Space Combat

[3point14]

After reading the thread about the Enterpise taking on a Star Destroyer, I found myself wondering about the actual problems involved in space combat and if it could really happen.

What is the likelyhood of spacecraft ever going into combat with each other? Is it ever going to be feasible? What would the weapons be (kinetic energy weapons only?). What would the tactics be? Or is the whole question moot because space combat just isn't viable anyway.

My knowledge on the subject is pretty poor, really, I was just wondering if anyone smarter than me had any thoughts.

[Mister Earl]

I've thought about stuff like this before, mostly as a mental exercise and to amuse myself. The capabilities and the situation with the enemy would dictate what weaponry you use and how you would deploy it. Let me give you one example:

For this mental exercise, I put the enemy in planetary orbit already, equipped with good detection systems and countermeasures, both electronic and weapon countermeasures. Ideally, the way I would go about destroying them is to have weapons packages in various orbits beforehand. The primary means of tracking these packages would be radar, so they'd have to have radar absorbing casings. I'm not sure whether or not LIDAR would be effective in space, so I left that out. Now, ideally, you'd use these weapons packages already in orbit to attack without notice, so as to limit retaliation. In a perfect scenario, all targets would be engaged simultaneously and destroyed within moments of each other. A figured a kinetic impactor would be best for this kind of thing. So I mentally constructed my weapons packages as one-use radar-absorbing shells full of steel ball bearings, with slow but stealthy orbital adjustment systems. Chemical rockets, however small, would leave a thermal signature, so I figured ion engines would be better. Very slow, but efficient over time. Now, the battle plan would be thus: All packages in orbit to take part in the strike would synchronize orbits with the target, in a manner that brought them into intersecting orbits with their targets at roughly the same time. Within a minute or so of striking, each shell would open up and disperse its steel ball bearing payload. Effectively, this is like a shotgun in space, at orbital velocities. The structural damage that any target would take from this sort of thing would be severe if not immediately fatal to the crew.

[shadron]

My boy, you simply haven't read enough fiction. David Weber has several excellent series in which he seems to lift British naval tactics into space, and it has run onto some 20 or so books.

The point is that we'll not know what the dynamics of fighting in space (or whether it is even feasible/profitable to do so) until we get there and see what our technology will bear. Perhaps it will be long range missile duels and short range enemy weapons; perhaps it will be board-and-capture.

[big-E]

As always when questions of realistic space propulsion/travel/exploration/combat come up I recommend the peerless Atomic Rockets website, which is well worth reading (it might take up rather a lot of your time, mind you).

Specifically for the OP, check out the Space War section, starting here:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html

[KingMerv00]

Stealth would be nearly impossible. Spaceships need to be warm because of the need for life support. Warmth is easy to spot against a cold background. Insulation is out of the question too. Trapping all that heat on board a spaceship would roast the crew.

[ben m]

Stealth would be nearly impossible. Spaceships need to be warm because of the need for life support. Warmth is easy to spot against a cold background. Insulation is out of the question too. Trapping all that heat on board a spaceship would roast the crew.

If your enemy is in a particular direction, you could rotate your craft to show them a cold face, while you radiate heat from the other side.

[SOdhner]

My dad told me about a story he read once where the attacking ship headed right for its target at a fairly insane speed, then flipped around and rocketed away at full thrust. The exhaust continued towards the other ship, at a significant fraction of light speed, and by the time the attacker had halted his forward momentum and headed back home there wasn't anything left of his enemy.

[Mark6]

My boy, you simply haven't read enough fiction. David Weber has several excellent series in which he seems to lift British naval tactics into space, and it has run onto some 20 or so books.

They may be excellent stories (YMMV -- I don't find them so), but they use no only made-up physics such as FTL, but physics made-up specifically to make British naval tactics in space possible. It bears no relation to reality.

The point is that we'll not know what the dynamics of fighting in space (or whether it is even feasible/profitable to do so) until we get there and see what our technology will bear. Perhaps it will be long range missile duels and short range enemy weapons; perhaps it will be board-and-capture.
True, we don't know. But I think it is pretty safe to say that dynamics of Weber's books will remain fiction.

[KingMerv00]

If your enemy is in a particular direction, you could rotate your craft to show them a cold face, while you radiate heat from the other side.

Hmmm...I like that.

[ArmillarySphere]

Harry Harrison seems to favour railguns with individually-targeted projectiles in Starworld. Nuke-tipped missiles can be countered by detonating a counter-nuke in front of the approaching missiles. Fragile things, those missiles...

I'd like to go counter to common opinion and say that stealth is very much possible. While you can't hide from someone who is looking in your direction, knowing where to look is a different matter. As long as you don't stand out too badly from all the other jillion space rocks, there's no reason why an enemy would take note of you either. Heat is not unique to space craft either - asteroids emit plenty of heat, so make like a rock.

[Safe-Keeper]

Hull breaches would probably be fairly serious, given that all the oxygen would gush out. Maybe you could solve that by having canisters of compressed "reserve air" that you could release into the craft once the hull breach has been sealed. Or perhaps not.

Of course, all we really need is to invent an X-Wing, and we're home free:).

[SOdhner]

I'd like to go counter to common opinion and say that stealth is very much possible. While you can't hide from someone who is looking in your direction, knowing where to look is a different matter.


That was my initial reaction, but now I'm swinging the other way. Looking at how current technology is advancing, I think it's reasonable to say you could be watching all around you and noting anything that isn't moving right or wasn't there before. It would still be possible to hide I'm sure, but it might be very, very tricky.

[Bikewer]

Greg Bear explores space-warfare tactics (and strategy) to some degree in The Forge Of God and to a much greater degree in it's sequel, Anvil of Stars.
Bear thinks in terms of very high-tech indeed, with great use of Von Neumann-type self-replicating machines.
Super-G maneuvers are accomplished by means of fields that support the body down to the cellular level.

I've thought about what a "space fighter" might look like, after seeing film after film with such craft mimicking WWII dogfight footage.
The unanswered problem is propulsion... In order to carry enough reaction mass to use a conventional rocket, the craft would have to be very large, and very hot as well which might be a death sentence given homing missiles.
I'd be more inclined to think in terms of smart or even "brilliant" autonomous weapons deployed at great distances.

[TraneWreck]

If there's one thing I have faith in, it's humanity's ability to figure out how to kill one another in any environment, space included.

[KingMerv00]

I'd like to go counter to common opinion and say that stealth is very much possible. While you can't hide from someone who is looking in your direction, knowing where to look is a different matter. As long as you don't stand out too badly from all the other jillion space rocks, there's no reason why an enemy would take note of you either. Heat is not unique to space craft either - asteroids emit plenty of heat, so make like a rock.

That's the thing. Space is empty. REALLY REALLY empty. Even the famous asteroid belt is incredibly sparse. The odds of encountering a random sizable "space rock" is basically zero so it isn't hard to look at everything.

[I Ratant]

Orbital mechanics will drive most interactions.
It would need some manner of thrust to get around the nominal elliptical paths between objects at different orientations and distances.
Thrusters would leave clues in their trails.
But as mentioned man will finger out a way to kill other men in space.
We do that.

[mikeyx]

After reading the thread about the Enterpise taking on a Star Destroyer, I found myself wondering about the actual problems involved in space combat and if it could really happen.

What is the likelyhood of spacecraft ever going into combat with each other? Is it ever going to be feasible? What would the weapons be (kinetic energy weapons only?). What would the tactics be? Or is the whole question moot because space combat just isn't viable anyway.

My knowledge on the subject is pretty poor, really, I was just wondering if anyone smarter than me had any thoughts.

If they did it wouldn't be like star wars, stuff doesn't "explode" and make zappy noises in a vaccuum.

[mikeyx]

Stealth would be nearly impossible. Spaceships need to be warm because of the need for life support. Warmth is easy to spot against a cold background. Insulation is out of the question too. Trapping all that heat on board a spaceship would roast the crew.

NOT if they were drones, ie unmanned.

[JoeyDonuts]

Mass Effect has a surprising amount of literature in-game about the idea.

Combat at FTL speeds is essentially impossible, according to the game.
Engagements happen rapidly and at "knife-fight" ranges, with point defense weapons and large-scale directed energy beams.

There's a rather funny conversation you can eavesdrop on in Mass Effect 2 where a gunnery sergeant is explaining to a group of recruits that Sir Isaac Newton is the baddest son of a bitch in space. I.E. if you miss with that 10-KT warhead you just fired, you could completely ruin someones day 5 days, 10 weeks, or 10,000 years down the line.

[Safe-Keeper]

There's a rather funny conversation you can eavesdrop on in Mass Effect 2 where a gunnery sergeant is explaining to a group of recruits that Sir Isaac Newton is the baddest son of a bitch in space. I.E. if you miss with that 10-KT warhead you just fired, you could completely ruin someones day 5 days, 10 weeks, or 10,000 years down the line. If it's a video, it's on YouTube.

p77XnhzJz7g

[JoeyDonuts]

A-ha! That would be it. Many thanks.

One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning of ME2.

I won't spoil it for those that haven't played it, but the effect of being in a vaccuum is pretty well done. Dead Space also does this fairly well from an audio standpoint.

[Fnord]

If your enemy is in a particular direction, you could rotate your craft to show them a cold face, while you radiate heat from the other side.

"Captain, we're detecting a wide-area thermal signature from the debris field. It wasn't there a minute ago, but it is consistent with that of the enemy vessel."

"Scan for a 'hole' in the anomaly."

"Aye ... detected. Bearing 232 mark 80. Range 7 clicks."

"Lock a drone onto target. Run it passive to within 1 click, then bring it full active."

"Target locked."

"Fire. Helm, bring us about 5 degrees to port and accelerate at point-zero-five gee."

"Aye. 5 mark point-zero-five."

"Drone closing on target ... enemy vessel firing CIWS ... direct hit ... drone destroyed."

"Break silent running. Full alert. Lock helmets. Bring turrets to bear on target. Fire when ready..."

[KingMerv00]

"Captain, we're detecting a wide-area thermal signature from the debris field. It wasn't there a minute ago, but it is consistent with that of the enemy vessel."

What debris field? You're in space. If there has ever been a place that lacks debris fields, it's open space.

[SatanicSheep]

What is the likelyhood of spacecraft ever going into combat with each other? Is it ever going to be feasible? What would the weapons be (kinetic energy weapons only?). What would the tactics be? Or is the whole question moot because space combat just isn't viable anyway.


I'm surprised nobody mentioned the USSR's Salyut 3. It's widely believed to have conducted a successful test of an aircraft cannon against a satellite.

[SatanicSheep]

I admit it's not as sexy as the Death Star.

[Safe-Keeper]

I admit it's not as sexy as the Death Star.
Tarkin: We have decided to test this new weapon on this defunct satellite.
Leia: Oh.
...
Tarkin: ...yeah.
Leia: So... whenever you're ready.

[Fnord]

What debris field? You're in space. If there has ever been a place that lacks debris fields, it's open space.
Yeah, a bit of a reach, that. Too much space opera. Sorry.

Still, there would be no 'perfect' insulator, just as there is no 'perfect' vacuum seal. The thermal emissions of an enemy vessel could still be detected, either through the insulation, or reflected off the gases (hydrazine from the thrusters?) from the ship. Either way, it's a matter of who has the most reliable IR detectors versus who has the best IR masking capability.

[Fnord]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the USSR's Salyut 3. It's widely believed to have conducted a successful test of an aircraft cannon against a satellite.
I think that it was confirmed on Nova*. Googling "Salyut 3" and "Almaz" leads to a lot of websites.

The gun seems to have been fired in the direction of the orbital path so as to help slow down the craft for a forced re-entry. The craft burned up on re-entry in January of 1975.

EDITED TO ADD: *Nova: "Astrospies (http://forums.randi.org/SPYING ON THE U.S.)", Chapter 5, "Spying on the U.S."

[dasmiller]

Yeah, a bit of a reach, that. Too much space opera. Sorry.

Still, there would be no 'perfect' insulator, just as there is no 'perfect' vacuum seal. The thermal emissions of an enemy vessel could still be detected, either through the insulation, or reflected off the gases (hydrazine from the thrusters?) from the ship. Either way, it's a matter of who has the most reliable IR detectors versus who has the best IR masking capability.

You don't need a perfect insulator; you could actively cool the visible surfaces to the cosmic background temperature. Now, could you get your radiative surfaces to radiate with the nifty black-body spectrum of the background radiation? If not, then you'd still be detectable to sophisticated sensors.

---

Later, when I have more time, I'll launch my rant about how I love to speculate about this stuff but I can't even suspend disbelief of my own posts.

[I Ratant]

If they did it wouldn't be like star wars, stuff doesn't "explode" and make zappy noises in a vaccuum.
.
"In Space, no one can hear you scream".
I loved that one!

[I Ratant]

Tarkin: We have decided to test this new weapon on this defunct satellite.
Leia: Oh.
...
Tarkin: ...yeah.
Leia: So... whenever you're ready.
.
USAF did that. But they chose a functioning contributing satellite as target.
:(

[Safe-Keeper]

If they did it wouldn't be like star wars, stuff doesn't "explode" and make zappy noises in a vaccuum. But there's still red and green blaster bolts, right? :puppy eyes:

[Blue Mountain]

The tactics may end up similar to submarine warfare. Certainly there are similarities in the theatre: a large three dimensional space that's mostly empty. Most of the time the submarines are trying to be stealthy, both from ships on the surface (in space: planets) and other submarines in the sea.

[Fnord]

The tactics may end up similar to submarine warfare. Certainly there are similarities in the theatre: a large three dimensional space that's mostly empty. Most of the time the submarines are trying to be stealthy, both from ships on the surface (in space: planets) and other submarines in the sea.
The major difference being that SONAR would be ineffective (no sound in a vacuum), while the entire EM spectrum could theoretically be an open window, including ELF radio, shortwave, microwave, I/R, visible, U/V, X-Ray and beyond.

[Fnord]

You don't need a perfect insulator; you could actively cool the visible surfaces to the cosmic background temperature. Now, could you get your radiative surfaces to radiate with the nifty black-body spectrum of the background radiation? If not, then you'd still be detectable to sophisticated sensors.
To get all of your radiative surfaces to mimic that of a black-body at ~2.725°K, the interior of your vessel would have to convert all of it's interior thermal emissions (at ~295°K) to some form of energy, and either store that energy for later disposal, or disperse it by some undetectable means. Otherwise, the interior temperature of your vessel would steadily increase, and provide a who new meaning of "Heat Death" for your crew to ponder.

This is in keeping with the principles of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

[Michael Mozina]

After reading the thread about the Enterpise taking on a Star Destroyer, I found myself wondering about the actual problems involved in space combat and if it could really happen.

What is the likelyhood of spacecraft ever going into combat with each other?

I'd like to hope it's relatively unlikely, but human history would suggest otherwise. :( What a horrible waste of effort.

[BenBurch]

Spacecraft are fragile. You can destroy one with a handful of sand moving at orbital velocity.

[catsmate1]

What debris field? You're in space. If there has ever been a place that lacks debris fields, it's open space.
After blowing up a few ships there'd probably be some........

The major difference being that SONAR would be ineffective (no sound in a vacuum), while the entire EM spectrum could theoretically be an open window, including ELF radio, shortwave, microwave, I/R, visible, U/V, X-Ray and beyond.

I think the analogy is more about the use of sensors, rather than their technology. Passive systems monitoring for any suspect emissions or occlusion would be the norm, as with modern submarine warfare; active sensors would provide far more, and more detailed, data but disclose the vessel's position.
This would probably lead to mounting active arrays on drones and using the mothership's passive sensors to detect the reflected results. Which has been experimented with in submarine warfare.

[dasmiller]

To get all of your radiative surfaces to mimic that of a black-body at ~2.725°K, the interior of your vessel would have to convert all of it's interior thermal emissions (at ~295°K) to some form of energy, and either store that energy for later disposal, or disperse it by some undetectable means.

Agree; I thought this was all in follow-up to the earlier post about keeping your heat output pointed away from any potential observers. The out-of-view radiators could be almost arbitrarily hot.

Otherwise, the interior temperature of your vessel would steadily increase, and provide a who new meaning of "Heat Death" for your crew to ponder.

Along that line, I'd recommend Passage At Arms (http://www.amazon.com/Passage-at-Arms-Glen-Cook/dp/1597801194/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280862025&sr=8-25) by Glen Cook.

[dasmiller]

This would probably lead to mounting active arrays on drones and using the mothership's passive sensors to detect the reflected results. Which has been experimented with in submarine warfare.

and in bistatic radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar)

[Sledge]

I admit it's not as sexy as the Death Star.

"Don't be so proud of this technological terror you've created. The power to destroy a satellite is insignificant compared to... well, compared to this .380 pocket pistol, really. I mean, yes, blowing up satellites is cool, but we're just going to have to replace them once we've conquered the planet. Whereas if I hold this .380 to their leader's head, that'll pretty much end things. So... yeah."

[GeorgeDorn]

Spacecraft are fragile. You can destroy one with a handful of sand moving at orbital velocity.

Indeed.

A couple of thoughts from reading too much Iain M. Banks:

To bombard a planet all you need is to land a robotdriven mass ejector propulsion system on an asteroid and accelerate it as much as you can towards the target. If you could get it to a decent percentage of lightspeed noone would even see it come before it hit and it owuld be the equivalent of several 1000 nuclear bombs.

War machines in space would be just that. There wouldnt be no crew on board. They would be controlled remotely or by computer alone. The insane amount of G they need to pull to manoevre and evade would incapacitate or outright kill a human being.

In Banks' novel The Algebraist there is a pretty cool description of a solar system wide battle where a "starfleet" is on it's way from another solar system. They send near-lightspeed reconnaissance troops in advance to spread scatter mines and take out select targets, whereupon the main fleet arrives with the actual firepower and after them the cleanup troops. They have humans onboard though. permanently immersed in shock-gel hooked up to lifesupport systems and computers.

In most of his novels war is taken care of by Rapid Offensive Units which are fully sentient war ships, equipped with forcefields, effector-weapons (that can render alien computer systems useless from distance), antimatter bombs, and CREWS (coherent radiation emission weapon systems), that is, hard x-ray lasers and the like.

Stuff for geeky nerds like myself! :)

Also, the website Orion's Arm has a lot of this stuff.

[Shalamar]

Indeed.

A couple of thoughts from reading too much Iain M. Banks:

To bombard a planet all you need is to land a robotdriven mass ejector propulsion system on an asteroid and accelerate it as much as you can towards the target. If you could get it to a decent percentage of lightspeed noone would even see it come before it hit and it owuld be the equivalent of several 1000 nuclear bombs.

War machines in space would be just that. There wouldnt be no crew on board. They would be controlled remotely or by computer alone. The insane amount of G they need to pull to manoevre and evade would incapacitate or outright kill a human being.

In Banks' novel The Algebraist there is a pretty cool description of a solar system wide battle where a "starfleet" is on it's way from another solar system. They send near-lightspeed reconnaissance troops in advance to spread scatter mines and take out select targets, whereupon the main fleet arrives with the actual firepower and after them the cleanup troops. They have humans onboard though. permanently immersed in shock-gel hooked up to lifesupport systems and computers.

In most of his novels war is taken care of by Rapid Offensive Units which are fully sentient war ships, equipped with forcefields, effector-weapons (that can render alien computer systems useless from distance), antimatter bombs, and CREWS (coherent radiation emission weapon systems), that is, hard x-ray lasers and the like.

Stuff for geeky nerds like myself! :)

Also, the website Orion's Arm has a lot of this stuff.

Sounds like some books I need to read...

[Fnord]

... I think the analogy is more about the use of sensors, rather than their technology. Passive systems monitoring for any suspect emissions or occlusion would be the norm, as with modern submarine warfare; active sensors would provide far more, and more detailed, data but disclose the vessel's position. This would probably lead to mounting active arrays on drones and using the mothership's passive sensors to detect the reflected results. Which has been experimented with in submarine warfare.
Something similar to the Aegis Combat System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System), perhaps?

Theoretically, a CNC vessel could direct the battle, using missile-defense boats and AWACS remote-sensor platforms, while maintaining its own stand-off of a hundred clicks or so from the main battle.

Both "Star Fleet Battles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_Battles)" and "Traveller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveller_(role-playing_game))" have rules for two-dimensional space-combat simulations. The former uses hexagonal grids, while the latter relies on intensive vector calculations on a gridless battle field. I like the Traveller version better, both for its vector-based movement and for its missile-and-laser technology (as opposed to phasers, photon torpedoes and transporters).

I've used the Aegis concept in both - one primary command-and-control (CNC) ship directing semi-autonomous weapons platforms while using smaller, more nimble vessels as dedicated sensor/scanner platforms. Each vessel is armed and armored, of course, and the CNC would likely be of a Battleship or Carrier class. There would also be secondary, and possibly tertiary CNCs ready to take the hand-off if the primary CNC becomes disabled.

Tactically speaking, a three-dimensional battlefield would have a spherical 'front' centered on each battlegroup's center of force. Even then, this 'front' could easily morph into an amoebic blob soon after first contact with the enemy.

Whatever else, a battle in space would be quickly decisive, I'm sure.

[ben m]

To get all of your radiative surfaces to mimic that of a black-body at ~2.725°K, the interior of your vessel would have to convert all of it's interior thermal emissions (at ~295°K) to some form of energy, and either store that energy for later disposal, or disperse it by some undetectable means.

Not impossible, at least for short periods. For example, you could carry a stockpile of large salt bricks. You heat-sink your air-conditioner to one of the bricks, which rapidly gets gets hot, melts, gets even hotter, etc. Of course the AC's efficiency drops as this goes on. When you hit the point of diminishing returns, you rapidly wrap the brick in a (cold) insulation jacket and eject it. Slap a fresh brick onto the heatsink and you're back in action.

Until you run out of bricks. In which case:

Scotty: "I need two hours to get the photon torpedos ready."
Kirk: "Damn! We have to cloak our thermal signature for two more orbits."
Spock: "Captain, we only have enough salt bricks one orbit. We need something else to eject for the second orbit---something numerous and disposable."
Kirk: (on intercom) "All redshirts report to the main heat exchanger!"

[kalen]

Space battles of the future will be fought with robots (ie. unmanned spacecraft). The required maneuverability of the weapons platforms would create g-forces much too high for human occupants.

Nukes in space would be pretty effective, too.

[JWideman]

Space combat would be less about damaging the enemy craft and more about forcing it off course.

[Fnord]

An efficient EMP device might be all you need to disable an enemy vessel. Such a pulse may be produced without the need for a thermo-nuclear reaction.

[Mister Earl]

Wasn't there an experiment done, where scientists used a laser to slow down atomic vibrations in an ion slurry, which supercooled it? (I probably got that about half wrong). Something like that would be a great mechanism to dispose of excess heat.

Added: I remember an acoustic refrigeration method as well.

[Fnord]

Wasn't there an experiment done, where scientists used a laser to slow down atomic vibrations in an ion slurry, which supercooled it? (I probably got that about half wrong). Something like that would be a great mechanism to dispose of excess heat.

Added: I remember an acoustic refrigeration method as well.
And where do you dump the heat produced by the refrigeration equipment itself?

To put it another way, assume a refrigerator with its door open, plugged in and running inside a sealed room with 100% thermal insulation. The room temperature will:

a. Increase
b. Decrease
c. Remain the same
d. Planet X needs no refrigeration

That's right, the correct answer is 'a' because it takes energy to run the refrigeration process, and the process itself will degenerate that energy into heat.

Am I the only person on this website that ever studied thermodynamics?

[ExTechOp]

What is the likelyhood of spacecraft ever going into combat with each other? Is it ever going to be feasible? What would the weapons be (kinetic energy weapons only?). What would the tactics be? Or is the whole question moot because space combat just isn't viable anyway.

I thought the comic book Albedo Anthropomorphics by Steve Gallacci presented a fairly believable scenario: hyper-relativistic kinetic kill missiles fired from several light hours away, active countermeasures and ship in full computer control, the crew hanging on to dear life hoping they survive the multi-day battles the ship computers are waging against each other.

[catsmate1]

Something similar to the Aegis Combat System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System), perhaps?
On a much smaller and simpler scale. In submarine warfare (at least currently) communications between vessels is extremely limited so coordination of sensors and weapons from multiple platforms really isn't possible. In space this would be far easier; laser or maser datalinks for example could tie all vessels into a single CIC and allow synergestic benefits in sensor data processing.
Probably a better analogy than subs would be air-to-air combat using interceptors (with missiles) and AEW/EW aircraft; RADAR emissions from the latter can be picked up by the interceptors and used for targeting without the interceptors using active sensors. This is especially useful with stealth(y) aircraft as the benefit of their reduced signature would be severely reduced by using active RADAR.

Both "Star Fleet Battles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_Battles)" and "Traveller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveller_%28role-playing_game%29)" have rules for two-dimensional space-combat simulations. The former uses hexagonal grids, while the latter relies on intensive vector calculations on a gridless battle field. I like the Traveller version better, both for its vector-based movement and for its missile-and-laser technology (as opposed to phasers, photon torpedoes and transporters).Yes I've played both and also prefer Traveller, especially in small ship combat. Plus it emphasises the stupidity of a small merchie picking a fight with a real warship.:)

I've used the Aegis concept in both - one primary command-and-control (CNC) ship directing semi-autonomous weapons platforms while using smaller, more nimble vessels as dedicated sensor/scanner platforms. Each vessel is armed and armored, of course, and the CNC would likely be of a Battleship or Carrier class. There would also be secondary, and possibly tertiary CNCs ready to take the hand-off if the primary CNC becomes disabled.Exactly. Though this is a stage beyond what I based my original post on; I envisaged a small group of vessels stalking each other before a major engagement. Maneuvering for advantage before the first shot is fired.

Another consideration is speed of comms; in a large space engagement the delay involved in light-speed communications might well become significant; this I think could be especially true with Traveller style technology, relatively low acceleration (by epic SF standards) but negligble reaction mass considerations.

Have you looked at GURPS: Transhuman Space? Interesting nearish-future SF in the solar system with rather hard SF technology. Including virtual sex with an intelligent missile..........

Whatever else, a battle in space would be quickly decisive, I'm sure.Well once shots start hitting yes, I'm not sure the overall engagement would be. It would bepend on sensor ranges and speed/endurance?

[catsmate1]

Indeed.

A couple of thoughts from reading too much Iain M. Banks:

To bombard a planet all you need is to land a robotdriven mass ejector propulsion system on an asteroid and accelerate it as much as you can towards the target. If you could get it to a decent percentage of lightspeed noone would even see it come before it hit and it owuld be the equivalent of several 1000 nuclear bombs.
Ah Traveller. Well not really but planet-busting was so easy in that game.

War machines in space would be just that. There wouldnt be no crew on board. They would be controlled remotely or by computer alone. The insane amount of G they need to pull to manoevre and evade would incapacitate or outright kill a human being.
I suspect that's a bit too realistic for most SF.

Stuff for geeky nerds like myself! :)Let me know if you're in Dublin sometime; I'd like to see you wargame against my SO.:)
Another star system rendered uninhabitable for years to come.....

Also, the website Orion's Arm has a lot of this stuff.If only it was better organised.

[catsmate1]

and in bistatic radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar)
Yes though I was referring to a simpler system, basically a UUV tethered to a sub and carrying a SONAR system, allowing you to ping from somewhere other than the sub itself.

[Fnord]

Have you looked at GURPS: Transhuman Space? Interesting nearish-future SF in the solar system with rather hard SF technology.
Yes, and when my son gets back to Cali, we'll see about starting a weekly game session again.

"Shotguns In Space" is what I envision space combat to be, at least at the start -- much like the first aerial combats between biplane pilots, which were essentially flying gun battles with hand-held revolvers.

[catsmate1]

Yes, and when my son gets back to Cali, we'll see about starting a weekly game session again.

"Shotguns In Space" is what I envision space combat to be, at least at the start -- much like the first aerial combats between biplane pilots, which were essentially flying gun battles with hand-held revolvers.
Well, based on a reasonable extrapolation of current tech, I agree. Little capacity for fancy maneuvering and rapid exchanges of fire at short range.

[JoeyDonuts]

CIWS: Christ, It Won't Shoot!

[Dinwar]

Space battles of the future will be fought with robots (ie. unmanned spacecraft). The required maneuverability of the weapons platforms would create g-forces much too high for human occupants.I'd prefer drones. It costs time and money to train a pilot, or to program. Where as you put basic AI into a few drones, and allow a human to control one of them, switching between them. Put the controls in a familiar format--say, an X-box style controler. Give them a screen, and keep them close enough to the battle for communication to work.

The military has already realized that video game controlers=very very VERY fast troop training, so that part of the tech is here. "Close enough" here could mean as close as the Earth is to the Moon or so. The AI would be pretty simple--nothing more advanced than what's in a lot of video games.

So you get fast training, cheap-ish AI, and re-usable pilots that you can put in a bunker somewhere if they're not in a massive ship with all kinds of defences. Not as sexy as flying an X-wing, but infinitely more logical. Particularly considering we could do most of this with today's technology.

Out of curiosity, are there any stories about a single-system civilization? I mean, we have stories about a civilization on one planet, and stories about civilizations on multiple systems, but to get from the first to the second pretty much requires some exploration of the system itself. Hyperdrives are complex and expensive, after all.

"Shotguns In Space" is what I envision space combat to be, at least at the start -- much like the first aerial combats between biplane pilots, which were essentially flying gun battles with hand-held revolvers. I'm envisioning more Horatio Hornblower. Even better if the solar sail idea catches on. :D Shotties basically are the equivalent of grape shot, after all. And while grape is useful, chain, hot, and straight shot all have their places. And let's face it, other then the gause canon we're still using the same basic concept as Hornblower's time; it makes sense to use our more advanced concepts (magnetic firing, etc) as the common weapon of the next battlefield.

[Roboramma]

Am I the only person on this website that ever studied thermodynamics?
Did you happen to see this post:

Not impossible, at least for short periods. For example, you could carry a stockpile of large salt bricks. You heat-sink your air-conditioner to one of the bricks, which rapidly gets gets hot, melts, gets even hotter, etc. Of course the AC's efficiency drops as this goes on. When you hit the point of diminishing returns, you rapidly wrap the brick in a (cold) insulation jacket and eject it. Slap a fresh brick onto the heatsink and you're back in action.

Until you run out of bricks. In which case:

Scotty: "I need two hours to get the photon torpedos ready."
Kirk: "Damn! We have to cloak our thermal signature for two more orbits."
Spock: "Captain, we only have enough salt bricks one orbit. We need something else to eject for the second orbit---something numerous and disposable."
Kirk: (on intercom) "All redshirts report to the main heat exchanger!"

[GodMark2]

"Close enough" here could mean as close as the Earth is to the Moon or so.

Video gamers complain about a 10 millisecond delay, and you expect them to be able to wage a real war with 250 times that? (1.3 light seconds for drone info to reach earth, 1.3 again for the pilot commands to get back to the drone)

In space, you either need AI, or will have to put humans in the line of fire, cause there's nothing to hide behind.

In orbit, you can at least hide behind the planet, assuming a good enough array of comm satellites to relay your directions.

[Xephyr]

Well let's see.

First we have to perfect the science/technology of space travel.

Then we have to perfect the science/technology of spaceship weaponry.

Then we have to come up with the funds to build the spaceships, weaponry, and sundries necessary for human sustainability.

Then we have to perfect the science/technology of training the average joe to navigate the spaceship.

Then we have to perfect the science/technology of training the average joe about spaceflight combat maneuvers.


Dang.
:boggled:

[Soapy Sam]

Throwing rocks works.
Especially if you can do so at a significant fraction of c.

[rjh01]

In space it can be made very hard for the enemy to detect you. This is one of the issues faced by ICBM in space. The enemy sees an ICBM approaching. However it will also see heaps of balloons. They would not be able to tell the difference between a balloon and the ICBM. A balloon in this case is a very light object ejected by the ICBM that looks like on radar an ICBM. So as long as the ICBM is in space it would be very hard to destroy.

The same story would be true of spacecraft. A real one can eject objects that look like real spacecraft.

[Cuddles]

I'm going to disagree with most people and say that space combat will basically not happen. As a couple of people have mentioned, spacecraft are rather fragile. No matter how much you try to cover them in armour and such, the amount of energy involved with even fairly small bits of rock is just too big. You don't need any fancy weapons, detectors, tactics, or anything like that. Just throw a bunch of rocks really hard in the general direction and any spaceships will be crippled or destroyed. Worst of all, there's really no way to see that coming. Spotting large asteroids is extremely difficult without plenty of time, spotting a bunch of pebbles is pretty much impossible.

The other problem is what is the point of the war? If you're trying to capture territory, then saturation rocking to get rid of any space-based defense should be fine. But what if you're not trying to capture it, and are simply wanting to damage enemy production capabilities, or simply wipe them out? All you need to do is throw slightly larger rocks and anywhere from specific targeted portions up to all life on a planet is toast. The kind of rocks that can do that much damage are virtually impossible to detect until far too late (most near misses with Earth have actually be noticed after they passed). Even if you see them coming, there's nothing a fleet of spaceships can do to stop them in a short time. Blowing them up doesn't change their mass or momentum, the only useful thing to do is push them off course. That's not impossible, even given a very short time in which to do so, but it's the sort of solution that requires lots of telescopes and a quick way of attaching rockets or something to rocks. Spaceships with missiles and lasers would be useless.

If any space combat did occur, it would basically involve mining stations, telescope networks and big engines to push rocks around.

[Soapy Sam]

Cuddles. The same might have been said of dugout or birchbark canoes.
I think we are at that level of technology now with spacecraft.

No guarantees we will ever get further of course.

The point of interplanetary or interstellar war will be the same as any other war- hurting someone you are afraid of. It will be some time before we are capable of it.

Something tells me we'll get there in time.

The territorial / economic arguments for war went out around 1918. Now we do it because we can.

[Corsair 115]

You don't need any fancy weapons, detectors, tactics, or anything like that. Just throw a bunch of rocks really hard in the general direction and any spaceships will be crippled or destroyed.


Doesn't that assume the spacecraft stay on the same course? What if they were able to do the space equivalent of the zig-zag course naval vessels used to use to throw off submarines?

Also, it says to me the key is to attack from a direction your enemy doesn't expect. Or come in diguise, Trojan Horse-style.

[Roboramma]

But Soapy the problem is not that we don't have the technology to build spacecraft capable of sustaining strikes from "rocks moving really fast", but that such technology is basically impossible. That is, while you can more heavily armour your spacecraft, you can also increase the energy that you put into the rocks you throw. And it's always going to be easier to do more damage than to absorb it.

I suspect cuddles is generally correct.

[SatanicSheep]

Why are the nay-sayers ignoring the very real examples of space militarization? Yeah, it's never been actual combat and not as cool as X-wings and stuff, but it's entirely possible that space conflict could occur.

[Ysidro]

Well let's see.

First we have to perfect the science/technology of space travel.


We already travel through space.

Then we have to perfect the science/technology of spaceship weaponry.


We already have the technology. We are lacking the reason to develop and use the specifics.


Then we have to come up with the funds to build the spaceships, weaponry, and sundries necessary for human sustainability.


We already put people in space, build ships, and non-space weapons. Besides, robots will do it better. There goes the sundries.


Then we have to perfect the science/technology of training the average joe to navigate the spaceship.

Then we have to perfect the science/technology of training the average joe about spaceflight combat maneuvers.



Do you think average joes pilot combat aircraft? Or do highly trained officers with billions of dollars of technology and support do that? Why would it dumb down for space warfare?


Dang.
:boggled:

Don't be in such a rush. :D

[Lensman]

Anyone ever read "Footfall" by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle?

[mikeyx]

The tactics may end up similar to submarine warfare. Certainly there are similarities in the theatre: a large three dimensional space that's mostly empty. Most of the time the submarines are trying to be stealthy, both from ships on the surface (in space: planets) and other submarines in the sea.

What you just said, screw the shuttle, interplanetary type spaceships would be much closer in concept and function to a nuclear submarine.

[mikeyx]

An efficient EMP device might be all you need to disable an enemy vessel. Such a pulse may be produced without the need for a thermo-nuclear reaction.

didnt they have something like that in the firefly movie, fighters with emp pulse thingeys?

[catsmate1]

Throwing rocks works.
Especially if you can do so at a significant fraction of c.

Small metal pellets, lots of them.
Made of anti-matter.........

[RenaissanceBiker]

My dad told me about a story he read once where the attacking ship headed right for its target at a fairly insane speed, then flipped around and rocketed away at full thrust. The exhaust continued towards the other ship, at a significant fraction of light speed, and by the time the attacker had halted his forward momentum and headed back home there wasn't anything left of his enemy.

Larry Niven had a story about Man's first encounter with the Kzin. The Kzin employed telepaths to learn more about their prey. They determined that the human vessel did not have weapons. The Kzin then began beaming microwaves at the human ship to slow roast the occupants but leave the ship intact. The humans turned to flee but calculated they would not be able to get out of range before dying. So they fired their rockets at the Kzin ship, cutting it apart. The Kzin captain learned too late that the reason humans no longer practiced war, was that they were very good at it.

[Fishstick]

In my dreams it would be close to Homeworld style combat. Minimum ranges ranging in the tens of kilometers, nuclear-tipped torpedos (which are obviously much less effective in a vacuum) and rockets consisting of basically rocket-propelled tungsten rods.

[mikeyx]

getting back to the transhuman discussion, I wouldn't mind a seperate thread on that kinda discussion, imho traveller kinda glossed over much of what that game seems to cover, the hard sci fi stuff.

As far as other tech, the whole jump drive thing is speculative to, Traveller gets ya there with fusion, trek does it with matter-antimatter, but there's no applicable model in current tech, so who's to say it's even possible, or that there isn't more than one method to pull it off.

And... if you're stepping out of the normal universe doing it ie: FTL, then does temporal time travelly stuff come into potential play to? Trek at times played at that.

[3point14]

Doesn't that assume the spacecraft stay on the same course? What if they were able to do the space equivalent of the zig-zag course naval vessels used to use to throw off submarines?

Also, it says to me the key is to attack from a direction your enemy doesn't expect. Or come in diguise, Trojan Horse-style.

So, hollow out an asteroid, set it on course and hide inside. Sort of a Trojan Asteroid...


Good responses all. The most salient (I think) being that it would be very similar to submarine warfare - 3D and very, very concerned with stealth and detection.


If you're planning on radiating all your heat away from your enemy so they can't detect you, how do you know which direction they're in? It really is starting to strike me as a who sees who first game.

[catsmate1]

Larry Niven had a story about Man's first encounter with the Kzin. The Kzin employed telepaths to learn more about their prey. They determined that the human vessel did not have weapons. The Kzin then began beaming microwaves at the human ship to slow roast the occupants but leave the ship intact. The humans turned to flee but calculated they would not be able to get out of range before dying. So they fired their rockets at the Kzin ship, cutting it apart. The Kzin captain learned too late that the reason humans no longer practiced war, was that they were very good at it.
Well the human propulsion system was a highly efficient reaction drive, while the Kzin used a far more advanced gravity drive. Humans adapted comms lasers, fusion drives and mass drivers into weapons to defend the solar system.

[Hellbound]

I have to secodn the idea that it would be more of a hide-and-seek game, rather than stand-up combat. My reasons for this are multiple:

1. As others have stated, it's fairly easy to destroy a spacecraft, armor or not. THis means defense is going to focus on less detectability and evading attacks.

2. As to people remarking on G-forces, reaction mass is expensive. Costa lot to carry and use. I don't really see a lot of high-G manuvering being feasible from the standpoint of resources or economy. You'd simply need way too much space in engiens and reaction mass to make this anything more than a last-ditch strategy. It would be more feasible, however, for small probes/drones or missiles.

3. I'd see a lot of useages of missile-type ordnance. Assuming we could develop directed energy weapons to a sufficient point, they still are limited by light speed and would give away a position, and much of the energy could be disperesed by using various particulates as a shield (for example, a cloud of shiny metallic sheets could do a lot to attenuate a laser...or even a cloud of prismatic particles of some sort). Not sure of the exact effects, but that would lessen the damage. Also, it's space, so long-range is the norm. Even a few light-seconds of distance means the target will not be in the same location you aimed at when the beam hits.

4. I can easily see guided projectiles taking a huge role. Imagine a cannon or railgun system that launches what is, basically, a missle. The projectile travels ballistically until it reaches a certain pre-set range (or until it's sensors detect a target), then it initiates it's engines and finishes off by seeking the target. You could also used a drone or probe with some sort of projectile or directed energy beam in the same system...it gets close ballistically, then begins firing. This gives several advantages. THe launching mechanism means more of your projectiles reaction mass can be used towards hitting the target, instead of accelerating to it. If the missile is restricted to passive systems until activation, a purely ballistic trajectory makes it much harder to track and detect. Make them from radar-absorbing materials, cool the outer casing to ambient temp, perhaps building in a heat sink of some sort, and they'll be hard to detect until they activate. In fact, using a low-speed missiel with high stealth and a "cool" manuver system, such as gas jets, and you might even be able to hit your target before they know an attack is coming.

5. Likewise, I see the "shotgun" idea being used, but not so much for combat (you'd have to close to so short a range, and again consdiering the distances allowed for space combat and the fragility of any space vessel, and you basically end up with a MAD scenario). Rather, I'd suspect they'd be used more for anti-missile attacks and point defense (and anti-beam weapon. Assuming such were developed, they could double as the launchers for whatever particulate you use to interfere with the beams).

That's just my thoughts so far, but perhaps gives a bit of food for thought.

[uruk]

I think the type of warfair or battle would heavily depend on the type of propulsion and the fuel you are using.

At present we are using chemical, (and perhaps ion propulsion). Your manuevers would be limited by the amount of fuel you are carrying on board. Mass and fuel are huge determining factors in what kind, how many, and the duration of manouvers, and tragetories you can take to avoid projectiles or chase, or retreat.

If you are figting a space battle in the solar system you are limited to doing sling shots around planetary or gravitational masses. You would have to watch your velocities as you could sling shot your way out of the solar system or slam into an atmosphere.
Th efuel limitation would only allow you to do a limited number of accelrations, de-accelerations and course changes.

There would come a point where you be forced to choose between avoiding a projectile or or being parked around Pluto or stuck in an orbit around the sun (and be a sitting duck) or sailing off into interstellar space and hope a rescue ship with enough fuel and velocity could over take you and either refuel your ship or load up you and your crew and return home.

I think a battle in space would be a chess game of trajectories, velocities, and time.
I can emagine a scenario where a ship is out of fuel, stuck in a orbit beyond the range of rescue with a projectile heading toward them in an intercept course that will impact with them in days and there's nothing the crew or anyone else can do about it.

Pure hell, waiting for an inevitable death. Not very exciting or glorious at all.

[Hellbound]

Uruk:

Yeah, and that ties into why I think it'd be more similar to submarine warfare, as least to a degree. You don't have the capability for rapid evasive manuvers (as so far, every propulsion system we've come up with that's feasible either requires a lot of reaction mass, or is very-low acceleration, or both). More a matter of stealth and sensors fighting each other, and likely the first shot to land ends it.

[uruk]

The battle could be decided in the first few moments of an engagement and the shot that ends it could take days or weeks to hit. That would royaly suck if you were on the losing ship.

[uruk]

Or you would be faced with the choice between a relatively quick death by allowing the projectile to hit or a protracted death by starvation or suffocation in interstellar space or in an huge elliptical (comet style) orbit around the sun

[uruk]

~snip~
If any space combat did occur, it would basically involve mining stations, telescope networks and big engines to push rocks around.

Spaceships with missles and lasers might be effective against other ships who are carring mining equipment to asteroids and hauling big engines to attach to push rocks around. Not to mention attacking space borne telescope networks.


Maybe just the missles are needed.

[Dinwar]

Video gamers complain about a 10 millisecond delay, and you expect them to be able to wage a real war with 250 times that? (1.3 light seconds for drone info to reach earth, 1.3 again for the pilot commands to get back to the drone)If you really WANT to use the absolute extreme of what I said, this is a reasonable possition. However, it's not necessarily the case.

First off, I highly doubt there's going to be too much combat away from planets. Space is just too big--there's too many ways to dodge your enemy, making it not worth the effort. If you DO engage in combat, it's likely to be from fairly far away, with these drones used to fight other drones/disable or destroy incoming rounds. Meaning you're probably not going to be as far away as the Moon when you're piloting the drones. You're either going to be on a planet (if it's a pitched battle) or near your ship (if it's away from the planet).

Also, I'm not necessarily arguing against AI. I'm saying that this is a perfectly workable intermediate step between "put the humans on the front line" and "all craft are AI". Simply put, our AI isn't that good and is relatively stupid. There's a reason we don't put AI autopilot into cars. Given relatively cheap AI AND human control, using programing we already have (squad-based FPSs and all that), we could theoretically construct these drones tomorrow. More advanced AI is better, but if you don't have it you may as well work with what you've got.

An efficient EMP device might be all you need to disable an enemy vessel. Such a pulse may be produced without the need for a thermo-nuclear reaction. Not if you've got one equiped with a solar sail. That can be run mechanically if needed. Not a fast means of propulsion, but enough for at least some manuverability, making the EMP a good weapon but not perfect. That's why I argued for Hornblower as a model for space combat--if you want to capture the enemy vessle you need to disable it, and using the "throwinig rocks" model you're talking chain shot (for solar sails) and destroying the rudder (in this case, the engines). The rest is submarines--evasion and detection.

[ben m]

The battle could be decided in the first few moments of an engagement and the shot that ends it could take days or weeks to hit.

That's why I think the most likely scenario would be a mutual-assured-destruction stalemate. It's got exactly the same ingredients as US/USSR ICBM warfare: offense is easy, defense is very hard, first strike is easy to see coming.

[Corsair 115]

Assuming we could develop directed energy weapons to a sufficient point, they still are limited by light speed...


But light speed is a heck of a lot faster than a missile, cannon, or rail gun could achieve.


...and would give away a position...


My understanding is that lasers are invisible in space because there is no atmosphere to scatter and make visible the beam. The laser's power is also not reduced since it does not have to punch its way through an atmosphere. Even if the firing could be detected, I would think the advantage of a nearly simultaneous delivery of the damaging energy would outweigh the advantages of a much slower missile/cannon/rail gun system.

[BenBurch]

Counter-fire against rocks is likely to be effective - Hit the rock with another or with some sand while it is still several minutes from impact, and if it was aimed at something the size of a spacecraft, it will likely be diverted enough to miss.

Counter-fire against SAND however is not likely to be very effective.

[Hellbound]

But light speed is a heck of a lot faster than a missile, cannon, or rail gun could achieve.

Yes, once you find the target and at shorter ranges. My focus on missiles was for several reasons:

1. A kinetic projectile has a pretty well unlimited range, especially if it has terminal guidance and manuverability (such as a cannon-fired missile). Slower to get to the target, but it can run it's own attack once there.

2. I suspect that for the foreseeable future the weight required to mount and use beam weapons of any appreciable energy will be restricitve, especially considering the power needs. Basically, missiles and/or cannon are going to give you more boom per ton. Also, both missiels and cannon give you the option of varying ammunition types: penetrators, fragmentation, HESH, EW and ECW modules, recon packages, etc. The versatility is another weight and space saving feature not present with beams.

3. Yes, you get immediate delivery of energy to target, but you have to get close enough to the target, be in line of sight, and accurately predict where they will be when the beam reaches them. With a missile-type weapon, you don't need line of sight, you only need to get into the general area of the target to let the onboard guidance take over, and even at shorter ranges you can fire missiles from all sides of the craft and have them track around to the target (where with a beam system you can only fire those weapons facing the target).

4. Finally, and related to the second point, I suspect missiles will be much more of a one-hit-kill weapon than beams. You can get much larger areas of damage, especially with some type of stand-off fragmentation weapon. Additionally, using shaped warheads can give you precision targetting, as well. Beams are pretty much limited to precision targetting (although, admittedly, you can "walk" a beam across a target, but that adds to the aiming difficulties mentioned earlier).

My understanding is that lasers are invisible in space because there is no atmosphere to scatter and make visible the beam. The laser's power is also not reduced since it does not have to punch its way through an atmosphere. Even if the firing could be detected, I would think the advantage of a nearly simultaneous delivery of the damaging energy would outweigh the advantages of a much slower missile/cannon/rail gun system.

Yes, power is higher, but I had quite forgotten that the visibility is due to air ionization (doh!). Good point :) I addressed most of this above. Besides, under the idea of a stealthy missile, the time to target doesn't nmatter so much. It's going to be much easier to detect your ship (with its crew and energy systems and such), than a missle (designed for stealth and running ballistically until close range). My suspicion is that missile attack would be viable at a range greater than beam, so a beam-armed ship is likely to get attacked by a steath misile before it can get close enough to accurately target it's opponent...much like subs against ships.

To close, though, primarily I'm thinking more about technology that might be available relatively quickly, and I don't see directed energy weapons beign viable against missiles, cannons, or even railguns/guass guns for some time yet. As teh technology matures...that may change :)

Of course, I'm quite willing to be shown wrong :)

[Cuddles]

Cuddles. The same might have been said of dugout or birchbark canoes.
I think we are at that level of technology now with spacecraft.

I think Roboramma's is correct here. In general, our weapons and defences have been fairly equivalent. Dugout canoes could handle a few arrows or rocks, but later on we needed ironclads and then battleships. Then those were shown to vulnerable in their own ways and the current trend is large fleets defending aircraft carriers, with defence meaning shooting the other person, or the things they fire at you, before they hit. And then you get to the more extreme case of nuclear weapons. Other than trying to stop them reaching you, there simply is no defence. Since it's trivially easy to just fire enough of them to overwhelm any attempt to stop them, the only option is to stop them being fired in the first place. Which either means having enough of your own as deterrent, or simply being really nice to the people who have them.

The trouble with space combat is that in the absence of magic forcefields, we are already, and always will be, at the nuclear weapon stage. No matter how much more armour you stick on a spaceship, you can always just throw rocks a bit harder. It's already pretty simple for us to throw a rock that would hit with the energy of a nuclear bomb. Even assuming we could somehow cope with that, we could just throw one with the energy of two bombs instead. There are already rocks floating around capable of wiping out all life on Earth, so it's rather unrealistic to think we could ever defend against it. No matter how good our defence could get, the potential of kinetic weapons in space will always far exceed it.

Doesn't that assume the spacecraft stay on the same course?

No. Perhaps I didn't elaborate enough. I'm not suggesting throwing a few rocks in the direction of a spaceship, I'm suggesting throwing a ******** of rocks covering the whole volume that you want to clear. You have essentially unlimited rocks, and assuming you have enough energy to waste actually fighting space battles rather than just trying to get somewhere, you presumably have enough energy to throw an awful lot of rocks. If the planet you want to attack has spaceships defending it, you just send a meteor shower that will cripple anything not protected by the atmosphere. The only defence is to not be there when it arrives, which effectively means you've won even if you don't actually hit them.

Small metal pellets, lots of them.
Made of anti-matter.........

I considered anti-matter as opposed to just rocks, but I don't think it would be worth it. The energy you would spend creating and storing the anti-matter would be just as effective put into throwing regular rocks a bit harder, and it would be a far simpler and more efficient process.

As for missiles, that's a trickier question. Obviously being able to steer would be useful, but at the same time it makes you much more visible and therefore easier to destroy or avoid. There's also the problem that it is possible to destroy them at all. As noted earlier, the big advantage of throwing big rocks at people is that if you try to blow them up you just end up with a bunch of smaller rocks carrying exactly the same energy. However, since missiles rely on correctly detonating and not simply on their kinetic energy, it's much easier to render them ineffective. I suspect the advantages and disadvantages would outweigh each other differently depending on the situation.

The laser's power is also not reduced since it does not have to punch its way through an atmosphere.

Laser power is still reduced simply by range though. At a distance of just a few thousand, or hundreds of thousands, of kilometres, your high power laser will probably hardly be noticed by your target. And those are fairly short distances when it comes to space travel.

There's also the problem that you need to be able to see your target. I don't just mean that in the line-of-sight sense mentioned by Hellbound, but simply in needing to know where your target is at all. Saturation rocking of an area from millions of kilometres away requires no knowledge of where things actually are at the time. Guided missiles don't really need to know where anything is at the time they are fired, you could just set their guidance systems to turn on after a certain time when you think they'll be able to find something nearby.

Since there seems to be general agreement at least on the point of the difficulty of detecting each other and a likely focus on stealth, only being able to shoot when you're nearby and can see exactly what you're shooting at is a pretty major disadvantage.

[Hellbound]

Cuddles:

Just one point on missiles. There is what is known as a kinetic kill missle, that has no real warhead (just a hardened, armor piercing front end) and all of it rocket engine. They're intended to accelerate rapidly and kill the target via kinetic energy.

[catsmate1]

Cuddles:

Just one point on missiles. There is what is known as a kinetic kill missle, that has no real warhead (just a hardened, armor piercing front end) and all of it rocket engine. They're intended to accelerate rapidly and kill the target via kinetic energy.
Or a self-forging or canister warhead; the missile is launched, travels to the vicinity of the target and blasts it with shrapnel from outside interception range. Smaller and less damaging impacts, but lots of them; grinding off external sensors, radiators and similar would be a benefit.

[catsmate1]

I considered anti-matter as opposed to just rocks, but I don't think it would be worth it. The energy you would spend creating and storing the anti-matter would be just as effective put into throwing regular rocks a bit harder, and it would be a far simpler and more efficient process.


Well that example was from a non-canon Traveller game; the trick was locating and using naturally occuring anti-matter.
Missiles that launched millions of tiny anti-iron pellets at a fleet from beyond missile interception range pretty much ended that war......
And rendered that star system unhealthy to visit.

[jimbob]

Indeed.

A couple of thoughts from reading too much Iain M. Banks:

To bombard a planet all you need is to land a robotdriven mass ejector propulsion system on an asteroid and accelerate it as much as you can towards the target. If you could get it to a decent percentage of lightspeed noone would even see it come before it hit and it owuld be the equivalent of several 1000 nuclear bombs.

War machines in space would be just that. There wouldnt be no crew on board. They would be controlled remotely or by computer alone. The insane amount of G they need to pull to manoevre and evade would incapacitate or outright kill a human being.

In Banks' novel The Algebraist there is a pretty cool description of a solar system wide battle where a "starfleet" is on it's way from another solar system. They send near-lightspeed reconnaissance troops in advance to spread scatter mines and take out select targets, whereupon the main fleet arrives with the actual firepower and after them the cleanup troops. They have humans onboard though. permanently immersed in shock-gel hooked up to lifesupport systems and computers.

In most of his novels war is taken care of by Rapid Offensive Units which are fully sentient war ships, equipped with forcefields, effector-weapons (that can render alien computer systems useless from distance), antimatter bombs, and CREWS (coherent radiation emission weapon systems), that is, hard x-ray lasers and the like.

Stuff for geeky nerds like myself! :)

Also, the website Orion's Arm has a lot of this stuff.

Sounds like some books I need to read...

Indeed.

You might also like the books written as "Iain Banks" (without the "M" which are his literary efforts, and what apparently make his money).

"The Wasp Factory" is good but a bit grim. "Complicity" is grimmer.

And thinking about the original thread (Star Wars vs Star Trek) I think the Culture would beat both:

This is from "Use of Weapons"

'Ooh, you're nice and warm,' the little brown and yellow creature mumbled sleepily, snuggling into Sma's neck as the headed down a deeply carpeted corridor for Sma's quarters. It stirred and she found herself patting its back. 'Left here,' it said, at a junction, then, "'That's us just breaking orbit now, by the way.'

'Good,' Sma said.

'Can I cuddle up with you when you sleep?'

Sma stopped, detached the creature from her shoulder with one hand and stared it in the face. 'What?'

'Just for chumminess' sake,' the little thing said, yawning wide and blinking. 'I'm not being rude; it's a good bonding procedure.'

Sma was aware of Skaffen-Amtiskaw glowing red just behind her. She brought the yellow and brown device closer to her face. 'Listen Xenophobe -'

'Xeny.'

'Xeny; you are a million-tonne starship; a Torturer class Rapid Offensive Unit. Even -'

'But I'm demilitarised!'

'Even without your principal armament, I bet you could waste planets if you wanted to -'

'Aw, come on; any silly GCU can do that!'


Anyone who comes up with Thug, Murderer, Torturer, Psychopath classes of warships, which give themselves names like "What are the Civilian Applications?" is off to a good start.

[catsmate1]

Indeed.

You might also like the books written as "Iain Banks" (without the "M" which are his literary efforts, and what apparently make his money).

"The Wasp Factory" is good but a bit grim. "Complicity" is grimmer.

And thinking about the original thread (Star Wars vs Star Trek) I think the Culture would beat both:

This is from "Use of Weapons"


Anyone who comes up with Thug, Murderer, Torturer, Psychopath classes of warships, which give themselves names like "What are the Civilian Applications?" is off to a good start.

"No More Mister Nice Guy" was my favourite.

[GeorgeDorn]

Hehe yeah. It's one of the only scifi authors I know of who can pull off the humor thing without it being camp or sounding contrived.

Anyway, I came across a similar old discussion on rec.arts.sf.science. It basically covers the same thing (what would be possible in space combat) and is specifically for would-be scifi authors, but maybe you'll find it interesting too:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/browse_frm/thread/32131f6b0b15b863/b9b22d236738682c

Also, some pretty funny musings on the topic can be found here: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth

Mostly letdowns though. :)

Well the last one there was page 36/64 but I think all the pages (select at top) is about why space combat is difficult.

There are some pretty funny ones:

"You also cannot turn on a dime. The faster the ship is moving, the wider your turns will be. Your spacecraft will NOT move like an airplane, it will act more like a heavily loaded 18-wheeler truck moving at high speed on a huge sheet of black ice."

[Illustronic]

Nuclear weapons work.

Sorry, I tell that to people that say science is just a theory.