What Would Starships Ship As Cargo Across the galaxy?

[2DaveWixon]

I just read something that made me think of this thread.

Australia used to have a fly problem until they introduced the african dung beetle which drastically reduced the fly population (due to the amount of cattle dung).

Whether this was true or not it could be an interesting type of cargo, Since you cannot 3D print living things. It could be possible that transporting different animal species to certain planets that would benefit from these animals being on there. Ones with heavy vegetation that needs clearing or as pest control. Or even for agriculture reasons (dung/fertiliser)

Does that count as a very primitive form of terraforming?

 

[2DaveWixon]

I have read the replies, but I've missed this, I apologise. I would suggest fuel. Even in an FTL universe I'd assume that at some point ships would require refueling and interplanetary fuel stops would be if not essential then at least prudent. Fuel transporters would replenish the fuel stations and allow for the extension of commerce and exploration.

But it would likely be cheaper to transport the equipment you need to manufacture new fuel on site -- if, that is, the raw materials are there.

 

[Vertigo]

It would be an extraordinary star system that had no resources from which to process fuel. And one that would probably be extremely unattractive for occupation. You might have an occasional location (I hesitate to say system) like this for strategic reasons but it would likely be so rare as to make such commerce extremely specialised.

 

[Tim Murray]

That sounds fun. May I ask what kinds of appliances she delivers

Cook tops, 150 cubic foot fridges and Ion powered incinerator waste management units, plus more.

 

[Zebra Wizard]

Does that count as a very primitive form of terraforming?

Yea, but imagine bio-engineered plants or animals that could terraform instead of machines? plants that spread and grow extremely fast. You would have no need to build or have people work on a planet, just dump them and watch from orbit until it was ready.

 

[VinceK]

But it would likely be cheaper to transport the equipment you need to manufacture new fuel on site -- if, that is, the raw materials are there.

It would be an extraordinary star system that had no resources from which to process fuel. And one that would probably be extremely unattractive for occupation. You might have an occasional location (I hesitate to say system) like this for strategic reasons but it would likely be so rare as to make such commerce extremely specialised.

I agree with both points. However there may be a system where there are no raw materials to manufacture fuel, but there is a planet that has a resource so precious it warrants the installation of a fuel station.

 

[ErikB]

Provided a scifi fictional setting where starships shipped cargo across teh galaxy, what would they logically ship?

I watched The Martian and learned that it is possible to grow food anywhere there is air, dirt, fertilizer, and water (some of which you can bring with you). Granted, IRL physics states the iron content of his Martian potatoes would have given him cancer long before the three years of his Martian adventure was up, but it illustrates that shipping food would not be necessary for space colonies that are established.

I know tech level matters here, and FTL starships is such a high tech level that food should not be difficult. Things I can think of that are plausible are:

Restaurant starships: Freeze the food and deliver it. Or you could even use stasis fields for even fresher foods if you have that tech. Everybody has food, but people will pay for exotic foods that worlds won't transplant to other worlds since they make good money selling it with exotic recipes they don't want to export out (though I'm sure some will try.

People always think of only the war aspects, when the other aspects of scifi are every bit as interesting.

Your thoughts? I want plausible, logical ideas. Thanks.

The obvious is necessities. Food, water, fuel, equipment, oxygen (and other gases), construction materials, seeds, live stock (probably in embryonic stasis), vehicles, weapons, labourers, slaves, prisoners, waste/garbage, soil or mineral concentrations/compounds, technology, valuables, exotic goods, drugs or alcohol, illegal items or contraband, wildlife, medicines, or anything that presented a value or trade commodity aspect to it.

Whether commerce is profit based, or needs and barter based, a good shipper or merchant could amass quite a bit of power or wealth or whatever it was that they sought depending on whom they traded or dealt with and how they conducted their living.

 

[Parson]

@ErikB ... If the necessities need to be shipped the odds are that there will be a very small number of people needing them. Probably meaning that whatever colonies there are will be there for military reasons, and therefore military transport.

 

[ErikB]

Not sure why you might limit freighter transport to colonies or small outposts. It is just as likely to be star systems trading resources. Planets within a system doing business with each other, or what about massive invasion fleets fighting in whole sections of the galaxy? The scale is not inherent to any size limit either way...

I am a bit baffled by the limitation of your concept for trade and transport. I mean why can't or wouldn't empires or civilizations be conducting cosmic commerce?

The answer is that trade and commerce would be larger with fuller scales of civilization. Trade would become more prevalent as more factors cane into play.

Just one view point.

 

[Montero]

I think it does all come back to energy consumption, maturity of technology and economics. Archaeology shows there has been commerce for millennia - for example the Romans (or their neighbours) were trading wine and olives into the south of Britain long before they invaded and buying tin from Cornwall. But both of those were fairly high value items and not what I'd call a bulk cargo.
These days we are doing such things as bringing in throwaway plastic toys from half way around the world - because the economics currently make sense - the sort of economics where you manufacture where labour is cheap and then burn a lot of fossil fuel to transport the cheaply manufactured goods. When you think on a scale where every item has to be hauled out of a gravity well on a planet, I think the economics change.

 

[Ursa major]

Not sure why you might limit freighter transport to colonies or small outposts.

Because, for instance, you mentioned

necessities. Food, water, fuel, equipment, oxygen (and other gases)....

Why on Earth () would a very large number of people be living on a world that had to rely on starships delivering their food and/or water?

 

[ErikB]

Because, for instance, you mentioned

Why on Earth () would a very large number of people be living on a world that had to rely on starships delivering their food and/or water?

I'm not aware that the discussion was limited to humans or Earth. I had assumed the subject blanketed trade and commerce in general. I suppose I should check the post again.

If it says "what sort of things would humans carry about cargo ships based on Earth technology only a bit ahead of our own" then perhaps you are spot on.

I checked the header however and it only says starships...

The notion that you see starships as humans in a low tech state would lend credence to your opinion. But even if we ignore the idea of aliens conducting trade and day to day (light year to light year? LOL) commercial trade, there is also the idea of humans in a far advanced state of technology.

The idea of self sufficiency still ignores the fact that needs from other regions be they food, weapons, materials not available where they reside, exotic products, or slaves, laborers, unusual chemicals or minerals, or whatever else is desired would still take place.

Example. You live on planet X. Your world is rich in mineral deposits. However in spite of being entirely self sufficient you lack the military strength to keep raiding worlds from attacking your world for its wealth and resources.

Perhaps a trade deal with planet Y is a good idea given that while they have excellent and self sufficient stocks and technology they lack the mineral compounds needed to further their production goals. And given that they are aligned with a hostile warring species from planet Z (supplying them with technology to support advanced weapons and ships) then a trade agreement and regular deliveries of goods and services between X Y & Z might be a perfect way to prevent planets A B & C from trouncing your miniral rich self sufficient but defenses poor world.

Just a simple example.

But I think that given the question of the thread was primarily "what" would be carried, the secondary reasons of justification are just as expansive or limited as the species or technology involved with said transports or cargo vessels.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm not aware that the discussion was limited to humans or Earth.

Nope, I didn't mention humans. I said people**. Aliens are people, aren't they? They are in my novels (as yet unpublished and... er... not yet edited into a fit state to be published...).

Anyway, you said "necessities" -- that was the bit of your post I was expressly querying -- and stated that you weren't talking about colonies or small outposts.

So I ask again: why would a lot of people be living on a world where food, water, and even oxygen, all had to be imported from another star system? What are those people doing there in such numbers? Dying of hunger or thirst, or choking to death, would seem to be the most obvious answers. How would they pay*** for it all? (It isn't as if stuff brought to them in a starship is likely to be cheap.)


** - I did mention the Earth... as a pun. Obviously, I wasn't suggesting that anyone on Earth required water, oxygen or food to be delivered to them across the galaxy (as the title of the thread states) by starship. After all, we already have rather a lot of our own.

*** - If there was no water or oxygen, surely any mining (and ore processing) would be mostly automated; it certainly wouldn't require a workforce totally dependent on expensive imported oxygen and water. A mining colony that relied on starships bringing the necessities wouldn't have a huge workforce made up of people (alien or otherwise) with picks and shovels in their hands/tentacles (who may or may not occasionally use explosives developed to work in an oxygen-free atmosphere). The mining operations would have equipment, all of it managed by as small a workforce as possible.

 

[ErikB]

Fair enough.

I assume by small work force we are not talking midgets/dwarves/little people?

Kidding.

An interesting chat, but entirely subjective I suppose. Cheers!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Why on Earth () would a very large number of people be living on a world that had to rely on starships delivering their food and/or water?

Probably for the same reason the UK imports food and drinks (even water!) from overseas. Trade serves demand not need.

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, but the context was one in which the descriptive term used for them was "necessities" which, to me, implies a need.

 

[ErikB]

Yes, but the context was one in which the descriptive term used for them was "necessities" which, to me, implies a need.

Actually I brought up necessities in an earlier post (others may have as well) and the subject was run with though I don't believe it was a strong part of the original thread narrative.

Sorry if this contributed to a side tracked discussion. I mentioned non essentials and luxury or desired items as well but that subject was glanced over. Hence the small back and forth centering on needs verses wants.

Either way I think commerce will always find a way. Its like water seeking the path of flow.
Trade and profit will always seek an opportunity given enough desire or need backing it.

 

[Parson]

@ErikB --- I've thought about your post and mine and I think I'm going to change my mind a little. I am making the assumption that star travel is going to be at least as expensive as using an SST (think Concorde) to haul freight, if not as expensive as using the Space Shuttle. If either of those is the case your "necessities" become very expensive indeed and the likelihood of hauling huge quantities of material and necessities implies huge quantities, is only sensible for a very small "people" presence. Now if it's only as expensive as train or ship transport, then I would agree that you might see some instances where the "necessities" (air?, water, food, raw materials, etc.) might be shipped in.

 

[Dave]

A lot of this discussion is dependent on which "other" technologies have been invented or not:

1. I think we are assuming these cargo ships are FTL. Only that Larry Niven's Known Space series has ramscoop "slowboats" carrying goods to colonies with varying degrees of success and unintended effects. (He also has a planet in Destiny's Road that is devoid of naturally occurring Potassium.) However, a colony that is completely dependent on other worlds is unlikely to be sustainable. It would be rather like an Antarctic research station and I'd have to agree with @Ursa major that the colony size would be severely limited. @Brian Turner rightly says that trade is dependent upon demand rather than need, but there must be something there to trade in exchange.
2. If we have molecular assemblers we can build any material we like from raw elemental ingredients. With replicators we can manufacture anything. Once these machines are taken to the colony they would be self-sufficient (apart from weird planets like in Destiny's Road.) This would be a "post scarcity" society in which money and things no longer have much value and ideas are worth more as in Iain Bank's Culture. Star Trek got over the idea of replicators by inventing Dilithium Crystals - a kind of handwavium that is rare but vital to control the fusion reactors of starships. However, Star Trek lost the plot by DS9 and had all sorts of trade going on. Fuel would be "in demand" but gas giants are large and common and Hydrogen is ubiquitous. Other "rare" elements are also fairly common in asteroids. I think it would be a long time before these resources were all owned by someone and mining them was restricted. Oxygen might be the biggest problem, there is a lot of Oxygen but it is combined as gaseous oxides or in silicates and clay minerals and would require a lot of energy to release. Teraforming (as in turning Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen with plants) would be a very slow process.
   
3. We wouldn't need to trade biological samples (great though the @Zebra Wizard idea of Dung Beetles is) if we could create them from the DNA. Some elements of this discussion (and particularly this) can be found in Seveneves by Neal Stephenson. All we would need is the catalogue and the equipment to create them.

So, depending on the level of technology, after the initial set-up with a turn-key package of hi-tech equipment I don't see much cargo being transported. Trade would be in ideas - in new catalogues to make better equipment and biological creatures, changes in fashion, and also news and gossip - which could all be sent digitally. If you need to have "trade" in your story then you need to think of your own handwavium (such as Spice in Dune.)

 

[Vertigo]

And possibly:
art/craft - in a world where everything can be manufactured automatically anything made by hand would likely have value
Luxuries - whilst we can produce wine in the UK, wine from France and elsewhere is generally better and so we pay the price to import it

For me the biggest question is how expensive is your interstellar travel? @Parson's comparison with Concorde is very valid. I simply cannot conceive of any form of interstellar travel that is not going to be of a cost that doesn't make producing stuff locally far cheaper - if not on your actual planet then elsewhere in the same system. Even if we ever mange to discover some sort of FTL I cannot see any physical way of moving a significant mass over such large distances that is not going to be expensive in materials, energy and manpower. You can't get around the Laws of Thermodynamics; that's why they are called laws unlike the theories of general or special relativity.