tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post9078155547265707986..comments2024-03-18T13:11:39.192-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Warfare XIII: The Human FactorRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger883125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-79719597522330266972021-07-08T04:46:22.895-07:002021-07-08T04:46:22.895-07:00RE: "Dueling assumptions"
Well, yes. Ev...RE: "Dueling assumptions"<br /><br />Well, yes. Every scenario is based on a set of assumptions. I've tried to spell mine out, so as to make it clear why the Grand Fleet/Constellation exists at all, let alone what they do.<br /><br />If there's a gross mismatch in military power the strongest power won't need a Constellation of warships. A load of cruiser/patrol cutters will do to project power.<br /><br />If the number of combat-capable vessels is mismatched, likewise.<br /><br />Earth can outlast a colony. The Romans won the Punic Wars by losing to Hannibal several times but having a large pool of replacement soldiers to make up losses. Earth will almost certainly have the resources to build more ships after the most Lanchestrian of battles.<br /><br />If you have warships vs a threatening number of armed merchantmen, the side with Laserstars or comparable weapons is most likely to win by staying at the edge of range and sniping anything that comes close to your forces.<br /><br />Only if there's rough parity of forces (including the ability to provide reinforcements and make more munitions) will you get a WWII Grand Clash of Great Nations In SPACE at interplanetary distances. Otherwise the victory of one side is pretty predictable and you'll just have to fall back on characters to hold the readers' interest.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-65677009228228153742021-07-08T00:19:33.619-07:002021-07-08T00:19:33.619-07:00Say you do come up with some reason for an interpl...Say you do come up with some reason for an interplanetary task force to go from Earth to, say, Ceres because the Belters are getting restless.<br /><br />First-level observation by telescope will show what defenses are present; at minimum, we'll assume a fairly robust collection otherwise you could crush them with one warship. So set up the circumstances so that a heavy constellation makes sense. See what vessels are not only on the scene, but could also reach the scene by the time you get there. Probably armed merchantmen, lots of dumb or low-IQ kinetics (hardware from prospecting drones). Mass drivers designed for package delivery (leading to inevitable jokes when the combat begins). Lasers to eyeball-fry your ravening Laserstars. Weaponized sail pushers? Sure why not. Their radiators are huge and not retractable.<br /><br />Other intel before you set off: Do the Belters have bootleg milspec software? How many of them are there? How good would they be at operating those makeshift weapons? Any veterans among them to train the others?<br /><br />Now to you, the Noble Warriors of the Homeworld. Your task force better have some strong VASIMIR level drives, to make it there in a timely fashion and yet still have the wherewithal to fight in Ceres orbital space. Alternatively, combat vessels may have two drive systems and damn the mass penalty, one high ISP to get there and one relatively high thrust for battle. The long range drives might be left in a distant parking orbit on the edge of the Hill sphere.<br /><br />Most of the constellation will be robot tankers. There's your delta-V and laser coolant. Cargo freighters of kinetic munitions and/or chem-laser fixin's. The tankers stay with the ISP drive busses at the edge of the Hill sphere until needed in lower orbits.<br /><br />Likewise your human component. The requirements for a long term habitat make for basically a mobile space station; that's mass and volume you don't want even in a CIC ship. You'll carry along at least three smaller weeks-duration up-armored ferries for that role instead, and leave the bulky sluggish station-hab with the gear.<br /><br />The station-ship is likely also your mobile cageworks and cache of spare parts. And hospital ship, if needed. NOT a control vessel of any kind, to minimize the motivation to make it a priority target.<br /><br />Ideally lots of small satellites will probably be scattered across the orbital space of Ceres before, during and after your arrival. Just keep a steady stream of throwaway cameras/antennas inbound, they can act as eyes/ears and laser comm relays. You'll need sensors all over at all times, and the Belters can't keep them all clear. Make sure the foes are kept too busy to focus on them.<br /><br />They'll have plenty of lead time to set up a time-on-target gauntlet of death along any practical orbital path. Hannibal crossed the Alps, but orbital mechanics constrains your own "roads". Expect heavy losses under the best case scenario. Send the drones in first to test their defenses and use up kinetics and delta-V. And then send in more drones while you slip your CICs into relatively undefended orbits.<br /><br />Always keep in mind that they have the closer supply lines and any existing satellite networks. They probably won't be hurting for remass. Sheer numbers will be your best bet, go big or go home, "there is no kill like overkill", etc.<br /><br />This will probably be a battle of attrition. Grinding up expensive warships. Whoever has more to expend will win. But it would not be an exciting battle for readers, and defintiely not Operatic.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-63848225603445314382021-07-07T23:18:26.716-07:002021-07-07T23:18:26.716-07:00"Your analysis on jinking agrees wiht my own...."Your analysis on jinking agrees wiht my own. I will have more to say after someone gets the correct answer to my question." = Byron<br /><br />...If you're looking for a specific answer, just give the answer.<br /><br />(I realize this is responding personally to someone who is no longer participating, but really dude.)<br /><br />It's general advice for anyone, online or in face-to-face conversation. Don't be "that guy" who throws a snit because they think they're too smart for the room.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-66240984671015060762021-07-07T16:23:42.777-07:002021-07-07T16:23:42.777-07:00"By someone else's orbit, I mean to a pla..."By someone else's orbit, I mean to a planet I don't own. And what happens when you decide to take a fleet to Mars to punish them?" = Byron<br /><br />In practice, at milligee accelerations you probably won't. Unless Mars is comically under-defended approaching a hostile orbit any closer than a few thousand K will likely be implausible. They see you coming, they know where you'll end up, they can easily lay out a well-timed gauntlet of deadly force. They'll have short travel times and supply lines, able to remass and re-arm any vessels still flying.<br /><br />Combat in space will be fought using what you have on hand, locally. If you don't have forces already in a body's orbit, you won't own that orbital space. If you try to send forces after the fact, you'd better have overwhelming numbers on your side or a weak enemy, because you'll be facing a high rate of loss.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-48877632694411651262021-07-07T14:55:24.921-07:002021-07-07T14:55:24.921-07:00"A lot of these will be competing for limited..."A lot of these will be competing for limited active resources, and so you'll want to move them, or unplug them, and I imagine that somewhere the line between adding redundancies and self-repair capabilities it just looks easier to have a Countermeasures Officers, or Oscillation Overthruster's Mate, or whatever." = Z<br /><br />I'd say having a remote operated "waldo" is the solution. The repair crew need not ever set foot on the drone ship, only into a VR rig to link to their mechanical extensions.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32039323998367251042021-07-07T14:36:51.355-07:002021-07-07T14:36:51.355-07:00As far as AI, I can't see conscious machines b...As far as AI, I can't see conscious machines becoming a factor in the PMF. They may be on par with FTL and a balanced government budget. We can't count on them being Admirals of war fleets... er, constellations. For any plausibility, humans or post-humans will have to play a part if only in choosing which computer simulation is more likely.<br /><br />They're not going to be piloting fighters, of course. But they'll be in there somewhere.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-21688744355336638942021-07-07T14:24:59.254-07:002021-07-07T14:24:59.254-07:00"As to the city, I don't see that as like..."As to the city, I don't see that as likely unless you're fighting in orbit. " = Byron<br /><br />And that's what we're likely to be doing. It's where all the stuff to fight over is. We're more often likely to see small scale local conflicts escalate than Total War in deep space. It's been the pattern for pretty much all of human existence.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-29184791583988964152021-07-07T14:19:05.406-07:002021-07-07T14:19:05.406-07:00"You're also ignoring the economic side o..."You're also ignoring the economic side of war - war is expensive, AI may be expensive. People have been, currently are, and probably always will be, cheap."<br /><br />In space, humans are never cheap. See also "why we send robots to other planets".<br /><br />Humans are cheap on Earth because all our life support needs are met by the planet, largely for free or fairly cheap. Keeping humans alive and healthy in space for long periods is a challenge we still struggle with today. Old Astronaut syndrome, muscle degradation, osteoporosis, etc, plus the ISS is still inside our magnetosphere and yet radiation is still a problem. It will also need a closed carbon cycle or huge-ass mass of consumables-- tons per person either way. Unless you posit a return to Apollo era technology, the computers will not outweigh a habitat module.<br /><br />Computers are hardier than biology already and can be hardened against EMPs. "Self repairing" chips (really just self-sealing redundantly but whatever) are already a thing. AI (used in the real world sense) is getting increasingly more capable. And those trends will only continue and advance, especially in military technology adapted to space, while humans will probably not. The drones will be designed with those factors in mind.<br /><br />There will probably need to be human minds in the loop, preferably at a distance min-maxed from the drones for safety versus timely decision making, in heavily defended CIC habs.<br /><br />As Rick pointed out there's a need for humans to do more than push buttons; patrols, inspections in orbit, etc. But those will not be in warships. Such patrol craft may be accompanied by or carry a set of smaller combat drones in case of SHTF ("Stuff" Hits The Fan) but they will not be the primary combat vessels in a shooting war.<br /><br />Maybe a patrol cruiser could be drafted into service as makeshift CIC if war pops up unexpectedly.... In fact, there's a story idea right there!Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-66820951095760863572012-05-14T08:47:47.354-07:002012-05-14T08:47:47.354-07:00Isacc:
Humans suck at space. We're just not ...Isacc:<br /><i><br /><br />Humans suck at space. We're just not built for it (obviously), while robots can be. While I get many of the human advantages, I really don't see the point in splashing out on a crew for the more mundane tasks. Nearly anything a human can do, a robot can do better. Anything that can be done with AI, should be. In space I can see that being a pretty fundamental principle.</i><br />I've said before that if I weren't a squishy thing, I wouldn't support putting squishy things in space.<br /><br />I'm not sure how AI will work. The problem with space battles is that there is a very limited amount of tactical stuff that can be done. Both forces are fully visible, and moving on a fairly fixed course. Even a modern video game-type AI could fight a reasonable battle under such circumstances. Honestly, it may be that the details are fine enough that it takes a really high-level AI to get any real improvement over that. Or a human, of course.<br />The "single human in a tank" thing is interesting. It avoids the problems with single humans sans tank, but the ethical question is still there. <br /><br />Robot maintainence is a tricky question, and while I expect that robots will handle a lot, for some things, it's easier to just have someone do it. I could build a robot system to handle 90% of maintainence for a billion dollars, or 100% of maintainence for five billion.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-82353499601657978252012-05-14T02:22:16.270-07:002012-05-14T02:22:16.270-07:00Maintenance can be done by droids also, surely? I ...Maintenance can be done by droids also, surely? I imagine an R2-D2 situation, only more spider-like (with little spider babies for the fiddly bits) and humourless. <br /><br />I get the idea of the maintenance droids breaking down, but they could fix each other, and its not like humans don't need repair - rather more expensively too. A ship can only break in so many ways, and I don't see why a human would be any more effective at memorising the solutions. <br /><br />Humans suck at space. We're just not built for it (obviously), while robots can be. While I get many of the human advantages, I really don't see the point in splashing out on a crew for the more mundane tasks. Nearly anything a human can do, a robot can do better. Anything that can be done with AI, should be. In space I can see that being a pretty fundamental principle.<br /><br />The question then, is what can AI do? This of course depends on your tech assumptions, and on some probably quite personal philosophical beliefs. As much use as my beliefs can ever be, they are thus: If we can create a learning AI, we shouldn't. Just because of the sheer processing power an AI could call on, once it had the ability to learn it would do so immensely quickly (sorry to go down the singularity route) and would quickly outmatch humanity's ability to control it. For a conscious AI to be useful it would have to have an inherent belief in its own right to exist, otherwise it would soon give up and die. A thing that wants to exist, and is better at doing so than us, will out evolve us, and will inevitably out compete us for resources. Personally I can think of no limits that can be written or coded that cannot be wormed out of - language is a function of power, not truth. <br /><br />Apologies for laying on the philosophy.<br /><br />What essentially, in my world-view, it is that AI cannot do (or at least should not do), is learn. Or rather elements of an AI system could learn, but it should be severely restricted and single task specific. Even then I may be asking to much of the midfuture. <br /><br />This is especially relevant in battle scenarios, as it leaves room for a pilot/commander who would provide the conscious-learning component of the ship.<br /><br />There would still be droids, making their way with complex decision trees, ready for most situations. It's just that those trees would be written and improved by a human near enough to follow what was going on.<br /><br />So I'd put one guy in there, to link together all the AI functions. Maybe in some kind of matrix spinal plug bath. If we're talking interstellar war, then I'd assume there was some way of putting people to sleep for the journey. The guy would then only be woken for the exciting bits, and wouldn't go crazy being on his own, as for him it would only last a week tops. If its interplanetary and there's no hibernation, I guess I'd just make him wait out the weeks travel, or go in a group.<br /><br />Just keeping him in the most defensible ship is probably cheapest. The vast majority of the time the AI would do all the work, as, as has been said, the time scales for decisions are usually too large or too small - unless you go down the route of slowing or speeding up consciousness.<br /><br />I may well be accused of seeing AI as far too effective. However whether my assumption is that it can only be as good as its programmers, or that it can beat them, my interpretation holds.<br /><br />I'd be glad to be ripped apart, point by point.Isaacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-31613689168874948102011-08-14T17:35:54.052-07:002011-08-14T17:35:54.052-07:00Welcome to the discussion threads!
You are right ...Welcome to the discussion threads!<br /><br />You are right that the origin of space forces will have far reaching effects on their form and development. In particular, to what degree the first (or zeroth) generation of space warcraft are purpose built, or repurposed civilian technology?<br /><br />I tend to think that scratch-built forces favor kinetic weapons, basically because if you are in space, you already know how to do kinetics. Throwing heavy objects fast and with precision is the precondition to spacefaring.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-12209403435904236572011-08-14T12:34:33.526-07:002011-08-14T12:34:33.526-07:00One major point that has been so far neglected is ...One major point that has been so far neglected is the evolution of space forces. Where will space warfare first be fought? What forces will be fighting this war? If the answer is earth orbit and humans, then it wouldn't be insane for further battles into space to derived from that formula.<br /><br />Another issue that has not been touched is the relationship between cost and performance. Let's take your average space probe and theoretical laserstar.<br /><br />With the probe, its mission lifetime is determined by how long it can endure without maintenance. That's not a problem because the costs of doing so outweigh the cost of sending a repair crew with it.<br /><br />The laserstar is a very different machine. Likely to be at least half a trillion dollars, the cost of losing this beast would frighten any future nature. Thus, designers may cast aside performance in favor of reliability. This means making a very human repair crew standard. Whether that crew is onsite is debatable.<br /><br />My own opinion is that the cost of including a repair ship is directly proportional to the number of drones it has to repair. If you have a massive fleet of a hundred, it makes perfect sense to keep all the technicians in one place. However, if your costly fleet is spread out across the system, it may just be cheaper to include the technicians in every ship.<br /><br />That goes to back to my point about the history of space forces. If patrols evolve into fleets, then designers will likely design their craft to be independent. And that means including a human repair crew on every shipBarsoomian Fevernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-81491944574957677832011-05-27T12:56:46.187-07:002011-05-27T12:56:46.187-07:00Milo:
"That depends on how far away your con...Milo:<br /><br /><i>"That depends on how far away your controllers are. If they need to be no more than a few lightseconds out for effective decision times, then yeah, they're vulnerable. If they're way over on a different planet, then taking them out would require the equivalent of storming the enemy's capital."</i><br /><br />Controllers, by definition, should always be assumed to be within realtime or near-realtime decision ranges, otherwise they're not really controlling anyting at the tactical level, don't you think.<br /><br /><i>"Very plausible.<br /><br />Although there will, of course, be cases where the loser fails to surrender, either due to overestimating the strength of their position, or due to stubborn insistance on making a last stand even if they're doomed, or due to getting killed by a lucky shot that no-one could have expected. They might be the exception, but they will be common enough that death in warfare will still happen."</i><br /><br />All that's happened in the past. I'm sure it will happen agian in the future.<br /><br /><i>"Could be made? Was there any dispute about this?"</i><br /><br />Well, there's a heavy current against any serious consideration of manned fighters, but if the strategic (as in interplanetary/insterstellar) transit infrastructure is decoupled from the tactical vehicle, then whether or not it is manned, it will be optimized for tactical maneuverability and endurance.<br /><br /><i>"Considering any interstellar propulsion system is complete handwavium at this point, they can be pretty much whatever you say they are."</i><br /><br />Sure, but given the enourmous energies involved, and the likely huge investment in equipment to generate and control those energies, making the star drive expendable just doesn't seem like that lilely.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-51447185341325753252011-05-26T09:59:45.961-07:002011-05-26T09:59:45.961-07:00=Milo=
Tony:
"It has been argued that the...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Tony:<br /><br /><i>"It has been argued that the controllers of a drone constellation could be kept back from the battle where they would be safe. I simply don't buy it. They may be harder to engage, but they represent such a significant vulnerability that it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't be targeted, and in effective ways."</i><br /><br />That depends on how far away your controllers are. If they need to be no more than a few lightseconds out for effective decision times, then yeah, they're vulnerable. If they're way over on a different planet, then taking them out would require the equivalent of storming the enemy's capital.<br /><br /><br /><i>"the battle is decided when one side or the other finds it's command ship(s) vulnerable to attack, whereupon the commander of the vulnerable force surrenders rather than takes things to a lethal (for him and his crew's) conclusion."</i><br /><br />Very plausible.<br /><br />Although there will, of course, be cases where the loser fails to surrender, either due to overestimating the strength of their position, or due to stubborn insistance on making a last stand even if they're doomed, or due to getting killed by a lucky shot that no-one could have expected. They might be the exception, but they will be common enough that death in warfare will still happen.<br /><br /><br /><br />Byron:<br /><br /><i>"For smaller navies, these economics differ."</i><br /><br />The question is, what counts as "small" in an interplanetary economy?<br /><br />Even with continued Balkanization, it'll be a long time before even third-world countries will be able to afford a couple of space corvettes to patrol to orbital lanes. (There are also fundamental tactical issues with this - while even small nations can own their own stretch of coastline, space in orbit cannot be parcelled out in a reasonable sense to any specific faction on the planet.)<br /><br />On the other hand, you might be talking about "small" in the sense of a nation controlling only one small moon, but which still has a celestial body to itself. This creates a very different tactical picture.<br /><br />Also consider several small allied nations pooling their resources. Though they'd have to be really trusting of each other, and in the more successful leagues it could lead to them gradually losing their sovereignity.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tony:<br /><br /><i>"This just highlights the need to optimize drones for their tactical roles (the same argument could be made for manned warships, BTW)."</i><br /><br />Could be made? Was there any dispute about this?<br /><br /><br /><i>"(I doubt interstellar motors would be expendable)"</i><br /><br />Considering any interstellar propulsion system is complete handwavium at this point, they can be pretty much whatever you say they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-37364622716283774482011-05-23T18:58:18.520-07:002011-05-23T18:58:18.520-07:00I have no problem with it, but I'm not sure ab...<i>I have no problem with it, but I'm not sure about him, or even who he is :-)</i><br /><br />Just think of it as an anagram. The scary thing is that I actually checked the name, and <i>still</i> got it wrong!<br /><br /><i>They may be harder to engage, but they represent such a significant vulnerability that it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't be targeted, and in effective ways.</i><br /><br />There's nothing new about either attacking or protecting command & control. Of course it will be attacked. Having to get past or around the 'weapon emplacements' simply makes such an attack more difficult. Nothing more, nothing less.<br /><br />The analogy to Age of Reason siege warfare is very much to the point. At some point in the history of this blog I think I even made it, though I'm not sure where. <br /><br />And if the command and control facility of a planetary defense constellation is in a city on the planet, that doesn't really change any of the essentials. <br /><br />So long as the constellation retains its fighting power, it protects the planet and, incidentally, its own command and control. Once the constellation is defeated, the contest of arms has been settled, and what comes next - from someone handing over their sword, to flattening cities - is driven by other considerations.<br /><br /><br />Even if Tarrantry existed, it would be in no position to have a space force, so I don't have to worry about its doctrine!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-70644487179901386102011-05-23T11:09:34.150-07:002011-05-23T11:09:34.150-07:00Byron:
"The same thought has occured to me. ...Byron:<br /><br /><i>"The same thought has occured to me. The problem is twofold.<br />1. You can't have a war between two defensive navies.<br />2. The defense drones are probably different in design from the offensive drones. You don't need huge delta-Vs, and you can probably get by with nuke thermal."</i><br /><br />This just highlights the need to optimize drones for their tactical roles (the same argument could be made for manned warships, BTW). If you need to deploy them to interplanetary or interstellar distances, you load them up on carrier vessels optimized for making strategic transits, and unload them where there is fighting to be done.<br /><br />Or you equip each one with an expendable interplanetary drive module (I doubt interstellar motors would be expendable). After you win -- <i>if</i> -- you win, the warships you sent become an occupying force and you send cargo vessels with more supplies and return drives modules for any ships you bring home.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-77862158869825223222011-05-23T10:42:28.979-07:002011-05-23T10:42:28.979-07:00Jollyreaper:
In your drone ship analogy, it might ...Jollyreaper:<br /><i>In your drone ship analogy, it might just be that the defending smaller navy can keep all the controller equipment on land. </i><br />The same thought has occured to me. The problem is twofold.<br />1. You can't have a war between two defensive navies.<br />2. The defense drones are probably different in design from the offensive drones. You don't need huge delta-Vs, and you can probably get by with nuke thermal.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-23742750929236546082011-05-23T10:36:14.435-07:002011-05-23T10:36:14.435-07:00The more I ponder, the more I become convinced tha...<i>The more I ponder, the more I become convinced that the use of ship-drones will be based almost entirely on economics. I'm going to analogize from World War I-era navies. It's not perfect, but it's what I've come up with.</i><br /><br />There's also the question of what the goal of the navy is. Power projection requires one kind of setup while strict defense requires a different kind. Just talking aircraft, you only really need carriers if you're projecting power. If you're only looking at defending, you fly your planes from your land bases. <br /><br />In your drone ship analogy, it might just be that the defending smaller navy can keep all the controller equipment on land. <br /><br />I also like the idea of enhancing verisimilitude by including ships from outdated or unsuccessful doctrines. You could have a drone assault ship whose original intended use was plunging deep into enemy formations before unleashing the attack drones. In practice the armor provided insufficient protection and the whole point of having drones is that the vulnerable mothership could use them as stand-off weapons. The concept is completely discredited but the ships are fast and armored with excellent carrying capacity so they are now used by Special Circumstances as mobile bases stealth ships.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-70354576487310231832011-05-23T10:04:35.669-07:002011-05-23T10:04:35.669-07:00Tony:
BTW, to play in the drone constellation ball...Tony:<br /><i>BTW, to play in the drone constellation ballpark for a moment, the fortification analogy is actually pretty instructive. Tactical warfare might become an analog of Age of Reason siege warfare, where the battle is decided when one side or the other finds it's command ship(s) vulnerable to attack, whereupon the commander of the vulnerable force surrenders rather than takes things to a lethal (for him and his crew's) conclusion. </i><br />That's probably one possible solution. A good analogy might be chess. The alternative to the normal chess set might be all "super pawns" which move like kings. (I'm not enough of a chess person to know if that's a good idea.)<br /><br />The more I ponder, the more I become convinced that the use of ship-drones will be based almost entirely on economics. I'm going to analogize from World War I-era navies. It's not perfect, but it's what I've come up with.<br />During that period, Britian, and the other great powers, pumped out tremendous numbers of battleships. Lesser powers often bought one or two. If we assume that drone numbers will be in the same region as battleship numbers (including pre-dreadnoughts), or possibly a few times those numbers, for an equivilant power, then we have a starting point.<br />For the RN, drones make sense. If a standard squadron is 10 drones and a controller, and the RN produces 10 squadrons, the economies of scale take over. If we assume that 5 drones and a controller costs as much as 5 ships, then if the RN buys 10 squadrons (100 drones and 10 controllers) I'll make a guess that the savings from not buying the other 10 controllers can be used to buy an additional squadron.<br />This only works in large navies. The startup costs of drones will probably be higher than the costs for an equivilant group of ships, due to software and comm hardware development. This also assumes that a squadron is the standard unit of deployment. You won't be wanting to split the force into small packets. If that's common, a force of manned ships might be made in paralell for those missions. Something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1895)" rel="nofollow">HMS Renown</a>.<br />One thing those ships might be useful for in a total war is protecting the control ships during battles.<br />For smaller navies, these economics differ. They can't amortize the startup costs of drones across a lot of units. While they might be able to buy from the other powers, that's an iffy solution. If my budget will cover 5 ships, or 5 drones and a controller, I'll probably go with 5 ships, as I gain much greater operational flexibility.<br />This does leave midsize powers like Tarrantry in a bind, though.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-67245079869140181912011-05-23T09:41:46.161-07:002011-05-23T09:41:46.161-07:00BTW, to play in the drone constellation ballpark f...BTW, to play in the drone constellation ballpark for a moment, the fortification analogy is actually pretty instructive. Tactical warfare might become an analog of Age of Reason siege warfare, where the battle is decided when one side or the other finds it's command ship(s) vulnerable to attack, whereupon the commander of the vulnerable force surrenders rather than takes things to a lethal (for him and his crew's) conclusion.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-68130773144116270872011-05-23T09:03:24.561-07:002011-05-23T09:03:24.561-07:00Re: Rick
Protecting the soldier where you can is ...Re: Rick<br /><br />Protecting the soldier where you can is one thing, removing him from the fight is another. And you can't really remove him from the fight by distance and remote control. Use of surveillance (and ultimately combat) drones controlled from the US has already created the specter of enemies in regional wars legitimately attacking targets in the continental United States, because that's where the drone pilots and their commanders are.<br /><br />The same would apply in space. It has been argued that the controllers of a drone constellation could be kept back from the battle where they would be safe. I simply don't buy it. They may be harder to engage, but they represent such a significant vulnerability that it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't be targeted, and in effective ways.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-5549287752945730152011-05-22T21:08:49.845-07:002011-05-22T21:08:49.845-07:00Rick:
I have no dispute, and I doubt that Bryon do...Rick:<br /><i>I have no dispute, and I doubt that Bryon does</i><br />I have no problem with it, but I'm not sure about him, or even who he is :-)Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-68575075864985046892011-05-22T21:06:34.164-07:002011-05-22T21:06:34.164-07:00What I see in that package boiler rating list is a...What I see in that package boiler rating list is a stepwise - but roughly linear - relationship. Or arguably a curve, with the sweet spot around 350 BHP. <br /><br />The thrust-weight ratio of liquid fuel rocket engines is roughly linear across an amazingly broad size range, from attitude thrusters to first stage engines. The cost per ton of high subsonic transport type aircraft is on order of $1 million/ton from business jets up to jumbos. <br /><br />So I'd argue that <i>approximately</i> linear relationships are common, and a good first approximation. An interplanetary craft of 2500 tons dry mass will probably cost more or less 10 times as much as one of 250 tons dry mass. For 25 tons or 25,000 tons the relationship may hold less.<br /><br /><i>I'll just reassert my opinion that war is a human activity, and humans should and will be involved in its conduct as long as humans are recognizably, well...human.</i><br /><br />I have no dispute, and I doubt that Bryon does. In spite of the post title this discussion is not really about removing humans from the loop - merely about setting them back a ways.<br /><br />There is nothing new about trying to keep your troops from being exposed to fire - for example, putting them behind armor or entrenchments.<br /><br />The only thing new here is the option of placing them physically well back from the weapon mounts - using distance as a form of armor.<br /><br />I'll quote again from my Space Warfare III post, regarding constellations:<br /><br /><i>Taken as a whole you might call it a fleet. But it more nearly resembles a mobile, distributed, and networked fortification, deploying in action into a three-dimensional array of weapon emplacements, observation posts, and patrol details, all backed up by a command and logistics center.</i><br /><br />Of course that is a conception that may not play out, but I don't think it is anything inherently bizarre.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-11524684347626890922011-05-22T09:09:49.831-07:002011-05-22T09:09:49.831-07:00Milo:
"However, the spear was still very cle...Milo:<br /><br /><i>"However, the spear was still very clearly their main weapon. If you took away all their weapons except their spear (and shield if they have one), their combat effectiveness would be reduced by some percentage, but not a crippling one - they would still be able to give a good fight to any enemy force from a similar tech level. They carried daggers simply because those are sufficiently lightweight that there is little reason to not carry them."</i><br /><br />Spears broke all of the time. Or they were not the most effective weapon for a given job, such as storming a walled city or even simple field fortification. So they had swords as well, because they knew there would be times when that was the superior weapon.<br /><br />(FUnny how you focussed in on the "knives" and not the "swords", but we won't go there...)<br /><br /><i>"Okay, so... why would anyone ever install a 700 HP boiler instead of two 350 HP boilers? The latter would give better power/weight ratio and better redundancy."</i><br /><br /><i>"'BHP | Weight | lb/BHP<br />0350 | 10730 | 30.66<br />0700 | 28100 | 40.14'<br /><br />Okay, so... why would anyone ever install a 700 HP boiler instead of two 350 HP boilers? The latter would give better power/weight ratio and better redundancy."</i><br /><br />Fewer water and electrical hookeps, half the parts to go wrong, and less space occupied. They don't put prices on cut sheets, but I'm willing to bet that two 350s cost significantly more to buy than one 700. I know I said price tracks with weight, but that's within performance bands. There's also the underlying cost of complexity. I'll bet most of cost for this kind of technology is in control systems.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-46494735690921295442011-05-21T20:36:13.989-07:002011-05-21T20:36:13.989-07:00Wow, this thread is still going?
Tony:
"I...Wow, this thread is still going?<br /><br /><br /><br />Tony:<br /><br /><i>"I could have pointed out that spearmen also carried knives and/or swords for close-in fighting."</i><br /><br />However, the spear was still very clearly their main weapon. If you took away all their weapons except their spear (and shield if they have one), their combat effectiveness would be reduced by some percentage, but not a crippling one - they would still be able to give a good fight to any enemy force from a similar tech level. They carried daggers simply because those are sufficiently lightweight that there is little reason to not carry them.<br /><br /><br /><br />Jollyreaper:<br /><br /><i>"Anyone have a list of the most common mcguffinites?"</i><br /><br />Helium-3 is currently in vogue in the hard science fiction community. It has the advantage that we know it's there (so, as Tony says we should, we know what we're going for before we go), and we have some inkling of how to use it. The biggest problem with it is that it would have to compete with helium-3 artificially bred from tritium and with proton-boron fusion.<br /><br />More exotic things include: room temperature superconductors, magnetic monopoles, antimatter, wormholes, cosmic strings, and artifacts from advanced alien civilizations (which will inevitably have somehow met their demise by the time of the story).<br /><br />The really exotic stuff is only plausible in an interstellar setting, not an interplanetary one. If there were such interesting stuff that near us, we'd probably know about it already. Also note that some of these may be artificially produced rather than found naturally, but in that case they do not fulfill the role of McGuffinite unless the production still requires some raw resources which are not found on Earth.<br /><br /><br /><br />Byron:<br /><br /><i>"They have weakly armored backs and tops. One of the fundamentals of armored tactics is to avoid having those pointed at the enemy. And nobody plans their anti-tank tactics on getting shots into those sides."</i><br /><br />Umm, anti-tank tactics are pretty much <i>all about</i> hitting their vulnerable spots. One of the reasons helicopters are good at killing tanks is because they shoot from above. Even a cheap infantry soldier with a cheap grenade can kill an expensive tank, if he can sneak close enough (using cover/camouflage and the superior agility that comes with having legs) to put the grenade in the right place. Yes, sometimes you do need to take the brute force approach of just firing a really big (and expensive) shot at the tank's front, but a force that relies purely on this to take out enemy tanks is not going to be doing very well.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tony:<br /><br /><i>"IOW, an engine for a spacecraft of mass 3 may cost almost as much as one for spacecraft of size 4."</i><br /><br />If this is true, then people will almost never use a size 3 spacecraft for anything. If you can afford to upgrade to size 4 with little extra cost to your engine, then you'll find some way to make use of that mass - even if additional weaponry or living space is too expensive, armor is cheap.<br /><br /><br /><i>"I'll just reassert my opinion that war is a human activity, and humans should and will be involved in its conduct as long as humans are recognizably, well...human."</i><br /><br />I will correct that to saying that war will be a human activity as long as <b>only</b> humans are recognizably human. If we have AIs that act in a recognizably human manner...<br /><br />However, war being a human activity does not mean humans will be everywhere. An AK-47 bullet does not have a human riding and steering it. It's a human pulling the trigger - from some distance from the enemy - but after that it's entirely autonomous.<br /><br /><br /><i>"BHP | Weight | lb/BHP<br />0350 | 10730 | 30.66<br />0700 | 28100 | 40.14"</i><br /><br />Okay, so... why would anyone ever install a 700 HP boiler instead of two 350 HP boilers? The latter would give better power/weight ratio <i>and</i> better redundancy.Milonoreply@blogger.com