Ender's Game (spoilers)

[Noble Ire]

Ender's Game was a decent book, but I wasn't interested in the universe enough to read the other books.

Coincidentally, I consider The Fall of Reach (the first book of the Halo trilogy), which has a rather similar plot, to be a far better read.

[Graeme Dice]

Because the discovery of radio is BASIC: it actually precedes the invention of things like radar and computers and microwave emitters. The very first usage of the discovery is for communications purposes. But if you don't have that to start with, the other allied inventions don't follow.

I see, so your actual argument is that a spacefaring species that can communicate interstellar distances instantaneously will not be able to develop electronic devices that use electromagnetic radiation because they haven't built radios to talk to each other. You'll have to pardon me if I don't give any particular weight to that argument.

[Patrick Degan]

Because the discovery of radio is BASIC: it actually precedes the invention of things like radar and computers and microwave emitters. The very first usage of the discovery is for communications purposes. But if you don't have that to start with, the other allied inventions don't follow.

I see, so your actual argument is that a spacefaring species that can communicate interstellar distances instantaneously will not be able to develop electronic devices that use electromagnetic radiation because they haven't built radios to talk to each other. You'll have to pardon me if I don't give any particular weight to that argument.

You'll pardon me if I give no weight to a so-called rebuttal springing from a quite evident lack of scientific understanding as well as that of technological development. You have no argument.

[Molyneux]

Ender's Game was a decent book, but I wasn't interested in the universe enough to read the other books.

Coincidentally, I consider The Fall of Reach (the first book of the Halo trilogy), which has a rather similar plot, to be a far better read.

YES.

I'm hoping that they actually portray the fall of Reach in the Halo movie; it'll be a nice hook into the story for those who haven't played the game.

[Graeme Dice]

You'll pardon me if I give no weight to a so-called rebuttal springing from a quite evident lack of scientific understanding as well as that of technological development. You have no argument.

Are you trying to win an award for the most idiotic statements possible? The only argument you've advanced so far is that it's impossible to develop radar unless you've developed radio communications first. This is patently absurd. Yes, the development of radio astronomy and radar would take longer if one didn't have radio communication first, but it's certainly possible. You are claiming that a civilization that can build interstellar starships can't build a radar dish.

[RedImperator]

Tesla was experimenting with radio power transmission around the same time he was playing with radio for communications, and Hertz himself discovered certain materials blocked radio waves. I really don't think you can categorically state without radio communication you never develop any of its related technologies. Radio has other potential uses that became obvious early on. Communication is the easiest and most practical use and without it development of everything else probably takes longer, possibly much longer, but a civilization capable of understanding Maxwell's equations ought to be able to eventually develop radar, radio telescopy, and the rest.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Because the discovery of radio is BASIC: it actually precedes the invention of things like radar and computers and microwave emitters. The very first usage of the discovery is for communications purposes. But if you don't have that to start with, the other allied inventions don't follow.

Sort of like trying to have cars if you've never bothered to invent the wheel.

ahem: The very first usage of radio was for communication, the technology existed before it was used for radio (I.E. Alexander Stepanovich Popov, in 1894, built his first radio receiver, which contained a coherer. Further refined as a lightning detector, he presented it to the Russian Physical and Chemical Society on May 7, 1895.).

Technically true but it does not defeat the overall point. Some of the people on this thread are arguing that Bugger telepathy makes radio unnecessary, which means without an impetus the invention never gets made. It's stated clearly in Card's silly novel that the Buggers don't have radio, which is why they can't communicate with Earth (this begs another question which Card also stupidly leaves unanswered but that will come up inevitably in the course of this debate). My overall point is that without the radio in the first place, you can't go on to develop the technologies crucial to successful spaceflight, which renders the basic assumption behind Card's plot idiotic on its face.

But there are other reasons available for developing EM tech at early tech levels, The 'Lightning' detector is one (albeit an absurd one). Someone had to have pioneered EM spectrum radiation in order for radio to have even been discovered, if he had done his experiments in a different order, The Microwave might have come first, or maybe Naval Radar, Certainly radio communications was the most meritous prduuct of the research at the time, bt a different species could just have easily taken a completely different approach, the Buggers might have microwave ovens that are almost a hundred years more advanced than ours simply because they didn't need radio communications, so the developement was spent on something else entirely.

[Patrick Degan]

You'll pardon me if I give no weight to a so-called rebuttal springing from a quite evident lack of scientific understanding as well as that of technological development. You have no argument.

Are you trying to win an award for the most idiotic statements possible?

No, that appears to be you in that contest.

The only argument you've advanced so far is that it's impossible to develop radar unless you've developed radio communications first. This is patently absurd. Yes, the development of radio astronomy and radar would take longer if one didn't have radio communication first, but it's certainly possible. You are claiming that a civilization that can build interstellar starships can't build a radar dish.

And, pray tell, exactly how is it possible if your civilisation hasn't done enough basic research and practical engineering in the field before branching out into other applications?

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

You'll pardon me if I give no weight to a so-called rebuttal springing from a quite evident lack of scientific understanding as well as that of technological development. You have no argument.

Are you trying to win an award for the most idiotic statements possible?

No, that appears to be you in that contest.

The only argument you've advanced so far is that it's impossible to develop radar unless you've developed radio communications first. This is patently absurd. Yes, the development of radio astronomy and radar would take longer if one didn't have radio communication first, but it's certainly possible. You are claiming that a civilization that can build interstellar starships can't build a radar dish.

And, pray tell, exactly how is it possible if your civilisation hasn't done enough basic research and practical engineering in the field before branching out into other applications?

*Head-Explodes*

Radio, Radar and countless other Radio Frequency Radiation uses require roughly the same technological base, there is very little to differentiate a Radar and a Radio, in fact, even a cell-phone tower can be used as a primitive radar, A walky-talky can be turned into a radio frequency rangefinder with only a watch and a calculator, if nothing else, A microwave oven doesn't even require the invention of a reciever, there is no reason why Radio Communication must come before any other use.

I'll second the most idiotic statements possible award for Degan.

[Patrick Degan]

Are you trying to win an award for the most idiotic statements possible?

No, that appears to be you in that contest.

The only argument you've advanced so far is that it's impossible to develop radar unless you've developed radio communications first. This is patently absurd. Yes, the development of radio astronomy and radar would take longer if one didn't have radio communication first, but it's certainly possible. You are claiming that a civilization that can build interstellar starships can't build a radar dish.

And, pray tell, exactly how is it possible if your civilisation hasn't done enough basic research and practical engineering in the field before branching out into other applications?

*Head-Explodes*

Radio, Radar and countless other Radio Frequency Radiation uses require roughly the same technological base, there is very little to differentiate a Radar and a Radio, in fact, even a cell-phone tower can be used as a primitive radar, A walky-talky can be turned into a radio frequency rangefinder with only a watch and a calculator, if nothing else, A microwave oven doesn't even require the invention of a reciever, there is no reason why Radio Communication must come before any other use.

I'll second the most idiotic statements possible award for Degan.

Yes, thank you for stating the fucking obvious as if it's meant to be some sort of revelation. As well as not really providing an intelligent answer to the initial question, which is becoming less and less of a surprise as this silly thread wears on.

And for the benefit of those who think they've got the handle on this discussion as it relates to Orson Scott Card's idiotic book, a handy passage straight from the pages of Ender's Game for your perusal:

The buggers could probalby see about the same spectrum of light as human beings, and there was artificial lighting in their ships and ground installations. However, their antennae seemed almost vestigal. There was no evidence from their bodies that smelling, tasting, or hearing were particulary important to them. "Of course, we can't be sure. But we can't see any way they could have used sound for communication. The oddest thing of all was that they also don't have any communication devices on their ships. No radios, nothing that could transmit or receive a signal of any kind."

. . .

"They must talk to each other directly, Ender, mind to mind. What one thinks, another can also remember. Why would they even learn to read and write? How would they know what reading and writing were if they saw them? Or signals? Or numbers? Or anything that we use to communicate?"

—Card, Ender's Game, pgs 248, 249, 252

Now, I don't know about anybody else who claims they know what they're talking about on this thread, but Orson Scott Card's OWN FUCKING WORDS show that the Buggers don't have radio or devices to transmit and receive signals "of any kind".

Which still leaves the initial question unanswered: if a culture never develops radio and its allied technologies, then how can they actually navigate their way through space?

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

ironically, the answer is blindingly obvious.
I hadn't read the books in a while so I wasn't sure of the exact wording, but anyway. How d you navigate when you don't have Radio Astronomy (A technology with dubious interstellar navigational value at best). Why, you use Optical Astronomy! in terms of navigation, I'm not sure what Radio Astronomy has over plain ole 'vannilla optical astronomy, Please enlighten (no pun intended... well maybe a little bit.)

[Graeme Dice]

And, pray tell, exactly how is it possible if your civilisation hasn't done enough basic research and practical engineering in the field before branching out into other applications?

Well, the obvious answer is that they've already done sufficient research. It's not like the em spectrum is difficult to study. You, on the other hand, seem to think that because a civilization does not use radios for communication, then they must also not be able to use them for any other purpose.

Yes, thank you for stating the fucking obvious as if it's meant to be some sort of revelation. As well as not really providing an intelligent answer to the initial question, which is becoming less and less of a surprise as this silly thread wears on.

It's nice to see how you're trying to cover up pretend that you didn't make the idiotic statements that you already did. Too bad for you that you can't go back and edit your posts.

And for the benefit of those who think they've got the handle on this discussion as it relates to Orson Scott Card's idiotic book, a handy passage straight from the pages of Ender's Game for your perusal:

And here we have the real problem. You dislike Orson Scott Card, and because you are not particularly bright you take the standard response of stupid people. Anything created by the person you dislike must be crap, because you aren't competent enough to separate the person from their work.

Oh, and thanks for providing the quote that shows that not only do you have absolutely no understanding of technological development, you can't even understand the most basic things you read.

The buggers could probalby see about the same spectrum of light as human beings, and there was artificial lighting in their ships and ground installations. However, their antennae seemed almost vestigal. There was no evidence from their bodies that smelling, tasting, or hearing were particulary important to them. "Of course, we can't be sure. But we can't see any way they could have used sound for communication. The oddest thing of all was that they also don't have any communication devices on their ships. No radios, nothing that could transmit or receive a signal of any kind."

So, the first five sentences of your quote are nothing more than a basic biological description of the species. One could write a very similar description for humans, so I fail to see the relevance. Then you provide two sentences that are actually relevant. Now, if this is a description of the second fleet, then the lack of such devices is hardly surprising. Only the queen's ship would be likely to have those, and it was destroyed. If it's the first fleet, then you might actually have a point, but it's hidden behind the hard-on you have for complaining about an incredibly minor detail in a book that involves a handwavium weapon like the Dr. device.

"They must talk to each other directly, Ender, mind to mind. What one thinks, another can also remember. Why would they even learn to read and write? How would they know what reading and writing were if they saw them? Or signals? Or numbers? Or anything that we use to communicate?"

Would you care to explain what your problem is with this quote, and why you think it has any bearing on technological development?

—Card, Ender's Game, pgs 248, 249, 252

I love how fanboys always have a copy of the work they hate so much on hand.

Which still leaves the initial question unanswered: if a culture never develops radio and its allied technologies, then how can they actually navigate their way through space?

That's a bullshit backpedal. You claimed that it was impossible for them to navigate, you certainly didn't question whether they were capable of backpedalling.

[Patrick Degan]

And, pray tell, exactly how is it possible if your civilisation hasn't done enough basic research and practical engineering in the field before branching out into other applications?

Well, the obvious answer is that they've already done sufficient research. It's not like the em spectrum is difficult to study. You, on the other hand, seem to think that because a civilization does not use radios for communication, then they must also not be able to use them for any other purpose.

Shall I have to quote Card's own text to you again? No devices on Bugger ships for transmitting or receiving signals "of any kind".

Yes, thank you for stating the fucking obvious as if it's meant to be some sort of revelation. As well as not really providing an intelligent answer to the initial question, which is becoming less and less of a surprise as this silly thread wears on.

It's nice to see how you're trying to cover up pretend that you didn't make the idiotic statements that you already did. Too bad for you that you can't go back and edit your posts.

I have no need to edit arguments that you're desperately trying to strawmander.

And for the benefit of those who think they've got the handle on this discussion as it relates to Orson Scott Card's idiotic book, a handy passage straight from the pages of Ender's Game for your perusal:

And here we have the real problem. You dislike Orson Scott Card, and because you are not particularly bright you take the standard response of stupid people. Anything created by the person you dislike must be crap, because you aren't competent enough to separate the person from their work.

Appeal to Motive Fallacy.

Oh, and thanks for providing the quote that shows that not only do you have absolutely no understanding of technological development, you can't even understand the most basic things you read.

What you see in your evidently delusional state has no bearing on the matter.

So, the first five sentences of your quote are nothing more than a basic biological description of the species. One could write a very similar description for humans, so I fail to see the relevance.

No, stupid, they establish the context for the relevant quote in the passage.

Then you provide two sentences that are actually relevant. Now, if this is a description of the second fleet, then the lack of such devices is hardly surprising. Only the queen's ship would be likely to have those, and it was destroyed.

And your evidence for this is... where in Card's book, exactly? Or pulled out of your own ass, perhaps.

If it's the first fleet, then you might actually have a point, but it's hidden behind the hard-on you have for complaining about an incredibly minor detail in a book that involves a handwavium weapon like the Dr. device.

No, stupid, it's pointing out only one of the conceptual flaws of EG which your little red herring about one plot device do not erase.

"They must talk to each other directly, Ender, mind to mind. What one thinks, another can also remember. Why would they even learn to read and write? How would they know what reading and writing were if they saw them? Or signals? Or numbers? Or anything that we use to communicate?"

Would you care to explain what your problem is with this quote, and why you think it has any bearing on technological development?

Are you actually this dense or merely pretending at it? The point is how, in Card's text, the Buggers never had an impetus to develop radio communication.

I love how fanboys always have a copy of the work they hate so much on hand.

I love how fanboys (yourself, BTW) handwave away evidence which doesn't suit them. Don't like it when somebody else has the material on hand to be able to argue the points of the book intelligently? Too fucking bad.

Which still leaves the initial question unanswered: if a culture never develops radio and its allied technologies, then how can they actually navigate their way through space?

That's a bullshit backpedal.

Lie.

You claimed that it was impossible for them to navigate, you certainly didn't question whether they were capable of backpedalling.

Whatever point you thought you were making was evidently lost in your insanity. Get back to us when you can cohere your thoughts again.

[Patrick Degan]

ironically, the answer is blindingly obvious.
I hadn't read the books in a while so I wasn't sure of the exact wording, but anyway. How d you navigate when you don't have Radio Astronomy (A technology with dubious interstellar navigational value at best). Why, you use Optical Astronomy! in terms of navigation, I'm not sure what Radio Astronomy has over plain ole 'vannilla optical astronomy, Please enlighten (no pun intended... well maybe a little bit.)

And... optical astronomy will help you spot debris and small asteroids which might be in your way but too small for your telescopes to pick up? Optical astronomy is more accurate than radio astronomy for drafting starcharts?

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

ironically, the answer is blindingly obvious.
I hadn't read the books in a while so I wasn't sure of the exact wording, but anyway. How d you navigate when you don't have Radio Astronomy (A technology with dubious interstellar navigational value at best). Why, you use Optical Astronomy! in terms of navigation, I'm not sure what Radio Astronomy has over plain ole 'vannilla optical astronomy, Please enlighten (no pun intended... well maybe a little bit.)

And... optical astronomy will help you spot debris and small asteroids which might be in your way but too small for your telescopes to pick up? Optical astronomy is more accurate than radio astronomy for drafting starcharts?

Well, i don't see how its less accurate, unless you care to explain it.
and if a bit of debris too small to be spotted visually is moving fast enough to potentially cause problems, then being able to see it on Radar isn't going to help much either, any ship of reasonable size is likely not going to have enough Delta V capability to avoid it anyway.

And

Then you provide two sentences that are actually relevant. Now, if this is a description of the second fleet, then the lack of such devices is hardly surprising. Only the queen's ship would be likely to have those, and it was destroyed.

And your evidence for this is... where in Card's book, exactly? Or pulled out of your own ass, perhaps.

Well, given that the Queen is the only one int he fleet that would actually need to use any sort of Radio based navigational gear, putting it on the other ships seems I bit useless. Given the nature of the Buggers, it probably wouldn't have even occured ot them to put the gear on non-queen bearing ships.

[Patrick Degan]

ironically, the answer is blindingly obvious.
I hadn't read the books in a while so I wasn't sure of the exact wording, but anyway. How d you navigate when you don't have Radio Astronomy (A technology with dubious interstellar navigational value at best). Why, you use Optical Astronomy! in terms of navigation, I'm not sure what Radio Astronomy has over plain ole 'vannilla optical astronomy, Please enlighten (no pun intended... well maybe a little bit.)

And... optical astronomy will help you spot debris and small asteroids which might be in your way but too small for your telescopes to pick up? Optical astronomy is more accurate than radio astronomy for drafting starcharts?

Well, i don't see how its less accurate, unless you care to explain it.
and if a bit of debris too small to be spotted visually is moving fast enough to potentially cause problems, then being able to see it on Radar isn't going to help much either, any ship of reasonable size is likely not going to have enough Delta V capability to avoid it anyway.

To answer the first:

Radioastronomy Is Your Friend

Why Observe At Radio Wavelengths?

There are many reasons why it is advantageous to observe at radio wavelengths.

Advantages of Radio

* Radio waves reach the ground
* Can observe objects or phenomena that are difficult or impossible to detect in other wavelength ranges
* Can use radio emission for quantatitive physical diagnostics of object parameters

The first reason is simply that it is possible to observe radio waves from the ground.  As shown in the figure below, spacecraft are needed to observe astronomical objects in gamma rays, X-rays, UV, and IR, while ground observations are possible in the visible, some parts of the near IR, and the radio.  NJIT has solar observatories exploiting all of these ground windows.

Note that the window closes at the long-wavelength end of the spectrum--not because of the atmosphere, which remains transparent to long-wavelength radio waves--but rather due to the ionosphere, which reflects the radiation.

A second reason is that some objects and phenomena are invisible or hard to detect in other wavelengths, and can only be seen, or can be seen with greater sensitivity, in the radio

The third important reason to explore astronomical objects in radio wavelengths is that the emission properties provide quantitative physical information about conditions in the source.  We will see that radio emission is produced in a large number of ways.  The low-energy radio photons are relatively easy to produce, which makes radio emission sensitive to a great many parameters.  However, the number of mechanisms is itself a problem.  Before one can use the emission to give information, one must first determine which radio emission mechanism is responsible for the emission.   In practice, the most accurate way to determine the emission mechanism is to have spectral information, since different emission mechanisms have different characteristic spectral properties.  In addition to helping to determine the emission mechanism, quantifying spectral properties such as peak brightness, peak frequency, spectral slopes, etc., also provides quantitative diagnostic parameters.

For all of these reasons and more, the radio range of wavelengths is as essential as gamma ray, X-ray, UV, optical, and IR for providing a complete picture of the physical nature of astronomical sources.

The second: advance detection of obstacles in the way of vessels moving at relativistic velocities enable a chance to change course (or deploy one of several means to deflect said objects) to avoid collisions while still at a safe distance.

Then you provide two sentences that are actually relevant. Now, if this is a description of the second fleet, then the lack of such devices is hardly surprising. Only the queen's ship would be likely to have those, and it was destroyed.

And your evidence for this is... where in Card's book, exactly? Or pulled out of your own ass, perhaps.

Well, given that the Queen is the only one in the fleet that would actually need to use any sort of Radio based navigational gear, putting it on the other ships seems I bit useless. Given the nature of the Buggers, it probably wouldn't have even occured ot them to put the gear on non-queen bearing ships.

Ah, I get it: let's not base our arguments on the evidence actually available in the book, let's just guess that this "must" be so.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

And... optical astronomy will help you spot debris and small asteroids which might be in your way but too small for your telescopes to pick up? Optical astronomy is more accurate than radio astronomy for drafting starcharts?

Well, i don't see how its less accurate, unless you care to explain it.
and if a bit of debris too small to be spotted visually is moving fast enough to potentially cause problems, then being able to see it on Radar isn't going to help much either, any ship of reasonable size is likely not going to have enough Delta V capability to avoid it anyway.

To answer the first:

Radioastronomy Is Your Friend

Why Observe At Radio Wavelengths?

There are many reasons why it is advantageous to observe at radio wavelengths.

Advantages of Radio

* Radio waves reach the ground
* Can observe objects or phenomena that are difficult or impossible to detect in other wavelength ranges
* Can use radio emission for quantatitive physical diagnostics of object parameters

The first reason is simply that it is possible to observe radio waves from the ground. As shown in the figure below, spacecraft are needed to observe astronomical objects in gamma rays, X-rays, UV, and IR, while ground observations are possible in the visible, some parts of the near IR, and the radio. NJIT has solar observatories exploiting all of these ground windows.

Note that the window closes at the long-wavelength end of the spectrum--not because of the atmosphere, which remains transparent to long-wavelength radio waves--but rather due to the ionosphere, which reflects the radiation.

A second reason is that some objects and phenomena are invisible or hard to detect in other wavelengths, and can only be seen, or can be seen with greater sensitivity, in the radio

The third important reason to explore astronomical objects in radio wavelengths is that the emission properties provide quantitative physical information about conditions in the source. We will see that radio emission is produced in a large number of ways. The low-energy radio photons are relatively easy to produce, which makes radio emission sensitive to a great many parameters. However, the number of mechanisms is itself a problem. Before one can use the emission to give information, one must first determine which radio emission mechanism is responsible for the emission. In practice, the most accurate way to determine the emission mechanism is to have spectral information, since different emission mechanisms have different characteristic spectral properties. In addition to helping to determine the emission mechanism, quantifying spectral properties such as peak brightness, peak frequency, spectral slopes, etc., also provides quantitative diagnostic parameters.

For all of these reasons and more, the radio range of wavelengths is as essential as gamma ray, X-ray, UV, optical, and IR for providing a complete picture of the physical nature of astronomical sources.

The second: advance detection of obstacles in the way of vessels moving at relativistic velocities enable a chance to change course (or deploy one of several means to deflect said objects) to avoid collisions while still at a safe distance.

I see how radio-astronomy is beneficial for scientific study of the cosmos, but Is till failt o see any advantage over Optical in terms of navigation, you don't have to know that a star is an X type in Y stage of its life with peculiarty Z in order to use it to navigate.

And, there's really no reason shielding can't be deployed continuously wile in transit

And your evidence for this is... where in Card's book, exactly? Or pulled out of your own ass, perhaps.

Well, given that the Queen is the only one in the fleet that would actually need to use any sort of Radio based navigational gear, putting it on the other ships seems I bit useless. Given the nature of the Buggers, it probably wouldn't have even occured ot them to put the gear on non-queen bearing ships.

Ah, I get it: let's not base our arguments on the evidence actually available in the book, let's just guess that this "must" be so.

[/quote]

Well, the books do say that the Queen is sentient while the Drones are no more important than toenails to the Queen, this suggests to me that putting navigational equipment on the drone ships is useless even for redunancy sake, since if the Queen ship gets destroyed, they all keel over and die any way.

[Vendetta]

But anyways, my big question is how the hell did the bugger's know about Ender's dreams? I mean, replicating the detail about the dead Giant and the End of the World on their planet. It had something to do with the ansible, but it didn't seem all that clear to me; were they using it to contact Ender? If so, why couldn't they just tell him "hey, we know we screwed up with starting the first two wars, please don't wipe us out?"

Because Card was retconning this angle into Ender's Game so that he could crowbar the character of Ender into Speaker for the Dead halfway through writing it. Ruining what otherwise might have been a reasonable SF mystery.

Also, don't read the sequels, they get progressively more boring as you go. Especially Xenocide, which is about 500 pages of absolutely nothing happening.

[Vendetta]

I see how radio-astronomy is beneficial for scientific study of the cosmos, but Is till failt o see any advantage over Optical in terms of navigation, you don't have to know that a star is an X type in Y stage of its life with peculiarty Z in order to use it to navigate.

And, there's really no reason shielding can't be deployed continuously wile in transit

Radioastronomy can spot smaller objects further away. So that you can avoid banging in to them, which is unfathomably bad for you at high relativistic velocity. As for shielding, see every post ever on these boards concerning shields and physical collisions, kinetic energy is notoriously hard to get rid of, and shields would simply transfer that energy in some form to a system inside your ship. (plus I don't recall anything indicating that ships in EG even have that level of shielding, but it's been a while)

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

I meant shielding in the sense of a physical shield (When I'm talking about energy shields, I prefer Force Fields, or Energy Fields, to prevent exactly this sort of mininterpertation), A simple whipple shield would defeat a large percentage of the kind of threats we're talking about, and if a warships armour can't stand up to a little interstellar bombardment, what use will it be in actual combat anyway?

Though the Enderverse does have some sort of Force Field technology, the limitations it imposes make it impractical for interstellar flight even disregarding the physical laws that would govern such shield technology.

[Redleader34]

Sheilds in enderverse.. provide pages to prove that. In endervers it is said that most ships simply explode, or surive in the last battles.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

I don't have my copy with me (If you can wait until tommorrow, I can get one off the library) but in the original short story we have Ender conversing with Maezr about the technology used in the first battle in the simulator:

"Why do we have to come so close to be in range?"

"The ships are all protected by forcefields. A certain distance away the weapons are weaker and can't get through.

In the novel, at a similar point in the story (near the begining of the simulator battles, when Ender is learning about the weapons he will have), he asks whether the Buggers have a shield device (I believe (but am probably wrong) it is called a 'chaos shield' but I will have to get a copy of the book to know for sure.)and it is revealed that, in fact they do, but the Little Doctor effect penetrates it like it wasn't there, it is also revealed that the shield is completely opaque from the out side, and that the craft generating it is always centered within the shields effect. The simulator is said to ignore these shields because the little doctor penetrates them, and the ship's position inside the shield can always be divined.

[Patrick Degan]

I see how radio-astronomy is beneficial for scientific study of the cosmos, but Is till failt o see any advantage over Optical in terms of navigation, you don't have to know that a star is an X type in Y stage of its life with peculiarty Z in order to use it to navigate.

If you want the most accurate charts you can get, you use the most accurate means for producing detailed information. Light-gathering telescopes fail in that regard. This really isn't all that difficult to understand.

And, there's really no reason shielding can't be deployed continuously wile in transit

Energy conservation for a start, in addition to the other problems already mentioned a few posts above.

Ah, I get it: let's not base our arguments on the evidence actually available in the book, let's just guess that this "must" be so.

Well, the books do say that the Queen is sentient while the Drones are no more important than toenails to the Queen, this suggests to me that putting navigational equipment on the drone ships is useless even for redunancy sake, since if the Queen ship gets destroyed, they all keel over and die any way.

I suppose you actually don't understand the concept of "evidence" as pertains to debate. It means observable, available fact. Not supposition, not guessing, not wishful thinking, not what you believe or wish to believe. Fact. If a thing's existence cannot be demonstrated by evidentiary supports, that thing's nonexistence is the default assumption.

However, to play your game for the moment: even granting that the drones are "just extentions" of the Hive Queen, what makes you think that navigational equipment on the drone-crewed ships would be useless? The more information-gathering units available to the Queen, the more accurate her picture of the battle as well as the navigation of her fleet through space. Redundancy is actually a desirable engineering solution.

But this little speculative leap is moot, since the evidence for any sort of radio engineering in the Bugger fleet is lacking and so we're forced to the default assumption that the Buggers have no such instrumentation.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

AHem: I responded to that post. A 'Shield' Is a physical object, like a whipple shield, or armor. to avoid confusion, I will say 'energy shield' when that is what I mean (or force field when merited).

The 'most accurate maps' are un-necessary for travel when an optically generated map is far from erroneous. I don't understand how the ability to determine whether any given star is of X, Y, or Z type is of relevance when all you need for reasonable interstellar navigation is about three reference points and a heading, the more the merrier of course, but with umpteen gazillion visible phenomena, one hardly needs to venture into radio interferometry to generate a suitable number of references.


Also, it is noted that the Second Invasion was managed in such a way that the queen ship was noticeably (albeit to a small fraction of people) directing the battle, leading to the conclusion that that is where the sensing equipment is located.

Having such equipment on multiple ships would certainly provide a clearer picture of the battle. But it would also require more expensive ships and that the Queen's attention be divided amongst the various views available in order to make use of them.

[Patrick Degan]

AHem: I responded to that post. A 'Shield' Is a physical object, like a whipple shield, or armor. to avoid confusion, I will say 'energy shield' when that is what I mean (or force field when merited).

At relativistic velocities, an armoured shield would be about as effective as a giant latex condom around the ship as far as anti-impactor protection would go.

The 'most accurate maps' are un-necessary for travel

Utter bullshit.

...when an optically generated map is far from erroneous. I don't understand how the ability to determine whether any given star is of X, Y, or Z type is of relevance when all you need for reasonable interstellar navigation is about three reference points and a heading, the more the merrier of course, but with umpteen gazillion visible phenomena, one hardly needs to venture into radio interferometry to generate a suitable number of references.

The grand-mal stupidity of fanboys never ceases to amaze me. You actually imagine that floating an argument for not having the most detailed information you can get with the most precise tools that can be utilised is going to win you points?

Try spotting a black hole with an optical telescope sometime, nitwit. Running into one of those during your spaceflight across interstellar distances just might be bad.

Also, it is noted that the Second Invasion was managed in such a way that the queen ship was noticeably (albeit to a small fraction of people) directing the battle, leading to the conclusion that that is where the sensing equipment is located.

A "conclusion" which still remains unsupported by any actual evidence from the book. Exactly what part of the definition of "evidence" eludes your grasp, anyway?

Having such equipment on multiple ships would certainly provide a clearer picture of the battle. But it would also require more expensive ships and that the Queen's attention be divided amongst the various views available in order to make use of them.

"More expensive ships", Gracie? Just how much more "expensive" than the costs of actually building a large invasion fleet in the first fucking place which is going to be on a decades-long flight between star systems?

Just like a Creationist or a Trektard you are: don't alter theory in the face (or lack) of fact, alter fact to suit theory.