Again, it's not sound that's being transmitted it's a 10000m/s expanding cloud of gas like one that would be cause by and explosive cannon shell. Do you have any experience in what being hit by a very thin but very fast wave of gas in a vacuum is like? No? Then you can't really say if the resulting sounds (of which you admit there would be at least some that your ship could then amplify) are loud or quiet.
Re sound: I do agree that many of the sounds such as your shells hitting distant enemies are computer generated, hit confirmation is very important. I'm just pointing out that not all of the sounds necessarily are.
Again your missing the point. I am only suggesting that many things can be heard in space (via major and micro impacts of high speed particles and gases on your ship), not all things. At one point I readily admitted that much of the sound is probably generated onboard but some of it may be merely amplified. NASA (unsuprisingly) hasn't done tests on if detonating a large bomb near the ISS can be heard by the onboard astronauts so we still don't know what such an even would even sound like.
I'm just sick of people weighing in on these conversations with no more knowledge of astrophysics than "There's no sound and no friction, duh!". While both are these statements are technically true they far from tell the whole story.
No sound can be transmited through a vacuum conventionally... but a lot things would still cause sounds to be heard by nearby ship inhabitants, such as explosions.
No friction will slow down ships... but all ships will have to be able to keep their own speed constantly under control unless they wish to drastically change their orbit.
--
So, you are saying hit confirmation is provided by computer but not other sounds? Sounds like you are over complicating something very simple...
Here is a quote from Will Wheaton (RIP) a senior JPL member, physicist and nuclear scientist, regarding a theoretical explosion in space:
--- QUOTE ---
This is one of those things that Hollywood will almost always get wrong, because they want them to look like the audience expects them to look, and have absolutely no interest in teaching physics!
There is not too much data available (in public, anyhow) on what explosions in space really look like, so I will have to limit myself to what I think they should look like. (At least I do have an interest in teaching physics.)
Details about the amount of energy and matter involved in the explosion affect the appearance. A universal generality, true in space as on Earth, is that, other things being equal, a larger explosion (inevitably seen from a larger distance by any witnesses who survive to describe it) appears to happen more slowly than a smaller explosion seen from closer at hand. However, bear in mind that the actual energy release event of any actual explosion happens very quickly.
On Earth, the interaction with the surrounding matter, be it air, water, or whatever, means that the initial energy is very quickly, in a few milliseconds, spread out over a fairly large amount of matter, no matter what the nature of the explosive. This material, typically air, forms a luminous fireball that expands at the speed of sound in the air that has been heated by the explosion, which is faster than the speed of sound in ordinary cool air. The result is a shock wave at the surface of the fireball. As the fireball expands it compresses and heats the surrounding air, while losing energy by radiation and also because of the work it is doing on the outside air, all of which causes it to cool. Eventually it cools to the point where it is no longer luminous, the shock wave moves out ahead and makes the BANG! that we hear and that may knock down buildings, and a cloud of swirling debris, smoke, and maybe brownish nitrogen oxides are left behind.
In space, the first few milliseconds proceed as they would in air (say), but then the transfer of energy to the surrounding air never takes place. As a result the initial small, intensely hot fireball simply keeps expanding at very high speed, and the expanding gases and any fragments fly off in straight lines. The fireball cools by radiation at first,
but as its density drops it becomes so transparent that radiation is suppressed. For a chemical high explosive, the expansion speed would be a few thousand feet per second. So for a moderate size explosive -- say 1 meter across --
the products will expand to 100 meters in probably less than 0.1 sec, meaning the density will have decreased by a factor of a million, and the visible explosion will effectively be over. Visually the effect would be of a very brief, brilliant flash in a region only a little bigger than the actual extent of the explosive material. Of course there would be no billowing swirling smoke, and any fragments would almost certainly be moving too fast to be visible. The effect would probably be something like that of a big flashbulb.
For a nuclear explosion, the fireball would radiate mainly in the x-ray and ultraviolet, which are not visible to the eye, although the visible part of the radiation would produce a blue-white flash. The expansion speed would be many hundreds or thousands of times faster than for a chemical explosion, so that the time scale would be less than a millisecond. All the material near the source would be vaporized, so there would be no fragments. If the explosion was truly in space, and not in a tenuous atmosphere, then viewed from a survivable distance the effect would probably be similar to, but even less spectacular than, a chemical explosion.
--- END QUOTE ---
Notice that Wheaton states that the energy will attenuate by a factor of 1,000,000 over just 100m and that since space is a vacuum there will be no air to constrain and conversely propagate the shockwave (the tsunami effect - i.e. energy of an earthquake is propagated by a liquid medium to devastating effect) meaning that a concussion grenade or other shockwave device in space will be worthless.
Even at several tens of km above the Earth, sounds are attenuated requiring radios to communicate even a few metres... In space the only sounds you'd hear would be shrapnel hitting the hull, certainly not sounds of engines or others.
From a physics point of view, the nature of the "plasma clouds" and gas clouds would be far too tenuous to deliver sounds that the human ear is capable of picking up... (a few atoms per cubic cm will not transmit enough energy to the eardrum)...
So, in conclusion, sir, I must respectfully state that someone who is sick of people weighing in with physics might well be better served by learning the difference between "you're" and "your."
