Sci-fi Shields

[Sayonara]

Ah right, that'll be why we fight wars with 50 gigaton mechs then.

[MadScientist]

Ah right, that'll be why we fight wars with 50 gigaton mechs then.

 

Nope.

It's why we spend a ridiculous number of billions on creating the ultimate killing machines that have the best armour they can on them.

So we can kill the enemy before they have a chance to kill us.

If you simply can't create the ultimate shield systems because the knowledge isn't available yet, you have to create the ultimate weapons systems to destroy the enemies ultimate weapons systems.

 

Think of the USA's or UK's military forces, they aren't systems for offensively invading countries to expand empires they're active defences and not passive defences like shields would be.

And if we had the know how to create those ultimate shields we could save a significant number of those lost lives and an amount of money on building new weapons to replace the ones lost or outdated ones.

 

Think about when/if we start zooming from one star to another, we can either go out there as invaders (highly unlikely IMO) or we can put active defences or passive defences on our ships.

Using active defences means killing the enemy and starting war though but using passive defences lessens the chances of those happening. Shields give you a chance to ask the enemy why they're attacking, to find out whether they're just attacking out of fear of invasion. They also give you a better chance of surving in a war.

 

Cost effective??

[MadScientist]

There is another issue RE cost effectiveness.

 

I'm sure that what you meant to say was "Sounds like a good/bad idea but don't forget that it would cost a lot to implement and power." Which are both irrelevent anyway to this discussion. Because we're discussing what shield systems we could create, not which would be cost effective.

[Sayonara]

You basically repeated what I said (albeit without the sarcasm) and came to the opposite conclusion (and some extra conclusions that don't follow on from anything.)

 

You're talking about active and passive defence systems like they're mutually exclusive. I'm talking about this mythical machine that was being discussed up the thread, which has a different defensive subsystem for every conceivable form of attack.

 

Now, you need to decide what you're arguing against before you continue this. Either you agree that the armed forces use things called "budgets" and respond to threats in the way that is most cost-effective, or you live in wacky la la world where a publically-funded organisation has no accountability whatsoever and spends endless billions refitting all its helicopters to repel land mines, submarines to repel TOW, et cetera.

 

 

I'm sure that what you meant to say was "Sounds like a good/bad idea but don't forget that it would cost a lot to implement and power." Which are both irrelevent anyway to this discussion. Because we're discussing what shield systems we could create, not which would be cost effective.

I'm sure you don't mean to put words in my mouth, because that rarely ends well.

 

Of course cost:benefit is relevant to the thread - it will determine if a shielding system is ever put into use.

If a shield system is too expensive to manufacture or maintain, that's as much of a reason for not considering it as "it doesn't work". You can't expect to ignore real world implementation problems in a thread that is dealing with real world physics.

 

If cost is not an issue, then why not just use a giant lead shell 20m thick? Oh yeah, because it's stupid. "Moving out of the way" is cheaper, and it lets us see what's around us.

 

Your posts read as if you have not read the thread, but simply jumped in at "Again: cost vs benefit". Considering your banal response earlier I don't think you have really thought through what it is you want to say:

It'll eventually come to telling the dead peoples relatives that they died because the research or manufacture of improved shield defences wasn't cost effective enough.

Surely you must realise that this is currently the case, has been for some time, and will be for goodness knows how long?

[MadScientist]

I'm sure you don't mean to put words in my mouth' date=' because that rarely ends well.

[/quote']

Sorry...

 

Of course cost:benefit is relevant to the thread - it will determine if a shielding system is ever put into use.

If a shield system is too expensive to manufacture or maintain, that's as much of a reason for not considering it as "it doesn't work". You can't expect to ignore real world implementation problems in a thread that is dealing with real world physics.

 

The thread is about fantasising about what kind of shield systems we'll use in the future.

 

We don't know how much it will cost to make shield systems. So how can we even bring cost effectiveness into the equation??

[Sayonara]

The short answer is of course "we can't".

 

The long answer is "we can try". Actually, I suppose that's quite short on its own. Basically it breaks down into lots of little comparisons: e.g. "is it easier to move out of the way of [this particular weapon], or build a system that can repel it?" We can do this because, while we may not know how much a square meter of adamantium costs in 2347, we have a good idea of how engineering and physical processes contrive to create their own problems.

 

This does of course assume you know what you're building the system for, which is kind of the point.

 

 

All of which takes us waaaaay back to post #63 and TWJian's overlooked suggestion.

[YT2095]

We don't know how much it will cost to make shield systems. So how can we even bring cost effectiveness into the equation??

I guess because Ultimately that`s exactly what it`ll come down to in the long run, people refuse to work for free.

[Sayonara]

There are obviously some things you can immediately rule out, like hollowing out planets and putting your ships inside them.

[YT2095]

doing similar with Hollow Asteroids wouldn`t be out the question though.

 

the Millinium Falcon did it!

[MadScientist]

I guess because Ultimately that`s exactly what it`ll come down to in the long run, people refuse to work for free.

 

And how much will we have to pay these people to build these shield systems that we have no idea how much the parts will even cost when we're flying about out there amongst the stars.

 

For all any of us know it might only cost 500 quid (of todays money) to make an all purpose electromagnetic energy shield system.

We are discussing potential shield systems not the cost.

 

Are you certain people refuse to work for free and always will refuse to work for free?? If you are, then get us the lottery numbers for next week whilst you're "out there".

[YT2095]

You Said:

"And how much will we have to pay these people to build these shield systems that we have no idea how much the parts will even cost when we're flying about out there amongst the stars"

 

I`ve no idea at all and it`s a moot point.

 

You also Said:

"For all any of us know it might only cost 500 quid (of todays money) to make an all purpose electromagnetic energy shield system.

We are discussing potential shield systems not the cost."

 

maybe so, but how likely is that? and the cost WAS and HAS been mentioned to the piont of argument, and so I addressed it.

 

And you went on to say:

"Are you certain people refuse to work for free and always will refuse to work for free?? If you are, then get us the lottery numbers for next week whilst you're "out there"

 

I`m more than certain that`s the case! well unless you count Slavery, but then they`re working for their very lives, so no.... I`m still certain!

[MadScientist]

You Said:

"And how much will we have to pay these people to build these shield systems that we have no idea how much the parts will even cost when we're flying about out there amongst the stars"

 

I`ve no idea at all and it`s a moot point.

 

So we can say system X will be too expensive' date=' even though we've no idea how expensive will be in 50 or 100 years time.

 

 

And you went on to say:

"Are you certain people refuse to work for free and always will refuse to work for free?? If you are, then get us the lottery numbers for next week whilst you're "out there"

 

I`m more than certain that`s the case! well unless you count Slavery, but then they`re working for their very lives, so no.... I`m still certain!

 

Come on YT, delve into that pool of knowledge I know you have and look for another work force that we'll probably have in 50 to 100 years, a work force that will work for free...

[YT2095]

are you talking about Zero Point energy(s) here?

[Rasori]

They're talking about robots, YT.

 

Oh, Sayo, I want to comment on:

Now, you need to decide what you're arguing against before you continue this. Either you agree that the armed forces use things called "budgets" and respond to threats in the way that is most cost-effective, or you live in wacky la la world where a publically-funded organisation has no accountability whatsoever and spends endless billions refitting all its helicopters to repel land mines, submarines to repel TOW, et cetera.

 

I sure hope this is an exaggeration. We're not coming up with defenses for flamethrowers because there's no way a flamethrower can be a threat in space. That's the same reason we don't defend helicoptors from landmines (um, it's in the air, the landmine is for ground vehicles) and submarines from TOWs (it's underwater, the TOW is air-to-air and would explode on contact with the water).

[iglak]

I sure hope this is an exaggeration. We're not coming up with defenses for flamethrowers because there's no way a flamethrower can be a threat in space. That's the same reason we don't defend helicoptors from landmines (um, it's in the air, the landmine is for ground vehicles) and submarines from TOWs (it's underwater, the TOW is air-to-air and would explode on contact with the water).

it's more of a point than an exaggeration.

plasma or molten metal throwers: close enough, only more force and heat.

what if the helicopter lands and the submarine surfaces?

[Rasori]

Helicopters rarely land anywhere but in an airfield, and most often it's a friendly airfield. If there's a mine in the airfield, well, they need to upgrade the field's defenses. And for submarines surfacing, that'd be Air-to-Surface missiles, not TOWs. Also, you have to look at it as intended target: intended target for a landmine? Tanks. So you defend the tanks from the landmine. You aren't going to defend an F-16 from a submarine's torpedo. It's common sense.

 

Also, look at this: Tanks have armor for bullet defense, reactive armor for missiles, composite armor for explosives. Now, I don't know about you, but I think pretty much anything that can take out a tank is defended against. Does it up the price? Yes. But it SAVES the tank. Buying 1 $65 million tank is better than buying 3 $40 million tanks last the same amount of time. So cost vs. benefit, it's better to pay for the defenses. The same goes (or will go) with the shields this thread is supposed to be discussing.

[Sayonara]

Yes, of course it was an exagerration.

 

I am simply making the point that you don't go defending your assets against "random shit". If you do, it's not an asset; it's a money pit.

[Rasori]

Just out of curiousity, which "random feces" would you be talking about?

[JaKiri]

Anything counts, as long as the defense method isn't cost effective for the likelihood of it being targeted by that weapon, and its effectiveness when it is.