Space and Extraterrestrial Warfare General

I remember reading that exact text somewhere, and it was in printed format before ‘13.

what if other, more advanced xeno species, had their own shielding technologies? the relativistic kill missiles would be stopped by the shielding which could damage and slow down the missile enough so that it becomes just debris flying sort-of-fast towards it's target which might just burn down in atmosphere or get shot down with beam weapons or perhaps even simple space launched nuclear missiles since it's moving at slow enough speed
I'm finding it hard to concieve that somebody out there would not have thought of any sort of countermeasures.

Attached: slamazara.jpg (346x370, 27.5K)

So now you've just put up a big sign saying "RKV incoming put up defenses" and possibly even given away the position of your home planet. Even at .99c it will still take a while to get there, easily enough time to deploy defenses.
Comets are much larger than a RKV and fly much slower.
Space is full of shit from small particles to wisps of hydrogen and other elements to micrometeorites. At the speed we're talking about even wisps of hydrogen will be enough to heat an RKV up while a micrometeor an inch across will destroy it.
Good luck communicating with an object a few solar systems over in a timely fashion. It currently takes 26 minutes for a round trip communication to Mars, now extrapolate that a few thousand times. This is of course assuming that all the fragile tech on board doesn't get smashed by the incredible acceleration. The military had trouble with gps guided artillery shells and the RKV would be accelerated much faster.

At 1 g of constant acceleration you can get into relativistic speeds in less than a year. The closest star system is over 4 light years away.
What would be the point of maximizing the acceleration of an offensive, interstellar cruise missile ? You'll hit the relativistic wall fast enough considering the distances involved even if you stick to just 1 or 2 g of acceleration.

RKV vs Dyson sphere.
Who would win?

Even if the enemy could reliably track a planet to shoot a relativistic load at it from 6,000,000 light years away you could have moved most of your population to O'Neill cylinders, which would be much harder to hit and could just perform orbital guns defense if they detect any incoming RK projectiles.
You could also send niggers, muds, roaches and pajeets on fully enclosed colonies-turned-generation ships powered by fusion reactors, put them all in cryosleep then set a course for the enemy star system.
Barring extremely large fleet concentrations of these colony drones they'd be very difficult to detect in interstellar space due to their small size and low heat signature.
The enemy might not even know you sent them out, once they appear at his doorstep after 100,000 years there might be pro-integration factions among the gobernments of their people thus allowing for the successful spread of diversity across the galaxy.

Sorry mate, we just live in the version of clown world that has the boring and depressing outcomes rather than the funny ones. We couldn't even make it into 'vaguely sensible world', which would probably be a lot more boring but at least it would make some kind of fucking sense.

I strongly suspect everyone would like to avoid that, and that space would become off-limits for warfare using international treaties and the like, especially since because of the nature of space debris, neutral countries can and most likely will get caught in the crossfire.

Not a factor, tbh. Fermi paradox correctly points out that we should be able to see some evidence of ayys if they were out there, but wrongly assumes they're somehow likely to occur. Humanity is most likely to be quite alone in space, the closest space faring civilization (if it exists at all) being so far as to make even theoretical contact with it impossible

Good. It will be easier to conquer space clay without any spoopy Xenomorphs lurking around. Now if we could only find a way to end this globohomo era without going extinct…

One country would cope better than any other in that case: China. Their inland is still largely undeveloped and they can just recruit soldiers from there to break riots.

what the fuck man

Sure, they might be fine as zoo animals, pets if you are a rich fuck who could afford the appropriate security measures or as future gladiator adversaries. But imagine these fuckers jumping behind your back while you and your space marine buddies are searching through that one dead-dark mining station that lost contact with the local planetary systems HQ.

Attached: Xenomorph.png (640x820, 863.63K)

What if they're just hiding because of the three-body problem?

They're not. Fermi's paradox is not a paradox, it's simply nonsense – there are no hard numbers to prove that alien life even being in the same galaxy with us is in any way probable – when "optimists" solve the equation, the result is there should be hundreds of billions of alien civilization in the Milky way. When pessimists do, the result is that it's unlikely there would be even one. And that's not to mention the underlying fallacy of expecting intelligent alien life to be like and behave like us. Perhaps alien intelligent life simply wouldn't be interested in going to space – perhaps their reproduction rates are low and there cannot come a time when they'd manage to fully settle even their own home planet, at which point expansion becomes pointless. Perhaps the way they live and survive doesn't have them consuming large amounts of resources and space. Perhaps they are intelligent but anti-technology and are simply content with living as tribals for eternity (like human niggers), maybe their planet lacks resources necessary to make space travel possible. All of these possibilities and more further reduce the chances of a space faring civilization existing, which is corrobated by the fact that we can't fucking see any.

Because the point of a RKV is that you minimize the amount of time your target gets to prepare by having the projectile fly so fast that it gets there only days after the light of the launch gets there. A "slow-burn" approach defeats the purpose of an RKV.

You don't understand what you're talking about and you're exaggerating estimate disparities to hand wave a well established statistically sound paradox. The entire point of Fermi's paradox is that there are billions of stars in our galaxy similar to ours, something which we know, and via that sheer number alone there should be a number of planets similar to ours, and thus civilizations similar to ours, many being a large number of years older than ours, which should have left behind or presently have some degree of evidence that they exist.
Things such as "mineral" or "rock" species' etc. are sci-fi, they're impossible, and regardless even if they weren't, that'd justify Fermi's paradox even more.

Build an 18 meter tall mecha and make sure its painted white.

Isn't it theorized that silicon can support life like carbon?

Attached: 0de.gif (625x626, 104.13K)

GPS is dead.
UT Austin posted a research paper showing that there is definite evidence that the Russians aren't just jamming GNSS signals (which they've been capable for quite a while) but SPOOFING THEM, which is about exactly as bad as it sounds, so far all those that were detected are use for area denial, they don't carry coordinates (meaning any GPS receiver in range of the transmitters fix on the spoofed authenticated signal that is much stronger than the one from the satellites, which is tiny, but just get zeros out of it) but there is no logical reason to think they can't.
It means the whole thing needs to be re-done from scratch because anything that is GPS guided can now be guided by them…

At an acceleration of:
0.5g, the RKV hits at .85c
1g, the RKV hits at .93c, an improvement of 8%
2g, the RKV hits at .97c an improvement of 4%
5g, the RKV hits at .99c an improvement of 2%
20g, the RKV hits at .999c, an improvement of 1%
100g, the RKV hits at .9999c an improvement of 0.001%.

Get it yet? Acceleration barely matters. And even 100g is well within the tolerance of current missile systems, not that any speculated propulsion method could make it happen.

I wanna hear how you'd propose to intercept a relativistic object even if it was traveling at a meager .85c. And don't tell me that remark about the inch-wide micrometeor was serious. I don't want to have to explain why that won't work.

Yes, that remark was serious. An object at .9c hitting a 1 gram micrometeor would give off the energy equivalent of a 30 kiloton bomb. Let's pretend in your retarded fantasy world that this does not destroy the RKV; it still massively throws it off course.

Attached: davis.png (600x545, 307.68K)

Let's pretend in my retarded fantasy world, I launch a water balloon at your stupid face at 100 miles per hour. Your RKV countermeasure would be the equivalent of shooting that water balloon when it's inches away from you and expecting to not get wet.

Explain. Explain how in a collision where both bodies undergo completely fluid behavior, the tiny rock somehow alters the bulk velocity of the matter contained within the huge RKV.

Your braindead explanation is that even though the RKV gets obliterated into pieces, those pieces would come anywhere near their target, given a light year's distance or more? You are genuinely stupid.
Explain how a RKV is relevant in the first place. It's because it goes fast, right? And in theory, a small fast thing hitting say, a planet, would give off a lot of a energy. And imagine this fast thing, which is relevant because it has a lot of energy, hits a small thing. And let's say said fast thing is going .9c, & it hits a 1 gram rock.

Evolution will favor similar traits to us given enough time and the right circumstances, the math tells us there are countless planets with Earth-like circumstances in our galaxy and technology is inevitable once intelligent life arises. All of human history is a tiny blip of Earth's history, even if it takes them tens of thousands of years or even millions it doesn't matter, they'll develop it. Why? Because technology gives your race the power to thrive and prosper, and evolution favors anything that causes such.

Ever look at an exploding projectile outside of a videogame? They don't just expand outwards in a sphere, the explosion still has the velocity of the projectile which makes it look like a cone, and if that cone is traveling near the speed of light it's going to travel quite far before it spreads out enough to lose its threat.

At the distances RKVs would be launched at, there's effectively 0 chance for any shrapnel cone to come near the target, and that doesn't matter one bit either, because the shrapnel would decelerate partially, negating the point of the thing, not to mention that the shrapnel pieces would hit micrometeors too.

If the intercept happens literally lightyears away from the target planet, then yes, it would work. How you could possibly know in advance exactly where in interstellar space your countermeasures should be placed or how they themselves would see the RKV soon enough to intercept it, I have no idea. I guess in a retarded fantasy universe where you already know who hates you enough to try and wipe you out.

That's the entire point my mentally challenged friend; you don't intercept it. No one intercepts it, because almost immediately after being launched, it's going to hit one of the zillion billion gorrillion untrackable micrometeors floating around

Depends on how fast it's going and how far out you intercept it. Don't forget that this explosion will be subject to significant time dilation due to going near lightspeed, so if you don't have a way of exploding it incredibly far out you're fucked, but doing that requires knowledge that it's coming because it will arrive shortly after the lightwaves indicating its departure arrive.

I'm willing to accept this if I see a good writeup on micrometeorite density between stars, which I had previously thought to be so close to zero that it would be insignificant.

You lack perspective on how empty space is.

A cylindrical section of space 1 lightyear long and 20 meters in diameter is predicted to contain 0.0294 grams of interstellar dust on average, and the average mass of the each particle is 10⁻¹⁴ grams. Encountering a visible dust particle outside of the solar system is like winning every lottery in the world on the same day.

Given fifteen minutes of searching this is the only tidbit I can find on the subject, and it's including tiny dust particles. So, if there's .000000068 'asteroids' per cubic meter, there's bound to be at least one every 14,705,882 meters, and if 1 light year is 9.4607310^12 meters, I can say that a 1 meter wide RKV would impact approximately an absolutely fucking ton of them, and one wider than that would have an absolutely inconceivable amount of dust in its way, a percentage of which are large enough to cause immediate considerable damage, and if not that, the RKV would quickly erode.

Attached: Screenshot_27.png (498x108, 15.04K)

Sorry, I mean 9.46073*10^15

6.8 x 10⁻¹⁸ is 0.0000000000000000068 per cubic meter. That's ten billion times less than you thought. Aside from that, I feel like you're making lots of assumptions about how much it would "erode" a spacecraft or RKV. Most of those meteoroids are inconsequentially small and would barely do anything.

Right, I missed the 1. My bad. Point still remains. Keep in mind that 'inconsequentially small' differs greatly when we're talking about something going a large fraction of light speed.

The point doesn't still remain, it's been thoroughly debunked. An RKV with a diameter of 1m traveling a hundred lightyears would impact about 0.0074 grams of interstellar matter in the form of literal nano-specs that mostly have a mass of less than a billionth of a gram. At .99c those would deliver collective energy of 0.94 kilotons smoothly distributed over the course of years, which wouldn't do shit to a meter wide steel bullet.

No. You disingenuously went for the literal minimum size included in the measurement. Try again with 5*10^-4.

The mean mass of an interstellar particle is 3x10^-16, pic related. 5x10^-4 is 2 trillion times more massive than average. But that's beyond the point, because I didn't use the mass or number of individual dust grains to come to my conclusion. I used the average density of interstellar space, which is a much more useful approach than just assuming the vehicle will just happen to hit the largest dust particles ever recorded.

Attached: wrong.png (803x637, 40.51K)

If you're using an entire different source size then you can't use 6.8*10^-18 genius, and that screencap doesn't give density.

puncture the hull and laugh as the atmosphere vents out

Wouldn't an RKV fired at long distance from its target be affected by the gravitational pull of rogue planets and other random shit on its way?

Attached: 1471478751145.jpg (1000x1000, 92.22K)

Here's your fallacy. The fact intelligent life even evolved on Earth is sheer coincidence that needn't have happened, ever. There was no necessity in the system that would require intelligent life to emerge; it was pure chance.

And yet they didn't. When we look into space, we see no such evidence. You say it's a paradox, but it's no such thing - it simply means you are fucking wrong in your assumptions.

There have been extremely long periods of history where no technological advancement was made whatsoever, simply because there weren't the means for one or because the surroundings didn't require it. Had there not been easily storable cereals or the climate didn't get warmer, it is likely we would have been living in hunter-gatherer societies to this day, like we have for the majority of human existence. You then say it can take a millions of years no problem, but forget that the species can easily die out in that time. In any case, the fact we cannot see any clearly proves that your impressions are wrong. Either other intelligent life within observable distance does not exist, or it exists but is not engaging in interstellar travel.

IIRC china was working on counter satellite drones and ground fired lasers, even though it is taboo… nobody does anything except whine about it though, so it is hard to say if there is any real consequence.

what about nuclear propulsion weapons?

Attached: china astronaut.jpg (1000x703, 63.6K)

I believe it would be going too fast for gravity to have a huge effect. By the time it feels a gravitational pull it's already out of it. Think of how light is barely affected by gravity. That raises another problem though, because gravity has little to no effect you couldn't use parabolic trajectories for your shots, aka you would need line of sight.

In the span of billions of years across billions of earth-like planets anything that could happen should be expected to happen. If there is a 0.00001% chance of these planets developing life like us we should still expect there to be countless other civilizations like our own and their silence to be disturbing.

Yet there aren't, else we'd have already noticed them. So clearly, the initial assumption is not correct. Like that's what the result is fucking telling you; it's not some deep mystery of the universe, it just means the assumptions you have about this are not correct.

You remind me of the guy that was convinced space was full of aether, so he made several experiments that would confirm it to him through optics. All his experiments gave a negative result, yet instead of going "well, then there is no aether in space, I was wrong" he spent the rest of his days convinced he was doing the experiment wrong and trying to run it again and again in different configurations.

Attached: Finally, a weapon to surpass metal gear.png (966x700, 82.38K)

forget Mars and even Moon. Never be more than Boys In Bubbles.

What you need to do is Terra-Form the CO2 on Venus by seeding with GMO microbes and photosynthesis.

If all offspring of two common Houseflys all lived to reproduce, in 6 months the Earth would be 60ft deep in flies. Those are the sorta numbers we could do. Crash Venus's CO2 into a few hundred feet thick of bio-mass and at same time release O2 and reduce pressure to livable. Some of Venus is currently too hot, but at the poles its colder than anywhere on Earth, thus there are at least two temperate regions, near poles so constant sunlight.

Attached: main-qimg-e12e30a2ad7ee16e8e98481683c38fd9.png (626x350, 553.85K)

Unless they're hiding, which is the point of half of this thread. The only three possibilities: we are insanely lucky and are basically the only intelligent life in our galaxy, we have yet to do something that usually wipes out any intelligent life that arises (like creating a singularity), or any civilization that achieves technology and doesn't hide themselves gets wiped out.

Again with your shit assumption about it being probable there are many alien civilizations in our galaxy
intelligent life dying out is a possibility I already mentioned in my previous posts
Sounds like dumb sci-fi bullshit

You talk about it being likely there are many life-bearing worlds in our galaxy, yet we have to find a single one outside of Earth – perhaps having the right star and distance is just not enough and there are many, many other factors that need to get together just right to create life? Perhaps lifebearing planets are much, much rarer than you assume, have you considered that?

"Muh ayliums are hiding!" – you really are the man with the aether.

Confirmed for having zero experience on the topic, it's hard to find specific ones because you can't really see planets unless they pass in between us and a star, and even then you usually can't tell much about what they're made of. You can only make guesses of how many viable planets there are based on the size/age of observed stars, how many planets each one is likely to have, and how many of those configurations of planets are likely to be viable. It comes from math, not by pointing a telescope in the sky and counting planets, as I'm sure you know, so if you're going to dismiss the fermi paradox you'll need to do it by telling us which numbers you think makes it unlikely that earth-like planets will exist.

I am not saying I'm certain about anything here, just that its a possibility and your conviction in dismissing it with fantastic arguments like "sounds dumb" makes you seem like the devoted aether retard here.

Luyten b
Kepler-62e
Kepler-62f
TRAPPIST-1e
Kepler-452b
etc.
Are all earth-like planets or have earth-like zones on them.
There's dozens more that are unconfirmed.
We know all the factors needed to create life, that's how we're making estimates in the first place.

You'd have to keep those microbes/life forms alive and fed, and Venus under the cloud cover is hot enough to melt steel so it wouldn't end well. Lichens would be the proper solution, but those won't really work airborne as they need shit to hold onto.

It's not even insane luck really, it's average luck. The chances of two space-faring civilizations encountering each other in the same galaxy is about equal to the chances of two guns being fired at the same time and the bullets ricocheting.

Attached: 1553391073382.png (231x277, 50.33K)

That has more to do with a lack of proper telescopes. The James Webb Telescope never ever was is supposed to fix that issue by "seeing" things in a different wavelength that would allow it to pinpoint planets and the like. As a side note, we can use the light reflected from its star and our star combined with the right technology on the ground to more or less make a "spectrometer" to tell the composition of planets. In the same way it's hard to find a translator willing to do X despite there being over 7 billion people on earth, it's hard to find a physicist or chemist willing to work for chump change to do the kind of experiments needed for this sort of information. More private space companies could solve this shortage by encouraging science and engineering students to pursue space paths, especially if they could bring things down to an affordable level.

Those are planets in the habitable zone. That's all that's known about them. I literally said that "perhaps having the right star and distance is just not enough" and you come at me with an argument about the right star and distance. Fuck off. You don't know if they contain water (it's usually stated as "plausible" but nobody actually knows), you don't know the atmosphere, you don't know nothing about it, except that it has the right distance and maybe density.

My argument is that if there were nearly as many space faring civilizations as you retards propose, we would have fucking noticed them by now. That is my argument and undeniable evidence that you are fucking WRONG. You can count Drake's equation as many times as you want, proudly declaring "There are seven hundred gorillion space faring civilizations in our galaxy" and it won't change that fact. And really? Entire civilizations hiding from some big bad evil guy is supposed to be a serious argument? At that point, my argument can be "we are the only intelligent life out there because all the aliens masturbated themselves to death after catching a stray radio wave transmitting threads from /trapshota/" and be just as valid.

Yes, yes we fucking do you literal mong, at least approximately. We know their general surface temperatures too, as well as density and thus general material.

Uh-huh. Okay, let's check your examples, then. For example Kepler-62e:
Wow, we know so much about that planet! Every time you say a "maybe" or "approximate", you admit you don't really know much about that planet, and absolutely do not know if the planet bears life.

No shit we "don't know", again, for the billionth time, that's the point of estimates, and why there's an estimate disparity. Except that disparity isn't 'hurr 0-10^100' like you're so desperate to pretend it is, and they're all done with mathematically determined and weighed likelihoods, whereas your entire shtick is wrong cus we don't see them' which is exactly why it's a paradox

Bacteria grow from approximately 40F to 140F among general strains.

Based on what? How many earthlike planets do you think exist in our galaxy? How many of them will have developed intelligent life? If you'd answer the drake equation with "a fuckton" then we should have seen something by now unless civilizations are actively trying to hide themselves. This isn't about accidentally stumbling upon each other while one is colonizing planets, this is about just detecting shit like EM waves that don't seem to be created naturally.

And our point is that there is also a good reason why we wouldn't have noticed them.
There is no undeniable evidence until you can disprove the three-body problem. If you assume there are civilizations that have risen just like us, and if you assume that any civilization that comes to this level will have the goal of prolonging their life as long as possible in a universe with limited resources (entropy), then you must also assume that we (and everyone else) will come to the conclusion that going dark is the best way to ensure survival. There is no good reason to assume that alien civilizations will be non-hostile since a non-hostile species is less likely to have been able to dominate their world enough to achieve technology.

So you have no idea how likely it actually is for a "possibly habitable" planet to actually host life. Yet you are confident to pull some likelihood percentage out of your ass, put it in an equation, and claim that it is very likely for the galaxy to be chock-full of aliens.

Occam's Razor rules in my favour in this circumstance,but alright, I'll humour you:
Well, if you just decide to stay stuck on your planet out of fear of some potential enemy (not gonna happen – you aren't going to convince EVERYONE to stay home and keep shitting their pants over some theoretical enemy that may or may not exist), then you aren't really a space-faring civilization – you don't space fare.

I figure the cheapest approach would be to use a microwave weapon to burn out the satellite's radio receivers. The satellite would still be there but if it can't communicate it might as well not be.

I won't play semantics with you so I'll give you hard numbers. There are roughly 200 billion stars in our galaxy, and Keplar Space Mission data estimates roughly 40 billion Earth-sized planets in habitable zones orbiting sun-like or red-dwarf stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. So there are roughly 40 billion Earth-sized planets out of 100 billion. Stealing from a different source, in May of 2018, the chief curator of the Habitable ExoPlanets Catalog said that roughly 53 out of 3,730 known (discovered) exoplanets in that habitable zone are capable of supporting life. Key word there is capable of. So we've got a baseline of roughly 1.4% of planets in the habitable zone could potentially support life, or roughly 570 million planets in our galaxy are capable of supporting life. I won't get into the philosophical/religious arguments about us possibly being the only fucking planet in the entire universe capable of supporting life. For the purpose of my argument, we'll say roughly 0.001% of planets that could contain life have intelligent life on them, or something greater than bacteria anyways, not even talking about spacefaring civilization, just life capable of one day fostering civilization. The number could be much smaller, but this number works just fine for the point I'm trying to make here even though it's astronomically larger than it should be. This would mean roughly 5,700 planets in the Milky Way Galaxy might have multi-cellular organisms on them. Cool. Whatever. The Milky Way Galaxy is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000km user. That's 1 quintrillion km in diameter. Surface Area is A=π*(ø/ 2)^2 and that's assuming the milky way is flat (which it's not). I won't do that calculation because it's a fuck huge number. It's 1 quintrillion times itself times pi. You're looking for an earth-sized object that's roughly 13,000km across. Just working with 2D numbers you're at less than 0.0000000000013% of the surface of the galaxy ignoring all the planets and solar systems in the way, and if we add even 10km of space in the Z axis it becomes exponentially lower. Lasers would get blotted out by other planets, signals would get blotted out by other planets. The chances of encountering life are actually LOWER than the chances of two bullets being shot perfectly so that they ricochet off each other, but it's so insignificantly low, that the chances of a single individual winning the lottery 50 times is probably more likely (I won't do the actual math for that one either, fuck you).

Attached: 633.jpg (553x600, 31.88K)

As for your second point, EM waves have exponential decay and can be confused by shit like stars that also let out "EM waves." Have you ever heard of a pulsar? It's quite annoying- there's roughly 200,000 of them in our galaxy and they're basically the Milky Way's big FUCK YOU when we're out looking for those mystical "EM waves" and "Lasers." Turns out physics is a dick and most things we'd consider signs of artificial structures/intelligent life are almost always caused by some cluster of gases naturally occurring or some star somewhere releasing some energy or radio signal because it bounced off of something. Probability is a bitch in space- in fact probability is the only reason stars (which are not nearly dense enough for nuclear fusion to take place if you use Newtonian Physics) don't instantly burn up when they react.

Attached: 2acd424d9c9aebd85a658352b18c4b6669dc76d10145e0a5a2b7706049cac9bb.png (392x336, 191.22K)

Trying to hit a planet in another solar system with a rocket would be like trying to hit a man on Earth with a red ryder BB gun fired from the Kuiper Belt

That still leaves a lot of debris in orbit after the war, and even more the more effective the higher the interception rate of the program. Unless you're planning to plant 'orbital mines' in the form of several tonnes of metal scrap directly above your opponents launch facilities it seems a little counterproductive.

So all it takes is a single god-tier marksman (from an entire species, mind you) or a supercomputer and several hours/days of calculation?

There's a difference between being dark and staying put, you can still leave your planet and colonize other places you just can't spam EM signals everywhere along the way. If not everyone agreed to not send signals then your civilization gets wiped out, so you don't see the civilizations that fail to do this.

Why do you think 0.001% of planets supporting life is low? How do you know that life is not statistically inevitable on a fertile planet? You can't know unless you have a sample size greater than 1. And again, we aren't looking for an earth-sized object, we're looking for suspicious EM waves which spread outwards at the speed of light.

It's true that we have trouble distinguishing artificial signals from noise, but why should you assume that our current ability to do this will never improve? Technology improves exponentially, and any discussion about alien life that doesn't account for this is meaningless.

This is just stupid. Any civilization that is in any way like ours would not "go dark" forever because of a theoretical danger. It just wouldn't. It'd be like expecting Spaniards not to go colonising America because "Dude, what if that continent over yonder is full of incredibly powerful demons that will come back to Spain to eat us all?" Even if some decided to go through with this (I mean why should all of these gorillion civilizations have one world government? There would be dissent if it ain't some hivemind), others would not, and not bothering with all that shit would offer them competitive advantage.

Mankind needs to be rebuilt at the molecular level before we can conquer the galaxy. With genetic engineering we can make ourselves stronger, faster, hardier, and smarter. That much is obvious. But we will need to do more than strengthen our muscles, arm ourselves with best guns and clad ourselves in the best armor. We mus defend ourselves from foreign germs that would kill us. The best solution would be a bacteriophage that is programmed to attack any bacteria (excluding helpful ones in your gut), as well as parasites.

Attached: phagestructure.jpg (855x563, 226.67K)

Please try reading before replying.
Of course new civilizations will pop up that will likely not go dark, but they won't last very long so it would be unlikely that we would have seen their signals in the short amount of time that we've been looking (plus our instruments still suck).

I had a weird question about alien life. Shouldn't life-bearing planets be most likely to be found on the rim of a galaxy because of the large concentration of giant stars in more coreward regions putting out more starlight that will stop the development of life on coreward or mid-galactic planets? If this is the case, it rules out the overwhelming majority of possible planets as candidates for the development or settlement of Earth-like life by itself. The higher gravity of a location further into a galaxy also means more frequent occurrence of hazardous space objects like asteroids that will destroy civilizations before they can become advanced even if they somehow survive a high-starlight environment. Earth is on the rim of the Milky Way IIRC.

In terms of what I expect for the reasonably near future of space combat, it's probably going to be mostly battles of space stations versus other space stations because of orbital dynamics making certain points important enough to put a permanent space base at as shows with the Lagrange points. If you take a more long-term view of space habitats, space stations rely way too much on local planets and stars for supplies, are vulnerable to Kessler syndrome, and can't get out of the system when the star dies because they don't have enough supplies to make it to another system, and engineered systems have the risk of unstable orbits the more planets you have. Neither is suitable for a permanent habitat. The best way of creating a sustainable spacefaring civilization by my reckoning is equipping your star with a Shkadov thruster so you can pack up and move your entire solar system elsewhere to escape a cosmic threat and collect fuel for your star. Space conflicts in the very distant future would primarily be between planets in mobile solar systems using planetary-scale weapons on each other to decide who gets to refuel their star with otherwise unused celestial bodies.

Why wouldn't the massive quantity of stars in the galactic core make life even more likely? We're only here because our planet is cooked by a star right next to us. The extra energy would expand the zone in which habitable planets could form.
We're nowhere near the edge of the milky way either, more like halfway out.

How. Those stars would still be lightyears apart, not close enough to heat eachother's planets

Do hypervelocity stars near the Galactic centre pose any problems regarding potentially habitable planets being ejected into interstellar space?

Now that's a bigger issue than light from a star several light years away.

If an RKV is launched at 90% of light speed from a distance of 1 light year, you will still see it about a month before it arrives. In addition, you do know in advance where a potential RKV would come from because you know in advance where all the nearby stars are.

As the user said, EM waves have exponential decay, so rather than someone detecting civilization's normal operation it seems more likely to me that through observing the planet itself for a period of time, they'd figure out that there might be intelligent life.

Please try to understand that what you propose at this point is a ridiculous conjecture that is supported by absolutely nothing. The initial notion of "civilizations would want to be safe, just in case, so they go dark" has some theoretical merit, even if it's practically impossible, but now you go on and assume the existence of some mysterious force that obliterates those who do not go dark, just to defend the initial theory.

The problem with moving your star is that eventually it will be mostly iron and decline, unless you had a way to remove massive quantities of the excess material.

I tried to get some precise figures to help answer this question and it turns out that this is still an active area of research to some extent.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center
Our sun is just under 30,000 light-years from the center, which makes it fairly close to halfway out as you said because the galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter. The only reason the galactic core isn't readily visible to us at night is that it's covered from our view by space dust.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_density
This article says the stellar mass density in a globular cluster, which has a very similar density to the galactic core, is about 500 times that of the sun's neighborhood.

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_7/notes31.html
This page says that stars near the galactic core are only a light-week away from each other on average, and also gives a starlight luminosity estimate of 200 times the luminosity of the full moon for locations within a parsec of the galactic center. The distance from the Sun to Proxima Centauri, the closest system, at 4.2 light-years is close to the average distance between stars for this point in the galaxy.

quora.com/What-is-the-density-of-our-galaxy
This answer claims the mass density of all objects near the galactic core is about 1000 times the mass density of our sun's neighborhood.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude
This gives the brightness of the night sky with a full moon compared to the Sun's brightness, which is about 400,000 times greater.

What we get from all this is that the starlight wouldn't be a problem for life at the galactic center, but other interactions such as more frequent supernovae, cosmic collisions, GRBs, other dangerous radiation, and interference with other stars' gravitational fields would, as suggests.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_habitable_zone
This page outlines the basic concept at work here. The classic version of the galactic habitable zone goes from roughly 4-10 kiloparsecs from the galactic center, or ~13-32,000 light-years. The outer parts of a galaxy are held to have too low a level of metallicity to create habitable planets because the needed heavy metals fall to the denser regions of the galaxy. I wonder if the starlight luminosity issue is a much bigger problem for larger or differently-shaped galaxies than ours. But the other problems would be bigger still in larger galaxies. Some have criticized the concept of the galactic habitable zone for not being well-defined enough, but the jury is still out.

And speaking of armor the best option for infantry armor would be munitions armor made from a copper-graphene composite pure graphene is brittle as fuck .
nature.com/articles/srep41896

Attached: 1200px-Savoyard_armour_IMG_3805.jpg (1200x1800, 208.61K)

even space hates the jews

You could apply the concept of habitable zones to different galaxies as well. Probably only a very small subset of galaxy types are suitable for life to develop. I'm not enough of an astronomer to talk about that. It seems doubtful that anyone really is because we haven't even worked out the more basic concepts of habitable zones yet. This seems kind of odd to talk about here anyway because these threads generally obsess over space battle tactics and rarely pay any attention to the grand strategy of space campaigns. Adapting grand strategy to space would obviously involve a lot of astronomy to determine the strategic locations. Maybe that sort of change of focus is what's needed to move the discussion forward. But I still have an interest in working out a space station versus space station tactical doctrine.

I believe it's the same as small yield nuclear warfare.
No one would do it because it would piss off everyone.

Not only, the risk of Kessler Syndrome is just too high for it to be reasonable. A more viable option of denying the use of space infrastructure is signal disruption and jamming.

Space warfare is just fantasy. It's too complicated, expensive and difficult to properly manage, supply and maintain any engagement purely in the space domain.

This doesn't mean space-to-surface weaponry isn't an option, but it would most likely be deployed against installations on the lunar and Martian surface. Particularly because of the thin atmospheres or lack thereof.

Does that mean space is antisemitic? How is space going to pay the reparation for the 6 million crashed spacecrafts?

Attached: 7b31ae5468fe61bd02718cf290be427dd728272f5ea78a50dee73600c64b7ae2.jpg (750x750, 389.92K)

It's really quite unlikely that space diseases will be able to affect us thanks to the way protein compatibility and folding work, but it's always good to have a backup.

It only takes one strain of Space AIDs (airborne transmission, and 100% infectivity and lethality of course) to destroy a mission, and possibly the species depending on the disease. Best not to take risks with that sort of thing.

If humanity colonizes space, humans on planets outside Earth will gradually start adapting to the environment, becoming inhuman throughout the generations. Should humanity try to stop it with genetic engineering, ensuring every colonist remains synchronised to the genes of the inhabitants of earth, or should evolution be given free reign, gradually transforming the descendants of colonists into inhuman aliens?

Sounds like colloidal silver (CS) might be what you're looking for, but you never heard about it because it's too effective and anyone can make it in his home for less than $100 which would turn the fuckhuge pharmaceutical industry almost obsolete overnight for the vast majority of illnesses and diseases. In the 50s to 60s they tried to shut it down and replace silver with expensive drugs instead. Then they went one step ahead and started spreading misinformation that it doesn't work or that it will give you argyria.

Thing is, the fags they say turned blue by drinking colloidal silver didn't actually drink it. They turned blue due to drinking 100+ ppm silver solutions mixed with salts - which is a far cry from actual CS.

If you're talking viruses you have a point, but bacteria dn't have to be genetically compatible with you to infect you.

I think widespread access to porn would go a long way towards preventing any large divergence in appearances, if you jerk off to Earth girls every day you're probably not going to want to fuck the weird mutant locals.