Science-Fiction: What could impede the use of electricity on half of Mars?

[Rando]

Hello. I’m a new addition to the board, and if I’ve posted in the wrong place or this is otherwise unwelcome, please PM me and let me know.

I’m a writer and I’m working on a science-fiction novel set on Mars in the distant future. I can gather most of the information on the planet, the requirements for living on it, and the theories on terraforming elsewhere, but I have one problem for which I would appreciate the input of more knowledgeable people.

I have need for a plausible explanation on why half the world would be able to use electricity and the other would not. I have toyed with the idea of random electromagnetic pulses (or a constant electromagnetic pulse) that interferes with the majority of electrical devices and equipment, though as I understand it, older and solid state technology might be immune to electromagnetic pulse. My question, I suppose, is what explanation in our modern technology would explain the occurrence of repetitive electromagnetic pulses? I’m foregoing nuclear explosions, and I would prefer as natural a phenomenon as readers would find believable. Theory is quite welcome if nothing in our reality could cause such events.

Any response is welcome. If the novel is published, I would be happy to include people in a “special thanks” page for contributions that help me create this world. Thanks, everyone.

 

[Drakkith]

I can't think of anything natural and realistic without messing with Mars orbital characteristics and the Sun. Perhaps Mars has tilted on its axis so that one pole faces the Sun at all times, as well as the Sun putting out far more solar flares and CME's that would cause technology to be near useless. There's also man-made things, such as subterfuge by a controlling organization or some long lost technology.

 

[twofish-quant]

I have need for a plausible explanation on why half the world would be able to use electricity and the other would not.

It's easier to come up with sociological or political reasons than physics reasons. Assume that half of Mars is settled by Amish farmers. Alternatively assume some political reason (i.e. half of Korea has cell phones and internet, the other half doesn't.)

Also, it's very likely that it's going to be very hard to create a power grid, so it's possible that half of Mars can't use electricity because the power lines haven't gotten set up.

My question, I suppose, is what explanation in our modern technology would explain the occurrence of repetitive electromagnetic pulses? I’m foregoing nuclear explosions, and I would prefer as natural a phenomenon as readers would find believable. Theory is quite welcome if nothing in our reality could cause such events.

One problem with nuclear explosions is that without a magnetic field or atmosphere, a nuclear explosion won't produce an EMP.

 

[atrchi]

Were you thinking that the half would be a contiguous hemisphere? I don't think that makes sense. Instead, the area would need to be something like a band around the equator or a radius around each of the poles, adding up to half of the planet's area.

If I were you I would try to elaborate some ideas around Tin Whiskers: http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/

Imagine Tin Whiskers were more prevalent and more pernicious in Mars due to the low gravity, terraformed atmosphere, lack of magnetic field, solar interference, unexplained causes, etc, in some way correlated to the geographic latitude. Perhaps those same areas are rich in some valuable rare element, giving your book characters a reason to live there...

Electricity would be deemed expensive and unsafe on those affected parts of the planet, perhaps on par with nuclear energy on Earth - requiring expert engineering, special government permission, etc. So even though electricity would "work", it really wouldn't be available to the whole population. Perhaps it's something only the military and criminals would have access in serious applications, and even then it still would be dangerous and unreliable? There would be no electric grid. Battery-operated appliances brought from other parts of the planet would die out within a few minutes of operation, leaving an unmistakable smell of ionized metal in the (man-mixed) air :-) There would be horrible stories of people poked in the eye by a tin whisker suddenly growing out of clandestinely imported electrical equipment. Eventually the population just gives up and anyone seen with playing with electricity or illicit electrical devices is immediately suspected of terrorism and arrested.

Let me know if you use the ideas... I'd like a copy of your book :) Thanks

 

[Nimbian]

it Does not need to be EMP at all, and Atrchi's suggestion merits investigation.

One Idea I had is the continuous sand storms generating an overwhelming amount of atmospheric static electricity. Without a relatively high moisture content in the air to act as a ready made conduit to the ground this likely means the lighting on Mars could be more significant (or not to actual knowledge here)

Metal Attracts lighting strikes, Free electricity you say? not if it hits a vehicle with delicate electronics. And Lighting Towers would require constant attention to make sure they function. Damage from Melting and corrosion being significant. Power lines would also be venerable to Corrosion and these strikes causing overloads, all which could damage electronics and maybe even melt the line.

The only real solution would either bury your settlements to reduce damage (which isn't always viable) or to make settlements with as little metal parts as possible. (Probably using Ceramic Composites or plastic/Plastic substitutes. (there is a Company in Europe some where I heard that is making plastics from Olives.)

Anyway that's my two cents

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How would people survive on Mars without electricity to power their closed ecosystems? Or are you envisioning this so far in the future that the planet has been terraformed to the extent that hunter gatherers could thrive? If the latter then the huge scientific and industrial capacity that the setting's civilisation clearly has would trump most obstacles like this.

My advice would be to go for some sort of authoritarian intervention. A terraformed planet would have all the necessary components for near total control, ultra-low powered micro-UAVs the size of small insects could allow total surveillance across the planet (look up smart dust for similar ideas) which would be necessary for the study and regulation of the various ecosystems. Settlements would likewise have ubiquitous monitoring as in the early days they would be dependent on it for ensuring environmental control. You could posit a regime that cuts off services and technology to various regions of the planet as punishment or preventative measures for stopping uprisings (of course mass stinging with nerve agent by the micro-UAVs would work too...)

 

[Nimbian]

I think what we really need is more "Setting" information. What time Frame are we looking at? How Colonized is Mars A few Hundred, Few Thousands? or millions and billions? For how long? why is "Half a world without Power" is required? is this temporary? or permanently?

Also, there is many ways People can survive without electrical power, it just requires other ways of storing and releasing the energy, Chemical storage comes to mind as the easiest to achieve. Not to say it would be easy to design, Build, or even very safe to operate but building a car with no metal is possible.

Many systems could use Mechanical Computers, and control systems. All this can be accomplished by using non metals or non conductive materials, such as plastics or ceramics.

The Atmosphere can be accounted for in the design, and plantlife (algae or even food plants) can provide all the O₂ a person needs to breath. There is no such thing as a closed ecosystem. or really a closed system anything out side of theoretical models. The best one can hope for is a self-sustaining system where the system provides all the material for maintaining said system, this still requires Energy input as well as "waste" management (usually thermal).

I'm not saying it would be a pleasant life, but many humans thrive in harsh environments. look at any people that live within the arctic circle. or in the Gobi or Sahara Deserts

 

[atrchi]

Here's another idea. Assuming your setting is a terraformed Mars, it might include a man-made planetary magnetic field to keep solar flares from eroding the atmosphere. Perhaps the planetary magnetic field technology is so 'primitive' that it creates problems for electricity on half the planet (some of the earlier comments apply).

 

[ReaverKing]

I've got three ideas (and counting:

1. "Prison Planet" - in the original novelization of "the Postman" there are no more radio stations. The protagonist makes up a theory that orbital-based weapons are programmed to home in on and attack any sources of radio waves. He doesn't know but the other characters just buy into it. Targetting any large-scale power plant from orbit with kinetic or nuclear weapons or reentry-capable rocket would be child's play for a civilization that's regularily transhipping goods and colonists between Earth and Mars.

2. "Orbital Jamming" - a variant of Prison Planet. A derilict spaceship or purpose-made satelite is emitting huge quantities of electromagnetic radiaton or radioactive particles into the upper atmosphere. Without a magnetic field or atmosphere to speak of, Mars would not produce the hemisphere-wide corona that setting off nukes in the Van Allen belts would but its possible it could elevate the background electromagnetic field directly underneath it. (the power output would have to be beyond the pale or rediculous)

3. "Superstorm" - I remember a book series (Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars) where colonists on Mars dug a thermal borehole in order to terraform Mars. The result was a decades-long storm that covered a significant portion of the planet. The rising heat from the borehole created a weather system that generated huge winds and electrical activity. As mentioned above, lots of lightning won't eliminate ALL electrical usage but goodbye radio transmissions and goodbye surface power grids.

4. "metal-eating microbes" - pure cheese but it works. On earth, post of our power sources are made of zinc, copper and iron. Having an area teeming with bacteria that use one fo these metals as a metabolite drastically shortens the operating life of almost any object powered by electricity:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/11/new-metal-eating-bacteria-found-on-titanic/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/47950-metal-eating-bacteria/

There would also be all kinds of other consequences as well but preventing the inhabitants of a contaminated area from "sterilizing" the bacteria (either through extremely hardy/resistant bacteria or lack of access to sterilizing agents/equipment) would be all you need to severely handicap the development of widespread use of electricity in that area.

 

[Rando]

Everyone: Thanks for the replies on my post, your time and your knowledge and invention. I should have responded sooner, but I did want to give everyone a chance to interact with each other and all.

For the purposes of my sci-fi world, I am planning on a full hemisphere lacking electricity, but it’s not necessary that it be so precise as it starts at the 0-degree longitudinal line and extends to the 180-degree line. Say that the western hemisphere doesn’t have electricity, the eastern does, and at least as characters discuss the matter conversationally, that will be an accurate description. The shape and concentration of this “dead space” will be determined by the solution I ultimately rely on.

For the sake of understanding what I’m planning, imagine one-half of the planet Mars living in the 23rd century, the other half living in the equivalent of 19th-century England. My thought so far is that terraforming has been ongoing for about two-hundred years, the process is still happening, allowing enough air for moving around without oxygen masks, enough atmospheric pressure to excuse the use of suits, heat to allow warm temperatures, but especially in the west, more deserts than oases or jungles. Small farms, ranches, that kind of thing would supply food for the have-nots of the western hemisphere. I’ve also toyed with the idea of forming oceans on the planet, maybe from engineered crashes of comets, that sort of thing, to supply the water. I’m not imagining the coverage of oceans we have here on earth, but more than Mars could naturally supply. At least, that idea will live or die depending on how ridiculous it sounds to the more astronomically-inclined than me.

In the end, I’m going for plausible more than 100%-provable estimations on Mars of the future. A “warp drive” solution, something that can be hypothesized, even if it’s not likely to hold when vetted over the next hundred years.

My three ideas (maybe two in combination with each other) have magnetic fields/pulses, thunderstorms, and human factors to explain the absence of electricity. Posts have been great at suggesting these things, and fleshing out some vague ideas I’ve had. As atrchi suggested, a man-made magnetic field that’s either flawed or degenerates, or is made with the intention to supply the east at the expense of the west, that seems to be strongest idea for me so far. I’m quite intrigued by the “tin whiskers” mentioned as well—I will look into those, see how likely the production of metals on my fictional Mars will jibe with that idea, how the east might overcome the problem while the west cannot. I’ve had ideas about random pulses (of a non-nuclear origin) that also knock out devices, but the corrupt man-made magnetic field might explain something like that better. Nimbian’s notion of high static electricity caused by sand storms causing eroding or overloading of electric components as well. I’ve had thoughts that maybe the introductions of oceans leads to bad rain and lightning storms that produce similar effects in the western hemisphere, but not the eastern.

I’ve also thought, as far as the human factor goes, there is less of an authoritarian intervention and more of a prohibition mindset. For people living without electricity on a planet that isn’t ripe with food and comfort, a large contingent believing the wealth and luxury of the eastern hemisphere is sinful could be an explanation for why there aren’t more attempts to introduce electricity into the landscape. I think this works best with some initial limitation, hence working in combination with one or more of the ideas I mentioned above.

That’s where I am with the scientific background of the book at the moment. I imagine I’ll eventually produce five books set in the world, and I’d like to start the first in September. I have the outline already written, awaiting any revision that needs to be done in the wake of the background ideas I use.

Again, thanks for the ideas, they’ve really made me think about the possibilities. PM me if you would like your names to appear in the “special thanks” page, I would be happy to recognize you.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A quick post as I'm short on time. Given the Martian Dichotomy Rather than East/West have you thought about North/South? The drastic differences between these two hemispheres are more significant and could play into your story.

Also I'm wondering how believable it is that so much effort would be put into terraforming and colonising another planet only to allow half of it to be a sparsely populated low tech zone. It seems to me that whatever the reason the technologically advanced half (as well as the nations elsewhere in the system that I presume undertook this terraform endeavour) would be constantly working to solve the problem and move in. That could even be an interesting plot device as the "pastoral" characters lament that this phenomenon is all that keeps them "free".

On the ocean side you are definitely going to need them. Without a hydrological cycle you won't get a biosphere and without that no one is going to survive outside of a technologically advanced closed-ecosystem.

Lastly whatever phenomenon it is giving a reason as to why the other hemisphere is immune is going to be important. Because of this anything that could affect the whole world (magnetic field etc) probably isn't that useful.

The Atmosphere can be accounted for in the design, and plantlife (algae or even food plants) can provide all the O₂ a person needs to breath. There is no such thing as a closed ecosystem. or really a closed system anything out side of theoretical models. The best one can hope for is a self-sustaining system where the system provides all the material for maintaining said system, this still requires Energy input as well as "waste" management (usually thermal).

Closed just means no mass comes in or out, energy still can (one where neither go in or out is called an isolated system). Earth is pretty much a closed ecosystem, we get some asteroid matter in and atmosphere blowing off but it's inconsequential wrt to the biosphere.

 

[ReaverKing]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Mars has either en extremely weak or no magnetic field. Eath's magnetic field is what keeps Earth relatively safe from solar radiation. Mars has the advantage of distance.

what if there were some (phenominally difficult) means of generating or enhancing a magnetic field artificially? Such a field could be intermittent at times, especially if ill-maintained. That would allow magnetic phenomena like auroras at the magnetic poles, as well as magnetic fluctuations that could impair electric devices. At this point though, you're entering the realm of "force fields".

Those living at the equator would see minimal interruption but those at the north or south could face frequent interruption.

A society deliberately abandoning maintenance on some "dark tower" or network of magnetic field generators for quasi-religious reasons would surely piss off the rest of the planet (after all, they're endangering others). The only serious problem with that is that the high-tech "side" would still be capable of vastly superior materials science (i.e. soldiers with factory-built automatic weapons and body armor vs hand-made leather jerkins, homespun shirts and hand-made AK-47s). An unstable magnetic field won't level the playing field against a bullet that can be fired from over 2-3 miles away (lower Martian gravity means less bullet arc and longer flying times. A trained Martian Sniper would be scary and the high-tech side would have far more accurate weapons).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The only serious problem with that is that the high-tech "side" would still be capable of vastly superior materials science (i.e. soldiers with factory-built automatic weapons and body armor vs hand-made leather jerkins, homespun shirts and hand-made AK-47s). An unstable magnetic field won't level the playing field against a bullet that can be fired from over 2-3 miles away (lower Martian gravity means less bullet arc and longer flying times. A trained Martian Sniper would be scary and the high-tech side would have far more accurate weapons).

I expect that in the nearish future guns and foot soldiers will be mostly for show or niche applications as drones from insect to B52 size take over all other roles. A society that can terraform a planet doesn't strike me as the kind that would still be waring with bullets anymore than we fight with sticks and stones lol.

 

[ReaverKing]

To quote more authors than I can even remember:

There will ALWAYS be a need for soldiers on the battlefield.

Any sort of remote-control aircraft, vehicle or humanoid surrogate will only take you so far. Transmissions can be jammed and any kind of fully-autonomous or swarm-logic war machine is a flat-out TERRIBLE idea. You immediately run into the Frankenstien's monster problem of creating a weapon you can't destroy should something go wrong OR a weapon with an obvious achiles heel the rest of the time.

In fact, the BOLO series is based largely upon that very problem. No matter how vestigial, a human pilot or operator will always be a necessary component of a weapons system. After all, mankind has had 10,000 years or more to learn the ins and outs of the way humans fail. An automated drone will surprise us in new ways for at least as long.

And then there's the specific problem posed in this thread of a society living in an area where automated war machines simply can't venture without being destroyed. Human footsoldiers would be the only option no matter how "antiquated". To quote a phrase...

 

[Drakkith]

To quote more authors than I can even remember:

There will ALWAYS be a need for soldiers on the battlefield.

I think that depends highly on what you define as the battlefield. Drone operators can sit in Nevada while their aircraft fights a war across the globe. Are they in the battlefield?

Any sort of remote-control aircraft, vehicle or humanoid surrogate will only take you so far.

Currently yes. But we have no idea what the capabilities of future technology will be.

Transmissions can be jammed and any kind of fully-autonomous or swarm-logic war machine is a flat-out TERRIBLE idea. You immediately run into the Frankenstien's monster problem of creating a weapon you can't destroy should something go wrong OR a weapon with an obvious achiles heel the rest of the time.

Weapons are not "all or none" objects. Even a glaring weakness can be compensated for by various means including tactics, strategy, and especially upgrades.

In fact, the BOLO series is based largely upon that very problem. No matter how vestigial, a human pilot or operator will always be a necessary component of a weapons system. After all, mankind has had 10,000 years or more to learn the ins and outs of the way humans fail. An automated drone will surprise us in new ways for at least as long.

I seriously doubt you can reasonably justify this. A work of science fiction does not count as reasonable justification, they are meant to explore different themes and other matters, not provide technical details on realistic future possibilities.

 

[Nimbian]

Bah humbug.

I had a huge post explaining the Math behind this but I a apparently used the window by accident for research.

In Human history guerrilla forces have had a long and mostly successful conflicts. Almost by definition they are a Lower tech force engaging a Higher tech force.

Long Story Short I had all the math and all the steps as I worked on it for an Hour before I lost it here is the highlights of ReaverKing's AK47 vs "Unknown Energy Weapon"

The below Logic experiment uses the Effective range and time of AK47 Bullets as the target Standard.
The Proposed armor is a Plate of Silicon Carbide ceramic, weighing 5kg, (I understand that design would play a critical role in how much a armor would be able to take, But for simplicity sake the above is a solid Brest plate.) at the Edge of effective range for the AK-47, 400m. One shot will take 0.55 Sec to reach its target

To Melt 5kg of Silicon Carbide (a commonly used Ceramic in today's armor) it takes 8308 kJ
To pass thru a Volume of air (without deviation) that is a cylinder that is 1cm in diameter, while only raising the air temperature 100c Costs approx 7.485 kJ

Meaning each shot costs 8315.485kJ per shot. or aprox 15.12 Megawatts. (W=Jules/Seconds) or 94.34 MeV

A typical wind turbine (or wind energy converter) has a power capacity of 1 to 3 MW
you would Need 5 - 15 Wind turbines to power your "Lethal Flashlight"

The total amount of energy produced in the 21H + 32He reaction is 18.4 MeV, which corresponds to some 493 megawatt-hours (4.93×108 W·h) per three grams (one mole) of ³He. (Source)
Using the Above reaction (provided you got is shrunk down to a portable size.) Each Shot would still consume roughly 15g of fuel.

The Typical Projectile for an Ak47 weighs 8g

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To quote more authors than I can even remember:

There will ALWAYS be a need for soldiers on the battlefield.

We can't know that and as Drakkith points out there are subtlies. To expand a bit the definition of a battlefield can change as can the role and definition of a soldier. It seems likely that IRL within a few decades teams of soldiers will be directly supported by a variety of drones ranging from the size of fighter jets to micro air vehicles the size of birds or even insects. In many situations a soldier may be relegated to giving orders to the drones in real time as they track the progress.

Any sort of remote-control aircraft, vehicle or humanoid surrogate will only take you so far. Transmissions can be jammed and any kind of fully-autonomous or swarm-logic war machine is a flat-out TERRIBLE idea. You immediately run into the Frankenstien's monster problem of creating a weapon you can't destroy should something go wrong OR a weapon with an obvious achiles heel the rest of the time.

I don't see how that necessarily follows. You seem to have made a jump from autonomous drone to self-perpetuating conscious entity.

In fact, the BOLO series is based largely upon that very problem. No matter how vestigial, a human pilot or operator will always be a necessary component of a weapons system. After all, mankind has had 10,000 years or more to learn the ins and outs of the way humans fail. An automated drone will surprise us in new ways for at least as long.

You realize the fallacy of making absolute claims about the future right? Also the 10,000 years figure is misleading. Firstly our species is far older and secondly it really isn't that hard to envision machines easily programed to kill humans. Attach an Xbox Kinect to a gun and program to shoot in the middle (a silly example but it illustrates the point).

And then there's the specific problem posed in this thread of a society living in an area where automated war machines simply can't venture without being destroyed. Human footsoldiers would be the only option no matter how "antiquated". To quote a phrase...

The original point of bringing drones into the conversation was to suggest a mechanism by which a population was kept subdued.

 

[ReaverKing]

I was originally upset but its almost refrereshing to have to completely clarify my reasoning like this... almost. The original post in this thread was looking for ways to suppress devices that used electricity over the majority of a planetary hemispehere. Said suppression of electronic computers or electrically-powered machines means that any kind of automated drone force would simply break down or cease to function upon entering the "suppressed" zone. Barring some really creative engineering involving diesel engines and photon-based computers, I cannot think of any type of "drone" more advanced than a kite or hot air balloon that would function in such an environment. A drone or robot army operating in such an area is a bit of a non-sequiter.

Secondly, I am aware that fiction is not fact. The reason I use fiction as an example is because I have a fine arts background and I feel that saying "we have no idea what the capabilities of future technology will be" is just a way of saying "Shut up and stop speculating". My intention in bringing up works of fiction is to compare themes in fiction to the issue under discussion. While the technical challenges inherent in developing autonomous weapons are many, the issue of controlling and deploying such devices in the field are another set altogether. The BOLO series deals with primarily the second category.

For starters there are questions like: how do you turn the weapon on? How do you turn it off? How do you keep the enemy from using it or turning it off? What happens if the weapon mistakes your troops for the enemy? How do you keep the enemy from exploiting any fail-safes that protect your own troops? What happens when the weapon loses contact with the human operator (if any)? These questions do not require detailed technological answers to reveal that small changes in design strongly impact the usability, effectiveness, and reliability of any weapons system from rocks to fighter jets to nuclear bombs. Is the device some sort of Nimean Lion or Death Star that is invulnerable save for some intentionally included or overlooked flaw that renders it far less effective than it otherwise could have been? Or is it just as unstoppable if it is turned against you instead of your enemies? Despite chasing it to the North Pole, Frankensiten was ultimately unable to destroy the monster he had created. Intelligence in this context is secondary to the inability to stop your own creationg from turning against you.

As the destructive potential of a weapon rises or the human control over a weapons system is reduced, there is an increased risk of a fault with the device leading to ever-increasing levels of disaster. New safeguards can be installed after the fact but preventing the disaster by requiring a human input is a time-tested safeguard in and of iteself. Sure an army of Terminators is easy to imagine. That doesn't mean anyone short of a madman will build them without requiring them to have direct oversight by a human operator. "Direct" in this case beign a somewhat flexible term. I see real-world StarCraft long, long before Skynet. Probably Forever.

That is why I make the claim that a weapons system that does not include a human operator carries significantly more (and largely unnecessary) risk to both sides of a conflict than any weapons system that does. It may lean toward being a moral position but it is still fact that at least as far as we can project, a human operator of some kind operating a weapon from within the combat space or remote-operating a weapons system from outside the combat space (which is what I meant by "on the battlefield") will remain a necessary safeguard on all weapons systems. Probably Forever.

 

[Drakkith]

Two things Reaver. First, you may be talking about THEMES, but I feel this thread is more about the technical aspects and not about the themes.

Second, your idea that not including a human operator increases the risk to both sides of a conflict is pure speculation and focuses only on the negative possibilities. Have you considered that automated weapons may be MORE BENEFICIAL to both sides? Or that new weapons may not be more destructive, but LESS destructive? Weapons of massive destructive potential are NOT as useful as they once were. That is why the military developed guided weapons; to reduce expenditure of resources, to reduce collateral damage, to reduce non-combatant casualties of the enemy nation, etc

 

[Nimbian]

Along that line perhaps you should center your Electricity free zone around the Hellas Basin

For the following reason
Surprisingly, many of the dust storms on the planet originate from one impact basin. Hellas Basin is the deepest impact crater in the Solar System. It was formed more than three billion years ago during the Late Bombardment Period when a very large asteroid hit the surface of Mars. The temperatures at the bottom of the crater can be 10 degrees warmer than on the surface and the crater is deeply filled with dust. The difference in temperature fuels wind action that picks up the dust, then storm emerge from the basin.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I was originally upset but its almost refrereshing to have to completely clarify my reasoning like this... almost.

I'm sorry you felt upset, perhaps there has been some misunderstanding but no one was posting with any malice.

The original post in this thread was looking for ways to suppress devices that used electricity over the majority of a planetary hemispehere. Said suppression of electronic computers or electrically-powered machines means that any kind of automated drone force would simply break down or cease to function upon entering the "suppressed" zone. Barring some really creative engineering involving diesel engines and photon-based computers, I cannot think of any type of "drone" more advanced than a kite or hot air balloon that would function in such an environment. A drone or robot army operating in such an area is a bit of a non-sequiter.

If you look back at post 6 you'll see that drones came into this discussion because I was proposing them as the reason for a lack of electricity. The rationale was that trying to come up with a natural phenomenon isn't going to work but a man made one might. The suggestion was for one hemisphere to suppress the other, this is accomplished by limiting their technology which in turn is accomplished by having drones everywhere snooping on what people are doing and destroying any attempt to develop.

Secondly, I am aware that fiction is not fact. The reason I use fiction as an example is because I have a fine arts background and I feel that saying "we have no idea what the capabilities of future technology will be" is just a way of saying "Shut up and stop speculating".

I really didn't mean it that way. When I said be wary of making absolutes about the future I meant it literally. It was not a way of getting you to shut up at all but a means by which to point out that absolute statements are flawed and we should acknowledge that if we are going to make them.

My intention in bringing up works of fiction is to compare themes in fiction to the issue under discussion. While the technical challenges inherent in developing autonomous weapons are many, the issue of controlling and deploying such devices in the field are another set altogether. The BOLO series deals with primarily the second category.

For starters there are questions like: how do you turn the weapon on? How do you turn it off? How do you keep the enemy from using it or turning it off? What happens if the weapon mistakes your troops for the enemy? How do you keep the enemy from exploiting any fail-safes that protect your own troops? What happens when the weapon loses contact with the human operator (if any)? These questions do not require detailed technological answers to reveal that small changes in design strongly impact the usability, effectiveness, and reliability of any weapons system from rocks to fighter jets to nuclear bombs.

These are indeed good questions but not insurmountable ones. Over the past decade or so military use of drones for intelligence and combat has skyrocketed. I've seen estimates range from 30-50% as to how much of the US warplane fleet is unmanned and that's now. Considering the civilian drone industry is only just beginning to take off (pardon the punn ) it seems like these problems are already being overcome somewhat. You do make good points though and there are interesting considerations like what should a drone be programed to do if it looses contact for a set amount of time? How will cyberwarfare affect this type of combat, will trying to hack and jam the enemies drones as well as protect your own from these things dominate as well as the drones fighting themselves?

Is the device some sort of Nimean Lion or Death Star that is invulnerable save for some intentionally included or overlooked flaw that renders it far less effective than it otherwise could have been? Or is it just as unstoppable if it is turned against you instead of your enemies? Despite chasing it to the North Pole, Frankensiten was ultimately unable to destroy the monster he had created. Intelligence in this context is secondary to the inability to stop your own creationg from turning against you.

Whilst that is a consideration it only really applies to strong (conscious) AI or some sort of superweapon. Both are questionable as to whether or not they would be desirable or possible. You don't want conscious AI because aside from the fact it's not clear if consciousness is necessary for high intelligence you have ethical and emotional problems to deal with. Superweapons also don't make much sense because outside of soft-SF I can't think of an example where a weapon was made that wasn't incrementally better than those proceeding it. Even a nuclear bomb doesn't really count because it's not like it came with a hypersonic invinsible stealth jet that couldn't be detected or shot down.

As the destructive potential of a weapon rises or the human control over a weapons system is reduced, there is an increased risk of a fault with the device leading to ever-increasing levels of disaster. New safeguards can be installed after the fact but preventing the disaster by requiring a human input is a time-tested safeguard in and of iteself. Sure an army of Terminators is easy to imagine. That doesn't mean anyone short of a madman will build them without requiring them to have direct oversight by a human operator. "Direct" in this case beign a somewhat flexible term. I see real-world StarCraft long, long before Skynet. Probably Forever.

As Drakkith said destructive potential has not been the primary goal of weapon science for a long time, precision striking has. Sure the weapons of a modern jet are more destructive than the generation preceeding it but that improvement is mild (at best) compared to their accuracy, range, speed etc. Along similar lines research into less lethal weapons for the military, police and civilians has come along quite a lot and in interesting ways. With drone technology continuing along with these it's not unreasonable to envision them allowing far more effective and bloodless combat (need to take out a dictator? Send a MAV the size of a hummingbird to fly through his window at night and inject him with tetratoxin).

As far as the weapon being turned back on the owners well just don't make it too powerful and there isn't much of a problem. If one of your unmanned tanks is hacked and starts firing on the others it's just one tank, take it out with your other weapons and defend against it in future.

That is why I make the claim that a weapons system that does not include a human operator carries significantly more (and largely unnecessary) risk to both sides of a conflict than any weapons system that does. It may lean toward being a moral position but it is still fact that at least as far as we can project, a human operator of some kind operating a weapon from within the combat space or remote-operating a weapons system from outside the combat space (which is what I meant by "on the battlefield") will remain a necessary safeguard on all weapons systems. Probably Forever.

How do you mesh this with the fact that even today it is not true? That there are drones that are capable of only taking orders and aren't just flown remotely?

Also consider this: at the moment a human in a jet would win in a fight with a UAV probably all the time. But what if that becomes not true, what if drones in the future are faster and smarter (in aerial combat, don't expect a thrilling critique of economic austerity) than humans and can network together to work as one? In this scenario a country that tries to include humans in the mix will be handicapping themselves. Essentially what we have here is an arms race away from humans. Nation A might well be making the less risky choice of having humans in the mix but when Nation B's autonomous drones invade and outcompete that's not going to be much comfort.

 

[Nimbian]

I think a lot of the misunderstanding here comes from my own conversations with Reaverking over the years. And the nearly endless arguments we've had over this particular part of Computer technology.

For Clarification he might have been seeing AI as what we've termed True AI, as verses an Expert system. if your familiar with the Mass Effect series then think VI, vs AI.

Also today Many military drones do use Expert systems, Drone can be programed to turn off their receiver, follow a preset flight path, drop a bomb, then when they reach a certain location turn on their receiver again and make contact with the controller.

Yet even today some Drones have been hacked, Iran Claims, to have shot down one and forced a landing of the other after hacking it.
I currently have no knowledge of any others but then I haven't looked very hard.

The Authoritarian concept mostly works, but falls down in a few areas, First you need to have Total Intelligence of what every one is doing at all times. Using Spysats would work for most application, (you can track more then the visual spectrum). But if a Cave was deep enough you could avoid the Sats, know enough about the Nanoswarms, or Mico-bots, or other drones, and you could potentially create some thing that could either detect them or shut them down (I call them Bug-zappers in my setting). If you can shut them down, potentially you can reprogram them.

Of course the question is Why would they do it? Shutting down the electricity on half a planet is overkill, but you know Shock and Awe and all that, so possible. Next question is why leave the power off? (I mean other then because you want to write a story where the power is off). If the cause also affects your own technology you wouldn't use it except as a weapon of last resort.

Now a Flip of the Coin could be that the Half the planet without electricity, did it to themselves, and no longer remember why they can't use high tech. Maybe they buried the emitter(s), or its in geosynchronous orbit over their "Hemisphere", or Multiple emitters. (orbit is unlikely since the other side would just use a Kinetic Kill weapon on the satellite)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Will try to post longer answer later but for now re: surveillance. If you're terraforming a planet you need lots of real time detail about how various ecosystems are developing. This means not only monitoring the health, spread etc of organisms but also of abiotic factors like soil pH, daily sunlight etc.

In a society technologically and industrially advanced enough to build a biosphere it's not hard to conceive of micro air vehicles the size of and disguised as insects/birds and have them literally everywhere. Like 1 per metre or more. No need to go micro sized literally.

 

[Nimbian]

It may not be Necessary for them to be micro sized, but they may be much more convenient.

Macro sized robotics require maintenance, or a system of recovering damaged or destroyed probes else in a few years (thinking 10-30 years) the landscape would be littered with broken machines. Micro sized are infinitely more disposable.

Also a slight flaw in your reasoning, they aren't building a Biosphere as much as modifying one. (technically we've been doing that for a few thousand years). They would be taking a Near Earth environment and making it more Earth Like. (to prevent misunderstanding, I view Creating a Biosphere to be like changing the Moon to have an Earth-like ecosystem.) Not saying it wouldn't require the above level of control, but then it may not be necessary. When making a picture in MS Paint you don't need to know where every Pixel is located, until your doing finishing touches. The Above description of Mars may indicate that the process is still only half done. Of course they might just have said Good Enough, if there was some sort of rebellion or religious/pseudo religious uprising on half the planet.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It may not be Necessary for them to be micro sized, but they may be much more convenient.

Macro sized robotics require maintenance, or a system of recovering damaged or destroyed probes else in a few years (thinking 10-30 years) the landscape would be littered with broken machines. Micro sized are infinitely more disposable.

A micro sized machine has very limited uses, least of all how it can actually sense. I think we're thinking along very different lines; I'm viewing the proposal as incredibly cheap, disposable and degradable micro air vehicles. If it's desirable for them to be recycled then they can just be picked up by another drone and the pieces taken to a nearby bin.

Also a slight flaw in your reasoning, they aren't building a Biosphere as much as modifying one. (technically we've been doing that for a few thousand years). They would be taking a Near Earth environment and making it more Earth Like. (to prevent misunderstanding, I view Creating a Biosphere to be like changing the Moon to have an Earth-like ecosystem.) Not saying it wouldn't require the above level of control, but then it may not be necessary. When making a picture in MS Paint you don't need to know where every Pixel is located, until your doing finishing touches. The Above description of Mars may indicate that the process is still only half done. Of course they might just have said Good Enough, if there was some sort of rebellion or religious/pseudo religious uprising on half the planet.

If I could point out a huge flaw in your reasoning, Mars is nowhere near Earth like. It is barely better than the Moon in the fact that it has an atmosphere and more ice but that's about it. I think you seriously misunderstand the scope of the challenge.

 

[Nimbian]

A micro sized machine has very limited uses, least of all how it can actually sense. I think we're thinking along very different lines; I'm viewing the proposal as incredibly cheap, disposable and degradable micro air vehicles. If it's desirable for them to be recycled then they can just be picked up by another drone and the pieces taken to a nearby bin.

Tomato, Tomato (you know, except with different pronunciation)
Both systems could, and likely would work, Its really up to the author at this point to chose, if he/she chooses this Cause at all. Both systems would likely take an incredible amount of resources to produce and put into place.

If I could point out a huge flaw in your reasoning, Mars is nowhere near Earth like. It is barely better than the Moon in the fact that it has an atmosphere and more ice but that's about it. I think you seriously misunderstand the scope of the challenge.

You May of Course point out my flaws
I don't think I'm underestimating it as much as you might think.

The Most important difference from the Moon to Mars is Gravity. Mars has More. 3.711 M/S² vs the Moon at 1.624 M/S². this means that were we capable of adding atmosphere to the Moon or Mars, Mars could support a larger increase.

This leads to the Next area Atmosphere.
The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi), and ranges from a low of 30 pascals (0.0044 psi) on Olympus Mons's peak to over 1,155 pascals (0.1675 psi) in the depths of Hellas Planitia. This compares to Earth's sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi) (i.e. about 0.6% of Earth's). The Moon is effectively a Vacuum. More then any thing else, managing the Atmosphere is going to be the most challenging, which means adding close to 5000 teratons of material to the atmosphere. Or much less if you stop at approx 70kPa, (at martian sea level) (This Material can come from below ground, Asteroids, and cometary masses, over time.) Genetically engineered plants could survive there now. I remember reading that a company out of the EU wanted (perhaps still does) to send a test strand of a grass to mars.

The Moon is Tide Locked with a sidereal rotational Period (day) of 27.321582 d, Mars has a Sidereal Rotational Period (Day) of 24.622 9 h

Mars has an Active weather system which in of itself is important. and as you have already mentioned it has larger Ice pockets.

The Second largest issue is Heating, Once/if Atmospheric pressure gets high enough, more and more green house effects will happen, raising the overall temperature. But without some sort of Space Mirror or other solar light concentrator Mars will always be a chilly world. The Moon actually stands a better chance here, provided Earth doesn't tear its atmosphere off, since the Moon shares the Earths Orbit from the sun.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Both systems would likely take an incredible amount of resources to produce and put into place.

Against the backdrop of a multi-century terraforming and colonisation project that's like worrying over the price of the master bedroom's carpet after you've built a palace :tongue2: also it might not be that expensive at all. I'm thinking along the lines of fractions of a penny/cent for each unit.

As always others have put it better:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/08/how-low-power-can-you-go.html

You May of Course point out my flaws
I don't think I'm underestimating it as much as you might think.

All of that is all well and good but Mars is (for all intents and purposes) completely abiotic and inhospitable to terrestrial life. It will take monumental effort to change the composition and thickness of the atmosphere and of the soil just to get it ready for an ecosystem (and how one goes about assembling an ecosystem in an area without one already is a big challenge).

 

[Nimbian]

The Composition of the Atmosphere doesn't need to change much for Plants and bacteria. it needs to change a lot for Humans and other animals to be able to survive. Ideally you would use simple plants and bacteria to start this change. It would likely take at least some genetic engineering or cross breeding to create a life form that can survive in the hostile environment.

As for the rest of it. yes it would likely take a monumental effort with modern or near future technology.

But I think we are side tracking the thread again.
we seem to have a habit of doing that...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The Composition of the Atmosphere doesn't need to change much for Plants and bacteria. it needs to change a lot for Humans and other animals to be able to survive. Ideally you would use simple plants and bacteria to start this change. It would likely take at least some genetic engineering or cross breeding to create a life form that can survive in the hostile environment.

That's one of those things for which the phrase "easier said than done" was designed for. If it was that easy we'd have jungles instead of deserts.

As for the rest of it. yes it would likely take a monumental effort with modern or near future technology.

But I think we are side tracking the thread again.
we seem to have a habit of doing that...

lol quite :tongue2: