interesting idea, but I think you're still looking at it from a 21st century perspective. There is certainly no shortage of space in "space", the question is how easily it can be made liveable. For a society that has FTL travel I would think it would be very easy. We already have 3D printed houses. They might have nanobots and replicators that can whip up a space station in less time than it takes us to pitch a tent.

You also have to take into account that we are already seeing the beginnings of cybernetics and AI. By the time humans develop FTL we might be more machine than living organism, so we might not be as "fussy" as we are now, about hanging out in a hard vacuum, or going without oxygen and water for extended periods of time. Those would be good modifications for living in space. And we might actually end up preferring the cool dry surface of asteroids and moons when we want to stretch our legs, rather than those nasty corrosive water planets, that mess with all our electronics.

 Smacks wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Titan is the only other object besides us in the solar system with clear evidence of water. Everything else is a guess (including Europa)

Well I don't think that's fair. There in no question that there is large quantities of water ice on Europa, it's much more than a guess. Certainly, there is a lot more we'd like to know about it, but just because we haven't sent a probe there and physically sampled it yet doesn't mean everything know is wrong. And the Rosetta probe has physically confirmed water on comets.

But regardless, lets say there are planets like Titan assuming we are working with real evidence, could powers simply control these water based planets and there is reason for war again?

The abundance of water in the galaxy wasn't really critical to my point, it was just an interesting fact. Any ship could find a comet, and all their water needs would betaken care of for years, no one cares about Titan. However, a FTL capable technology, that isn't able to synthesize water, out of free hydrogen in space, and so needs to go around harvesting it, is incredibly far fetched. It would be like a society with computers and radios having not discovered fire yet.

I don't see why we are fighting for water though, we could be fighting for something as simple as living space for all we know. Hell helium is running out (from memory anyway), who knows helium could be limited in the galaxy, or maybe the guesses are correct and there are plenty of helium planets who knows. We sure don't until we can see it for ourselves (thats how we know there is water on Titan).

Seeing isn't believing, that's just some nonsense human cognitive bias. There are plenty of pilots who have died because they trusted their senses over their instruments, and eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Empirical evidence isn't necessarily better than any other kind of evidence. I'd trust my sense of reason over my eyes any day. Helium is one of the main products of fusion in stars, it's almost certainly the second most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen, and it's more stable. Not much danger of it running out.

Living space is a more interesting idea, but I think you're still looking at it from a 21st century perspective. There is certainly no shortage of space in "space", the question is how easily it can be made liveable. For a society that has FTL travel I would think it would be very easy. We already have 3D printed houses. They might have nanobots and replicators that can whip up a space station in less time than it takes us to pitch a tent.

You also have to take into account that we are already seeing the beginnings of cybernetics and AI. By the time humans develop FTL we might be more machine than living organism, so we might not be as "fussy" as we are now, about hanging out in a hard vacuum, or going without oxygen and water for extended periods of time. Those would be good modifications for living in space. And we might actually end up preferring the cool dry surface of asteroids and moons when want to we stretch our legs, rather than those nasty corrosive water planets, that mess with all our electronics.

Yes I agree im just saying Europa isn't confirmed to have large bodies of water, it is estimated. Titan so far is the only place in space confirmed to have bodies water. Are all comets the same?

We can speculate what they might have (which will be wrong I bet) but we can look at how humans have always behaved and well history is full of conflict. As much as we would all like the future to be peaceful chances are it will not be. So when you say "21st perspective" we actually can't see it from another perspective because we are attempting to look forward. Just so we are clear, I think there will be conflict, the reasons for conflict are something to speculate on.

But lets safely assume we are still human, safely assume most planets are different in quality for human life, safely assume we can degrade but not improve planets and so on. Because we can say it is more likely the previous list is likely to come about over the more far fetched claims.

The most important part, is each planet being different in quality for human life. How many people would enjoy living full time in Antarctica? Many would go for the experience but probably not to live. Say earth like planets are rare (yes there maybe lots out there but for scale they are rare), others might have less or more gravity. After space travel has become the norm it is likely say planet earth is the best planet to live on for humans. This means Earth goes back to being the best place to live. Already earth is more desirable than other planets. This could be true if another planet is better than earth for X reason. That already means there is reason to have control of the better planet.

So while living space may be a bit broad and brief, merely having an abundance of something does not mean they are all equal. This means there is room for conflict as people want better.

I will admit, I am having a hard time finding reasons for war in space, largely because, as you say, I am in my times mind set. Without knowledge of the cultures, the values or the politics of the future it is hard to say what might cause war. However I do not think it is far fetched to think war in space will (or maybe has...) happen.

Most space games tend to focus on expansion being the goal for early races and when expansion reaches the point of having space borders conflicts esculate. Sometimes conflict arises when races want a planet to get a foothold before another race does. But this is assuming that there are aliens. If it is just humans then perhaps during initial space travel and colonisation humanity will have a brief period of peace?

I don't know.

 Swastakowey wrote:
we can look at how humans have always behaved and well history is full of conflict.

I agree, it seems like it is just in our nature. However, all of human history has taken place on Earth, where space and resources are limited. That's quite a massive variable which would suddenly be turned on its head, for the first time, when we talk about being free to roam the universe.

Put 12 people in a lifeboat, out on the Pacific, with limited food and water, and in various states of injury, and see what happens. People have been known to kill and eat each other in such circumstances. But that doesn't tell you anything about what they would be like on land with plenty to share.

That's why I think it's wrong to just assume that life in space would just be an extension of life on Earth. Though you're right to say that it is wrong to assume it wouldn't be (to some extent).

I don't really want to argue with you, and get into a pattern of just contradicting each other. I think this is a fascinating subject, and I agree with you that there will probably always exist reasons for conflict. If you wanted to (for example) write a science fiction about a space war, you could do that, and make it believable. I think the only thing I'd like to add to that (which I hope you will agree with) is that we tend to bring a lot of our own preconceptions with us when we discuss these things. We think of expansion into space as being analogous to expansion across the seas, with planets being like Islands, and ship to ship combat and piracy, and all the 18th century politics and war that went with that. And all I want to say is I don't think it is analogous, when you start to break it down, and I don't think a FTL capable people, would be concerned about the types of things that concern us. That's not to say conflict couldn't happen, I just think it would be over very different types of things, than what we fight over.

I'd like to bring an example, perhaps a humours example, from the 10 commandments. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours donkey". Now I don't know about you, but I've never looked at anyone's donkey and thought "Damn! I want that donkey!", in fact the last thing I want is a fething donkey to look after. No doubt, 3000 years ago, donkeys were all the rage, and a big hit with the ladies. But society and technology has moved on, and people just don't covert donkeys any more.

Sure we still covert other stuff, stuff that ancient people probably wouldn't even understand, but not so much donkeys. This is what I mean about things like water and land. Yes, people might still fight over them in the future, but it's also worth considering that those things might not be such a big issue to an advanced technology, in the way they are to us.

Most space games tend to focus on expansion being the goal for early races and when expansion reaches the point of having space borders conflicts esculate. Sometimes conflict arises when races want a planet to get a foothold before another race does. But this is assuming that there are aliens. If it is just humans then perhaps during initial space travel and colonisation humanity will have a brief period of peace?

I think most space games are for entertainment and fantasy, rather than a serious analysis. Again a lot of them draw from historical ideas about expansion and colonisation. I think the problem is, they take a very advanced technology (FTL) and then mix it up with lots of quite unadvanced techs and attitudes. For example lasers and torpedoes are analogous to modern weapons. But if you've got FTL then why not some kind of similarly advanced quantum weapon, that just erases people from the universe at the push of a button (or rather by interfacing with the weapon through your neural net), regardless of where the person is, they just pop out of existence. Like a gun, but way better.

No doubt, if someone just gave us 21st century people a load FTL engines, and let as loose on the universe, then things probably would be a lot like how they are in sci-fi films and games. But I think if other technologies were allowed to progress at the same rate, those ideas are a bit silly. Like someone from the 12th century imagining that after we created a vessel that could travel to the moon, we would go there and fight each other on horseback using swords, and over donkeys.

 Smacks wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
we can look at how humans have always behaved and well history is full of conflict.

I agree, it seems like it is just in our nature. However, all of human history has taken place on Earth, where space and resources are limited. That's quite a massive variable which would suddenly be turned on its head, for the first time, when we talk about being free to roam the universe.

Put 12 people in a lifeboat, out on the Pacific, with limited food and water, and in various states of injury, and see what happens. People have been known to kill and eat each other in such circumstances. But that doesn't tell you anything about what they would be like on land with plenty to share.

That's why I think it's wrong to just assume that life in space would just be an extension of life on Earth. Though you're right to say that it is wrong to assume it wouldn't be (to some extent).

I don't really want to argue with you, and get into a pattern of just contradicting each other. I think this is a fascinating subject, and I agree with you that there will probably always exist reasons for conflict. If you wanted to (for example) write a science fiction about a space war, you could do that, and make it believable. I think the only thing I'd like to add to that (which I hope you will agree with) is that we tend to bring a lot of our own preconceptions with us when we discuss these things. We think of expansion into space as being analogous to expansion across the seas, with planets being like Islands, and ship to ship combat and piracy, and all the 18th century politics and war that went with that. And all I want to say is I don't think it is analogous, when you start to break it down, and I don't think a FTL capable people, would be concerned about the types of things that concern us. That's not to say conflict couldn't happen, I just think it would be over very different types of things, than what we fight over.

I'd like to bring an example, perhaps a humours example, from the 10 commandments. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours donkey". Now I don't know about you, but I've never looked at anyone's donkey and thought "Damn! I want that donkey!", in fact the last thing I want is a fething donkey to look after. No doubt, 3000 years ago, donkeys were all the rage, and a big hit with the ladies. But society and technology has moved on, and people just don't covert donkeys any more.

Sure we still covert other stuff, stuff that ancient people probably wouldn't even understand, but not so much donkeys. This is what I mean about things like water and land. Yes, people might still fight over them in the future, but it's also worth considering that those things might not be such a big issue to an advanced technology, in the way they are to us.

Most space games tend to focus on expansion being the goal for early races and when expansion reaches the point of having space borders conflicts esculate. Sometimes conflict arises when races want a planet to get a foothold before another race does. But this is assuming that there are aliens. If it is just humans then perhaps during initial space travel and colonisation humanity will have a brief period of peace?

I think most space games are for entertainment and fantasy, rather than a serious analysis. Again a lot of them draw from historical ideas about expansion and colonisation. I think the problem is, they take a very advanced technology (FTL) and then mix it up with lots of quite unadvanced techs and attitudes. For example lasers and torpedoes are analogous to modern weapons. But if you've got FTL then why not some kind of similarly advanced quantum weapon, that just erases people from the universe at the push of a button (or rather by interfacing with the weapon through your neural net), regardless of where the person is, they just pop out of existence. Like a gun, but way better.

No doubt, if someone just gave us 21st century people a load FTL engines, and let as loose on the universe, then things probably would be a lot like how they are in sci-fi films and games. But I think if other technologies were allowed to progress at the same rate, those ideas are a bit silly. Like someone from the 12th century imagining that after we created a vessel that could travel to the moon, we would go there and fight each other on horseback using swords, and over donkeys.

Im on the same page most definately. As I said I cannot fathom for wars in space because everything we need material wise is out there, but im not the future person who is aware of the culture, politics, technology or attitudes so yea I cannot guess except put out what I think could happen in that situation.

Its actually the firts thing I talk about in the OP, predicting the future has a heavy bias of today. Most of the time anyway.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
What about all the things humans have always fought over? Religion, ideology, politics, different opinions, historical feuds or just over more power? Not all wars are about resources.

Wars normally do come down to resources. Be that land, raw materials or strategic points for trade. Everything else is just an excuse.

That is not true. Many wars have been fought for nothing but conflicting ideologies. The Syrian and Ukrainian Civil Wars are a current examples.

 Talizvar wrote:
Sneaking up on a ship in space could be simple with radar absorbing materials and shape, IR signature a little harder to hide, matt black paint would help as camouflage until optic detection notices too many stars obscured. Seems easiest if you are not in their path of travel and spotted them first. A bit like submarine warfare: active detection systems paint a big "here I am" on you but would render you blind to debris that may hit you. Good thing space is so vast odds are unlikely you will hit anything until you hit a gravity well.

I'd suggest that some folks who are in the know would disagree with the chances of hiding IR signatures. There're many discussions about the topic on the SFCONSIM-L Yahoo Group, or through Chris Weuve's website: http://www.kentaurus.com/sfconsiml.htm

The consusus from a lot of folks with directrly applicable techincal knowledge was/is that hiding IR is virtually impossible without some serious handwavium.

Valete,

JohnS

No no. What you use in space combat is nukes. High yield weapons with large shockwaves to damage enemy ships releasing potent amounts of radiation to kill the enemy crew in a sudden burst. Lasers wouldn't be used for offensive purposes, but to destroy incoming enemy missiles.