We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Bmat May 02, 2001 - 08:06 pm

Bujold, as an aftermath in one of her Vorkosigan books, "Shards of Honor" raised an interesting aspect of warfare in space that I hadn't thought of - cleaning up the debris. . . the remains of the dead, the bits of ships. I would think that the debris would not just sit there either- if the damage was caused by an explosion or ramming- the pieces would continue the trajectory outward- am I right?

Would that be a problem considering the vastness of space? Would the pieces of ships create hazards for other ships or planets? There would be a moral and morale problem if the body pieces left the area at a rapid speed and were difficult to retrieve. The bereaved families might well want the recovery of their loved one.

Posted By: The Master May 03, 2001 - 03:59 am

If the ship blew up, the bits would keep travelling in whatever direction they were thrown until they encountered some other object to impact or until a gravity well otherwise altered their course. I think the likelihood of anything just sitting there afterward is miniscule at best (so all those "post war graveyards" SF loves to show us are just dramatic effect IMHO).

For recovery, I suppose time would be the biggest problem. The longer you wait, the farther the objects can travel. If you had some way to track an object, and ships that were fast enough to catch it, maybe your window would be much bigger.

Hazards? You betcha! Periodically you see something about the space junk that's accumulating around our planet and the problems its causing for NASA et al. Even a tiny object travelling at high speed can do a LOT of damage. They actually track every bit they know of so they can plan the flight trajectories and orbits of shuttle missions and new sattelites.

I think that a spacefaring society wouldn't have a huge moral problem with those "lost in space". Its like when a ship sinks at sea. We accept the limitations of being able to recover those bodies. We do it if we can, but we know its not always possible.

Here's a scary thought: you're blown out of an airlock, sucked into some planet/moon/whatever's gravity and end up in orbit. I think I'd rather get pulled into a star and vaporized!

Posted By: Bmat May 03, 2001 - 04:37 am

Ummm, nice image Master. . . NOT! Luckily that would be one of those cases where the body could be recovered.

Posted By: MerleZ May 03, 2001 - 05:38 am

Kinda like Frank Poole in "2001: A Space Oddysey." He reached Jupiter/Saturn (depending on whether you are talking about the book or the movie) before Discovery did. I wonder if he went into orbit, or got sucked down and burned up in the atmosphere?

Posted By: Xmlf May 03, 2001 - 07:11 am

What would be more entertaining in a movie is to see many people die and the affects of millions of bodies being killed at the same time, let's say if a nuclear bomb were to blow up Los Angeles.

How far would their combined screams be heard?

After a nuclear explosion, let's say a man has half is body blown off and his wife [graphic description removed] Would the half-dead man kill himself, kill his wife or watch both of them slowly die together?

Would the the blood on the streets create a river?

Would there be any bodies at all or would they all be vaporized in an instant flash?

How long would it take for the nuclear fall out to kill the people surrounding the city?

That would be an interesting science fiction movie.

[Graphic descriptions of violence and/or gore are no more appropriate in this forum than vulgar language. Please refrain from such postings--a general description is plenty to make your point. - The Master]

Posted By: Bmat May 03, 2001 - 07:34 am

I don't like movies dwelling on horror. I don't want to see gratuitous violence.

Posted By: Gablety May 03, 2001 - 09:35 am

XMLF, you know that in the first several miles of radius around the impact of a nuclear bomb, everything is just vaporized. Poof. One moment you're alive, the next instant you're dead, you didn't even feel a thing. I think you want a more normal bomb.

But then, I also agree with Bmat. I didn't even like "American Beauty" for its violence!

Posted By: The Master May 04, 2001 - 05:32 am

There already is one...rent "The Day After". It shows what would happen in a realistic way. Sorry, there isn't much blood and guts...nuclear weapons don't kill that way. And if you were close enough to hear the screams of the dying in the fraction of a second it would take, you'd be one of them.

Posted By: MerleZ May 04, 2001 - 06:44 am

Agreed. The sad fate of Hiroshima gives testimony to what happens to the victims of an atomic blast, and that was only a baby bomb by today's standards. Many of the dead were only marked by the shadow their bodies cast against objects not destroyed in the shock wave, showing up as a white smudge on a blackened wall. So sad indeed, and no, I doubt they had time to scream or even know they were being killed.

Posted By: LightBrigade May 19, 2001 - 09:31 pm

So

we are enlightened enough to use neutron weapons

and apply tidy cleaning calculable risk plans .

I suppose the cream of scientists must work on some system to leave no debris after the hit . ( Gee ! What euphemism ! )

Posted By: Coyote Jun 10, 2001 - 01:55 am

I recently had a tour of the U.S.S. Florida, a nuclear submarine that is part of the Trident program. One of thier mottoes is that if they ever have to use thier weapons, they have not done thier job. We have enough power now to make the Human race extinct. To steal from Jerry Pournelle and Poule Anderson, "There will be War", and I agree. Whether from competition with other species and xenophobic paranoia, or our sheer cussedness in our dealings with our own, there will be wars. If we are lucky enough to plant successful colonies in our solar system before we reach a critical mass and kill ourselves off or lapse into another dark age, we will probably fight with them or over them. Hopefully we will have the sense then to make them little wars, if only for pragmatic economic reasons. With us so new to space travel, I sincerely hope we get our stuff together before we meet our nieghbors. If we already have the power to do ourselves in, what kind of force will experienced interstellar species have at thier disposal? I have this picture of a canoe being boldly paddled out of the harbor by proud headhunters, only to run into an Aircraft Carrier on its way to other shores. Repercussions?

Posted By: LightBrigade Jun 10, 2001 - 05:46 pm

Canoeing out of a harbour to find ...... SHOCKING !

Posted By: Coyote Jun 17, 2001 - 01:05 am

When we make first contact, we may find out that we are so technologically outclassed that we are insignificant. Instead of bold explorers conquering uncharted space, we may find our system considered the possession of an alien power. Without weapons being fired we could suffer a sense of cultural and technological inferiority that we may not overcome. To be summarily defeated may have worse long term psychological consequences for the species than immediate military ones.

Posted By: RPGer PoKeY Jul 06, 2003 - 07:11 am

I remember reading somewhere that by about 2050 there will be a ring of junk and satelites that would make us look like saturn...

dunno if it is true or not but thats what i heard.

Posted By: Hyperion Jul 06, 2003 - 11:28 am

Hope so

Then perhaps new jobs will arise, like maybe, SPACE GARBAGE COLLECTORS

I know I would apply for the job.

I can just imagine my made up fake resume now

1: Hard Working
2: Works well in low gravity
3: Doesn't get motion sickness
4: Likes open spaces
5: Good with machines and computers
6: Quick with solutions in challenging situations
7: Likes to serve mankind
8: Is willing to travel no pun intended
9: Is not claustrophobic
10: Likes breathing oxygen from a bottle

Can I have the job, please!!!!!!!!!


Hyperion out

Posted By: thespartan Jul 06, 2003 - 11:28 pm

Bmat- I don't like movies dwelling on horror. I don't want to see gratuitous violence.

well with me really it depends on the shock value of it. like, if it serves a dramatic purpose then fine (like shindler's list or wild bunch's ending or five million burned and charred bodies from nagasaki) but if it's just for the hell of having violence (Jason X and the rest of the god awful friday the 13th movies) it's crap.

Posted By: poppie Oct 02, 2003 - 10:17 pm

'The Day After' was one of the most horrifying movies I have ever seen. Ranks right up there with 'The Money Pit.' However, back to the original question. I very seriously doubt that there will be any ship-vs-ship or fleet-vs-fleet combat in intersteller space. Its just too vast, and the interception mechanics would just be horrific. Much more probably, ship-vs-ship, and fleet-vs-fleet, with all the permutations possible, will occur within a star's planetary system. The reason is that within the system, there is real estate to either attack or defend, depending on one's political orientation. Thus, debris from damaged or destroyed spacecraft would, in fact, be within a gravity well. Initially, there would be the hazard of debris collision with the combatant craft. Following that, impact with the planet(s) would be of prime importance. Thereafter, said debris would have established some sort of orbit, either of the planet or real estate in question, or some sort of oddball cometary type orbit, or, quite possibly, be captured in the orbit of some random object with sufficient gravity to effect the debris elsewhere within the system. While on the subject of debris in space, I seem to recall reading a short story some years ago, that explained, quite graphically, the results of unreported jettisoning of cargo/garbage/whatever while within a planetary system. Something about anti-littering laws, and that unreported littering had become a capital offense. The story went on to detail what happened to a five pound box of bolts that had been chunked into space. Now each bolt only weighed about 2 ounces, but there were dozens of them, and the circumstances were such that they had been dumped in an expanding pattern. Imagine riding along, fat dumb and happy, on your vacation trip to Mars when, whammo, your ship gets nailed my multiple hits from 2 ounce meteorites made from machine steel. Granted, this particular story got me to thinking, and I won't even drop a cigarette butt on the ground now. Just the way my mind works, I suppose. But to answer your question, space junk does now, and will, as long as its there, present a serious navigational hazzard, and as orbits decay, possible present a hazzard to planatary populations.

poppie

Posted By: iamume Oct 06, 2003 - 12:10 pm

Interesting how wars garbage is of such concern.Regarding cigarette butts.I once had a car inexplicably die on me on an isolated stretch of road.I returned a week later to find 3 nests made of cigarette butts in the engine compartment made by a chipmunk.The car started right up.

Posted By: Aldan Oct 06, 2003 - 04:57 pm

Was it a British car with Lucas electronics within it? If so, since the plastic around the so-called wires is actually surrounding SMOKE, well, then the cig butts don't surprise me for helping it to start. If the car was losing smoke, then the electronics would suffer. Thus, chain-smoking chipmunks would solve the problem by blowing into the hole(s) in the wire harness.

Posted By: iamume Oct 07, 2003 - 10:29 am

The nests and the engine restarting were unrelated.I removed the nests first.It was an electronic problem which was never explained.Its fun to joke about chain smoking chipmunks,the cigarette butts when shredded become very fluffy nesting.What a cozy substance for a nursury.I was parked at a rest stop with cigarette butts galore. Isn't it lovely how our garbage gets reused?

Posted By: Adam Jan 06, 2004 - 11:07 pm

James Oberg was a space engineer for NASA. He wrote an interesting article you may find useful: http://www.jamesoberg.com/heavens.html