Drone warfare vs manned spacecraft in sci-fi

[Sky Captain]

IIRC it was mentioned somewhere Star Wars universe had capability to somehow turn waste heat into neutrinos and radiate it harmlessly away.

[Ford Prefect]

That's older than sin and has since been incorporated in some SW book or the other. Of course, one wonders how the heat gets to the neutrino radiator without melting everything on the way, but it was always a totally magical explanation.

[Connor MacLeod]

That's older than sin and has since been incorporated in some SW book or the other. Of course, one wonders how the heat gets to the neutrino radiator without melting everything on the way, but it was always a totally magical explanation.

The same way it got from the reactor to the guns

Seriosuly though it was a magical explanation (even the neutrino radiators are still magical.. how do you create neutrinos or even transmit the 'heat' to them?) but I suppose it gets points for trying. To be fair to Curtis, I mostly remember the Neutrino radiators being meant as an explanation for shields and getting rid of all the supposedly gigantic quantities of energy they deal with, and efficiency was never dealt with (and remains unknown, which is good, because it means is not a problem.)

I always kinda envision the process being something like we see with the Death STar: big empty voids in the hull (there are ALOT of empty voids in ships, givne the cutaways) that carry weird little beams confined in weird forcefields. Overseen by guys standing on platforms with no railings. I think thats an important part of the process somehow.

I mean we know from ANH that the Death STar's design just loved empty, cylindrical voids inside the ship. There were like 3 at least I remember (and then there was ROTJ, where they had those conveniently huge corridors that allowed starfighters to fly around inside.)

That said the actual point I originally made is that rule of cool is no real answer, and its kind of dishonest to step out of universe to explain away something (and keep the numbers) than staying in universe and trying to explain it to the best of your ability. I'm sure you remember arguing over Crysis running speeds with MJ12 on SB based on that 'camera speed' and 'ticket' thing not long ago too, and that was a prime example of that sort of problem (he used, IIRC trope and narrative reasons to excuse 60 kph speeds or something as I recall. It was all just very out of universea nd very wrong as I remember.)

[Stark]

It's pretty antithetical to the idea of 'analysis' anyway; once someone invokes nonsense like that you pretty much have to ignore everything else they say on the topic because they admitted it makes 'no sense'.

Of course often it does make sense in-universe and it's actually secret code for 'I'm too lazy to think about it LOL,POPCORN MOVIE'.

I mean we can talk about 10,000km beam sabres or we can dismiss it as 'just cool'. One approach allows technical discussion; the other concedes its impossible. Just because someone thinks something doesn't have a reasonable explanation doesn't mean such an explanation doesn't exist

[Connor MacLeod]

Yeah, exactly. It seems to me to be too much like a cop out to try to excuse it on some other reason than logic and science if you're trying to justify numbers/ideas that are based on science itself. The fact that you may or may not be able to perfectly or realistically explain something is not the problem (because sci fi will never be perfectly realistic, else it wouldn't be 'science fiction' but 'science realism') does not alter that either - its the attempt at internal consistency (in anything aspect of theme really) that matters. And if it does make no sense, then you don't argue or try to analyze it at all - its all arbitrary and opinon at that point.'

I sometimes wonder if some people find this counter-intuitive because it feels to them that somehow not going for 'perfect realism' is dishonest, or if its just intellectual laziness, or what.

[Stark]

For what its worth, I don't think I've ever seen the 'rule of cool' invoked by someone who wasn't either an idiot or parroting the community consensus on something. If a community decides 'oh, just don't think about it', people who DO think about it might be seen as threatening, and at heart most people are tribal creatures.

[Connor MacLeod]

yeah, I may be overreacting, but it ssomething I run across quite a bit amongst 40K fans and spacebattlers, and it gets on my nerves precisely because it creates the wrong sort of mindset that should be doing the NUMBERS stuff. It leads to all sorts of distorted preconceptions and ideas about what is 'right' and then ends up creating even more problems.

Its sort of like when you hear someone try to argue a universes capabilities by assuming their 'competent' (when that actually means 'whatever made up shit I want to kludge together from unrelated tidbits in the source material') or 'common sense'.

[Stark]

I wonder if falling back on tropes is related to being limited by preconceptions. I see a lot of discussions where obviously ignorant people are just repeating stuff they heard and believe to be true. I could see how that could be encouraged by intellectual shortcuts.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm sure you remember arguing over Crysis running speeds with MJ12 on SB based on that 'camera speed' and 'ticket' thing not long ago too, and that was a prime example of that sort of problem (he used, IIRC trope and narrative reasons to excuse 60 kph speeds or something as I recall. It was all just very out of universea nd very wrong as I remember.)

Oh that. The thing about that is that Nanosuit 2 decisively runs slower than the original Nanosuit. Like in terms of distance over time the maximum speed sprint in Crysis is better than maximum speed sprinting in Crysis 2. As far as I'm concerned that's that, but Emjay doesn't like it so he seeks out ways to discredit the sprint speed that appears in the game. The argument you're referring to was the one about speed in the game was limited as a result of game balance, because the maps in Crysis 2 are smaller and the original sprint speed is kind of uncontrollable as a result. That's probably true, but it was also irrelevant. It was also an argument deliberately predicated on using the somewhat strange logic of Spacebattles.com versus debates to mess with people, but he busted it out on entirely the wrong people lol

Incidentally, on this wider notion of the 'rule of cool', when I'm writing and people occasionally ask me the question 'why are things like this' I don't really have any problem saying that it just is because stylistically that's how I like it or how I feel it works best. That's not quite the same thing but it's the notion that has been bastardised by the TV Tropes wiki. Like as an example sometimes I wonder exactly why people in the Imperium are so obsessed with skulls and the answer is 'because stylistically that's what the franchise is like'. There are probably other answers you could construct that would be quite valid and possibly more interesting but you know.

[Stark]

From a creators perspective I think absolutely people feel that way; after all, it's about capturing a scene or sensation and not a vs debate. I dont think its very 'useful' method of analysis, either thematic or technical.

And TBH I don't know why 40k doesn't have frangible skull cannons. Maybe they think people would reject the idea, despite being awesome.

[jollyreaper]

Any energy weapon with output of kilotons TNT-equivalency or higher has the same problem. Very few settings dealt with it- Doc Smith and the primary beam are the only one I can think of, where overloading a projector to get a high megaton-range bolt blew the first gun crew that tried it into vapor. Also the second through ninth, before the enemy caught on and came up with a countertactic...

It's simple: you just take all that excess heat and throw it back into the laser to shoot at the enemy.

[jollyreaper]

Yeah, exactly. It seems to me to be too much like a cop out to try to excuse it on some other reason than logic and science if you're trying to justify numbers/ideas that are based on science itself.

I do find it more interesting for there to be an in-universe explanation for things. It's like a chainsword. Is that in any way similar to a practical idea? No. There's not even a theoretical justification for it like, say, power armor. It's there because it looks cool. Bolters? They're gyrojet weapons, essentially -- RPG's in pistol form. Are they practical? Well, the gyrojet was a failure. Could it make a comeback with modern electronics and manufacturing equipment or would it just be a very fancy way of trying to find another way to do something conventional guns do quite well? There's much room for good debate there.

Unless we're talking scifi so hard it's pretty much now, we're going to be talking about speculative things, things we might guess we can do all the way up to things where we don't even know where to start. Part of the author's job is to convince us of the impossible. It's like with Shelob, arthropods can't grow that big. Sure, we can handwave some magic metabolism stuff but really, she's so convincing on-screen that my brain goes into heebie-jeebie mode. Likewise, elephants can't get as big as those mumakils but the modelers said ok, assuming they did, how would they move? What would a fall look like? We don't really know how the Enterprise's engines work but for a structure that big undergoing such acceleration, it will need inertial dampeners to keep from turning the occupants to jelly, maybe also structural integrity field doohickeys to keep the ship from ripping apart. That's nice and consistent with a setting that has force fields and tractor beams.

[Stark]

Can you think about fictional things without considering their 'real' 'plausibility'? Because y'know time travel isn't possible, FTL is impossible, space wars are a stupid idea, colonising planetary surfaces is dumb, etc.

So what? It's called fiction for a reason, and thinking about it requires you to actually think about IT, and not your preconceptions predicated on 'real' 'science' and 'practicality'.

[jollyreaper]

You need to know the rules before you can break them. Often times people aren't even aware they're departing from reality with long-established conventions. Scifi has FTL as a staple but pretty much every genre imaginable has the convenient sap against the head without danger of neurological damage. It's so common that a writer may not even realize that's not how things work. So do you keep using that trick because that's what everybody's come to expect or do you do it a way that's more plausible? Heck, you've got the gang locked in a cell. How do you get out? Of course you have one person fake being sick and then the guard comes in and you get the jump on him and of course his uniform is the right size for one of you and he'll then escort the rest of you "under guard" right out of the jail! It's dumb and unrealistic but it's also a cliche and boring which is the real sin. If it's a fantasy or scifi situation, there might be a really neat trick to pull in just that sort of predicament.

If you have a firm grasp of where reality is and where you're departing from it, you can make the departures more convincing.

[Connor MacLeod]

I wonder if falling back on tropes is related to being limited by preconceptions. I see a lot of discussions where obviously ignorant people are just repeating stuff they heard and believe to be true. I could see how that could be encouraged by intellectual shortcuts.

Most of my experiences with vs debate (personally and observing other people) show a highly imitative aspect to vs debating, and a tendency to 'follow' the logic of certain 'dominant' individuals, rathre than trying to work it out yourself. That peculiar sort of tribal behaviour is pretty frustrating to me, IMHO, because its not something I've liked encouraging.. and yet it happens. I also just think it reflects that 'vs' debates tend to emphasize a 'quick and dirty' approach when its about 'deathmatch' wins, rather than a more frank and nuanced discussion of the topic from a variety of angles. Its actually kind of amusing how quickly you realize that what made vs debates interesting was the discussion/exchange of ideas, rather than the 'winning', but many people seem not to realize or even value that.

From a creators perspective I think absolutely people feel that way; after all, it's about capturing a scene or sensation and not a vs debate. I dont think its very 'useful' method of analysis, either thematic or technical.

The more I ponder on it, the more I come to the conclusion that 'analysis' may just be a different aspect of exploring themes, just on a more... 'orderly' basis. Trying to apply logic to the situation rather than just a free discussion of ideas and such that can also be a 'theme' discussion. In that sense I'm thinking maybe I should find a different term to differentiat 'technical' from what I started calling 'thematic', but I can't quite think of one yet.

In that sense it remains interesting to me that regardless of whether one is discussing or evaluating technical details, or ideas, or characters, or plot, or whatever, there seems to be an underlying... similiartiy. Like its about the discovery and the exploration... putting together of puzzles, that really makes it enjoyable, rather than just being told what is and isn't. Hmmm where have I heard that idea mentioned before.....

And TBH I don't know why 40k doesn't have frangible skull cannons. Maybe they think people would reject the idea, despite being awesome.

They do have railguns that launch giant metal statues of the Emperor. That's ALMOST as good, right?

[Connor MacLeod]

I do find it more interesting for there to be an in-universe explanation for things. It's like a chainsword. Is that in any way similar to a practical idea? No. There's not even a theoretical justification for it like, say, power armor. It's there because it looks cool.

Who says it looks cool? I think its fucking stupid. I've never much cared for chainswords, and if I thought I could get away with it I'd shove them into as far a niche in 40K as I could. If we're going to go with 'cool' I like the doomsday rayguns or the glowy lightsaber analogues. Bolters and power armour and chainsaw swords may be 'iconic' for 40K, but they're so omnipresent and overdone its kinda dull and uninteresting.

Bolters? They're gyrojet weapons, essentially -- RPG's in pistol form. Are they practical? Well, the gyrojet was a failure. Could it make a comeback with modern electronics and manufacturing equipment or would it just be a very fancy way of trying to find another way to do something conventional guns do quite well? There's much room for good debate there.

Bolters are a horrible bastardization of a great many firearm concepts that does not exclusively borrow from any one form, including elements of rocket propelled or gyrojet ammo (its not 'exclusively' gyrojet. I'm pretty sure that its been mentioned efore there is even a distinction.) Their value in 40K, like the chainsword, is mostly symbolic because they're SPACE MARINE toys.

Unless we're talking scifi so hard it's pretty much now, we're going to be talking about speculative things, things we might guess we can do all the way up to things where we don't even know where to start. Part of the author's job is to convince us of the impossible. It's like with Shelob, arthropods can't grow that big. Sure, we can handwave some magic metabolism stuff but really, she's so convincing on-screen that my brain goes into heebie-jeebie mode. Likewise, elephants can't get as big as those mumakils but the modelers said ok, assuming they did, how would they move? What would a fall look like? We don't really know how the Enterprise's engines work but for a structure that big undergoing such acceleration, it will need inertial dampeners to keep from turning the occupants to jelly, maybe also structural integrity field doohickeys to keep the ship from ripping apart. That's nice and consistent with a setting that has force fields and tractor beams.

Its all 'speculative' because we can never really be sure of it. Thats kinda the irony of science fiction.. if you start becoming so obsessed about the realism aspect you will soon lose the whole poitn of what science fiction is. What it comes down to (what it always comes down to) in fiction is the fan POV and how they think/interpret/evaluate these things, both individually and as a group. That's where the good and bad stuff comes from, because we are shaped (and sometimes shape) what it is and what it becomes. And thats why being able to look beyond sci fi 'comfort zones' can be important - if we can't accept new or different ideas than what we are accustomed to, that fiction stagnates.

You need to know the rules before you can break them. Often times people aren't even aware they're departing from reality with long-established conventions.

If you have a firm grasp of where reality is and where you're departing from it, you can make the departures more convincing.

I dont think you quite understood his point. It was, I believe, more a discussin of 'can you go beyond your preconceptions and comfort zone about what you think sci fi is, and accept something different from that premise as being equally plausible/sensible?' If so, how far can you stretch that before you go 'its crazy?' Those are important things to know and be aware of as a sci fi fan.

Also I think you're overstating the importance of 'rules' insofar as fiction goes. You dont need to KNOW what you're breaking unless you're writing the sort of fic where you want to actually offer explanations, or where that sort of internal consistency matters. For some audiences it may, but not all audiences will care about those sorts of things, and you always write to your audience. And plenty of authors can write good stories without knowing the 'rules' as you describe them. Maybe that fiction won't appeal to a more 'logicla' or technically minded fandom, but it doesn't mean you can't do it or that it won't be good.

[Connor MacLeod]

Oh that. The thing about that is that Nanosuit 2 decisively runs slower than the original Nanosuit. Like in terms of distance over time the maximum speed sprint in Crysis is better than maximum speed sprinting in Crysis 2. As far as I'm concerned that's that, but Emjay doesn't like it so he seeks out ways to discredit the sprint speed that appears in the game. The argument you're referring to was the one about speed in the game was limited as a result of game balance, because the maps in Crysis 2 are smaller and the original sprint speed is kind of uncontrollable as a result. That's probably true, but it was also irrelevant. It was also an argument deliberately predicated on using the somewhat strange logic of Spacebattles.com versus debates to mess with people, but he busted it out on entirely the wrong people lol

Yeah, it just really stuck out at me as a good way that preconceptions and fan 'wishes' can really skew or distort our view of things. I mean in most cases I'd say MJ12 isn't irrational (or at least, he tries very hard not to be) but certain franchises like Crysis really become a blind spot. That's the sort of trap you have to avoid falling into as a fan, and its an aspect of that 'strange logic' endemic to spacebattles you speak of (as is that peculiar obsession with 'realism' and numbers and shit.)

Incidentally, on this wider notion of the 'rule of cool', when I'm writing and people occasionally ask me the question 'why are things like this' I don't really have any problem saying that it just is because stylistically that's how I like it or how I feel it works best. That's not quite the same thing but it's the notion that has been bastardised by the TV Tropes wiki. Like as an example sometimes I wonder exactly why people in the Imperium are so obsessed with skulls and the answer is 'because stylistically that's what the franchise is like'. There are probably other answers you could construct that would be quite valid and possibly more interesting but you know.

One thing I read in recent months in the vs or tech debates forum (I can't remember who said it or where, though) involved one of those 'help me add the right science to my story' threads - the guy said he asked those questions because he wanted to pre-empt people complaining that he was writing the story 'wrong' because of the details he added... there's a perverse sort of 'peer pressure' there that can really distort fiction if it becomes widespread enough, and it can do it without people realizing it. I think alot of folks on SB don't grasp that (recall how many people I had to argue with in the 'fighters in space' thread as another good example.)

[SAMAS]

yeah, I may be overreacting, but it ssomething I run across quite a bit amongst 40K fans and spacebattlers, and it gets on my nerves precisely because it creates the wrong sort of mindset that should be doing the NUMBERS stuff. It leads to all sorts of distorted preconceptions and ideas about what is 'right' and then ends up creating even more problems.

Its sort of like when you hear someone try to argue a universes capabilities by assuming their 'competent' (when that actually means 'whatever made up shit I want to kludge together from unrelated tidbits in the source material') or 'common sense'.

I think it's less of an excuse and more of an admission: It's basically saying "I can't figure out a logical in-universe reason for that."

The thing is that some series', such as Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, and 40k are rather obvious in that regard.

[jollyreaper]

That's what I was getting at, Samas. Chainswords are there because they are cool. Do I think they're cool? Would have when I was 12. Took a while to appreciate how they are impractical, just like mecha, let alone titans.

As for stretching preconceptions, I can do that a lot. I just have a problem when a story's internal logic falls apart. Just ass-pulling an example, say Popeye is tied up and had no spinach, how can he free himself? If he just gets super angry and then boom, he's tweaking like he's just snorted a whole can and trashes the room, what the hell? I thought he needed the spinach and now his powers are he can do it any time he's written into a corner? Now a writer could make that supportable if they're working towards him realizing he always has that power and the spinach was just a psychological crutch, he coul really call upon it on demand.

[Manus Celer Dei]

nobody wants to read about the life and drama about Nuclear Torpedo X603

I dunno, I thought Darkstar was a pretty great film.

[Dominarch's Hope]

As to why drones are almost entirely non-present and as to why manned spacecraft tend to dominate, I think you guys are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Assumption: Bob and Chang want to go to another star system. They want to go themselves, instead of using a quantum linked SimulDrone from Future!Walmart.

Problem: There is a possibility of raiders/pirates.

So you arm and armor the ship they will be traveling in. Even if dedicated drones are sent as escort, there is no guarantee that they will be completely enough. So you arm and armor the ship with people in it.

Assumption 2:Dickhead traitor Officers absconded with a drone fleet once upon a time. Either they were too "sumb" to say "no" effectively or they were just bright and independent enough to do so and yet be convinced otherwise. While the same can be said of human beings for the second, the first is slightly less so. So in order for a check and balance, there are more "human" officers and what have you present.

Or the drones are discontinued entirely due to mistrust of the drones themselves or the severity of the disaster.


But lets go with the first assumption a little bit more.


Jim and Han are planning a exploratory and diplomatic cruise. Due to the inter personal nature of such, drone ships are discouraged aside from standard piloting and emergency AI assistance.



It can essentially be boiled down to two options.


I WANT to go there, but it MIGHT not be safe either during the trip or once I arrive.

I distrust autonomous, thinking killbots. For whatever reason, they are simply unviable.


Its not necessarily totally logical, but it doesnt need to be. I, that is, ME, want to go exploring myself, not have it done for me. Any risk makes it a little more enjoyable. Thats essentially the entire premise of TOS. Humans Exploring.

Now, from a purely military stand point, having atleast drone ships that are accompanied by a manned command ship makes sense, and it means that precious manpower/space/material isnt wasted on making space warships habitable. Having the command ship there in the first place makes sense from the non-instant communication perspective, especially if the Humans simply want to keep an personal eye on things, regardless of potential loss of life.



So if the Humans WANT to go, they might not settle for simple drone escorts.

[Guardsman Bass]

The big voids and tunnels in the Death Stars might make sense for maintenance and parts replacements, particularly on the important parts of the space station (i.e. the main weapon, the reactor, and the engines). You wouldn't have to rip out the entire guts of it every time you have to replace a big part in the reactor, and you could bring big maintenance machinery right in there.

[RatPatrol]

On a long range mission, repair and maintenance also become a concern. Having completely automated repair robots again, would require very capable AI and robot design, to the point where you're basically replicating an entire human engineer.

I still need to read the other 4 pages, but the 1st thing that popped into my head was

BERSERKER ..... http://www.berserker.com/bk_berserker.htm

the Ultimate in 'Drones'

yes they lost in the end, who would write a series in the 1960's where mankind lost ...

[The Disintegrator]

There's a few points in favor of manned spacecraft in scifi. Let's start with the in universe examples;

- First things first, light speed lag is going to make remote control problematic, so that option is out over long distances from Earth.

- If you want to colonize a planet eventually you have to put boots on the ground.

- If you want to occupy a planet it's easier to win over the psychological aspect if you have human soldiers rather than an army made up exclusively of soulless drones.

- It will likely be a very long time before we trust AI with any kind of weapon of mass destruction.

- I suspect it will also be a long time before we trust AI to make the determination to kill something on its own.

- Having played a lot of Civilization III and IV I can say that a computer wouldn't be my first pick to negotiate with a newly discovered alien empire. Hopefully this will improve in the future.

And more importantly, let's look at out of universe examples;

- Hollywood has an assumption that most western audiences cannot relate to a main character that isn't a white male or Will Smith.

- An AI controlled spacecraft generally doesn't have many steamy sex scenes. This is the biggest factor keeping human crews going in movies and TV.

- AI are logical and intelligent, and unlikely to make illogical decisions that make most plots possible. Most scifi movies would be over in about five minutes if the characters used logic and reason.

- Most people have a hard time thinking of an AI as having the same value as a human being, so there isn't really a lot of plot tension in sending a drone to war.

- Horror movies in space would be especially difficult to do as a result of the above points I made. That and a robot that doesn't get scared by the monster doesn't make for a very entertaining main protagonist in a horror movie. While Bishop was a great character in Aliens he was only a supporting character amongst a cast that included a terrified child. That and Aliens was more action-adventure oriented. Granted, there was Ash in Alien, but he was an antagonist.

- Star Wars: Droids. I rest my case.

Now this isn't to say that writing about unmanned drones in space can't be done in a manner that's enjoyable to read or watch, but its certainly more challenging.

[Simon_Jester]

In universe the 'distrust of AI' argument is powerful. A sufficiently autonomous automatic control system could screw up royally, in ways no human ever would. As Vernor Vinge once noted, human air traffic controllers sometimes fly two planes into each other, but an automated system with the right bug could bring a dozen airplanes to the same location in time and space- the crash to beat all crashes.

It wouldn't take many incidents like that to destroy public faith in automation and any AI not supervised by a human being.