/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12004375
It'll be cylindrical with a tapered front. It'll have either radiators or solar panels sticking out. It'll carry a fuckton of missile. It'll have point defense systems either in the form of smaller rockets, highly accurate guns, or (once the tech is there) lasers. Visibility is nearly absolute in space. You will practically always know where you enemy is and vice versa, so combat is highly strategical. Combat will also happen at very large range and long engagement time.

More like an intricate game of chess than an unpredicatble and messy brawl.

Now or in the near future? Probably mostly ground launched anti-satellite weapons, kamikaze satellites, and kessler bombs.

In the future? Hard to say since technological development that far into the future is hard to predict. However, given that every interaction in space would be known about in advance, and orbital interceptions are limited in their direction due to limited fuel, I imagine future space combat being akin to Napoleonic combat (at least the popular conception of it). Where both sides gather their units en masse, meet up at some predetermined location, and exchange fire trying to overwhelm the defenses of their opponents.

China will build a mass driver on the moon, using their Maglev tech, to launch tungsten slugs at the USA
It will be non detectable, and able to hit any city in any country on earth with the power of a tactical nuke, and even after a retaliatory strike, it will still be able to operate

If we assume that we manage to colonize bodies that warrant the fielding of some kind of a space navy, combat would probably be like submarine warfare today. Trying to remain as stealthy as possible and getting into positions where launching missiles is the most fuel efficient or something.

>>12004421
>stealth
>in space

>>12004422
Space is big, my dude. It would be pretty much impossible to spot a ship unless you know where to look or if it rapidly changes position.

>>12004375
Lasers are retarded. It’s will just be fought with rocket propelled nukes. It’s be like modern fighter combat where 90% of it is trying to evade rockets and firing rockets.

>>12004375
watch the Expanse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgaMhcTxCY

>>12004447
The Expanse was why I made this thread

>>12004447
dont be an idiot like this anon and believe everything you see from hollywood.

>>12004375
you would deploy disjointed detector and weapon units like a minefield because they are much cheaper than shit like >>12004390. except in this case the "mines" have an effective range in the order of millions of miles and they can communicate with each other and have unlimited redundancy

they would be small, modular and constructed in a way to minimize detection. weapons of choice would be lasers for short range and missiles for long range and indirect strikes. their movement would be randomized to protect against brainlet weapons like muuh mass drivers or rail guns. of course the missiles would be constructed in a way so you cant see them coming and even if you do you cant just zap them

>>12004375
No knowledge on this but it would probably be something boring such as one ship shootinh a bunch of missiles, the other ship shoots some to intercept, whoever has the better flight computers on the missile wins.
Alternatively they both just keep throwing missiles at each other until one of them runs out of things to intercept with.

>>12004375
In case space warfare becomes a thing, how can we prevent a Kessler syndrome scenario from occurring?

>>12004375
Missiles and kinetic kill vehicles are the only 2 weapons that will ever be deployed in space.

>>12004428
More like pretty much impossible not to spot one.

>>12004428
Bro, you'd see drive trails half an AU long and even if they were just drifting they'd light up like a christmas tree in IR.
You're not hiding from shit unless you're on the other side of a star or planet.

>>12004668
Giant laser banks in LEO or on the ground that shoot down debris.

>>12004767
How big a laser would you need to hit something in orbit?

>>12004767
>in LEO
Nah. You'd want to build a handful of solar collectors in orbit around the sun to drive lightcraft out of the system.
The fact that they can also do the double duty of being death rays is just another application of the kzinti lesson.

>>12004375
There will be no weapons in space. Only peace loving co-operative types will be allowed off planet, with the warlike twats being kept grounded on their planetary Reserve, to shoot each other as much as they like, without disturbing the rest of humanity with their primitive and stupid behaviour.

It would look like this
https://youtu.be/qjWEGlot35Y

http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-nuclear-spear-casaba-howitzer.html

>>12004678
That covers a broad spectrum of weapons.

>>12004678
>Missiles and kinetic kill vehicles are the only 2 weapons that will ever be deployed in space.
Lasers and nuclear howitzers say hello.

>>12004947
You won't really need weapons out there. You have basically unlocked the infinite resources cheat once you start exploiting resources in orbit.

>>12004375
laser would become major weapon because you can't dodge it
so vehicle paint countermeasure that reflect certain wavelengths
retro reflectors
and then preemptive dodging maneuver in anticipation of retro reflectors

>>12004963
>>12005249
Laser's aren't practical in any realistic combat range. They might be used to accelerate projectiles and maybe defend against missiles though.

>>12005258
>aren't practical in any realistic combat range
Yeah? Just watch me and my 10 meter diameter lens.

>>12004375
we're going to have astronauts fighting each other with claw hammers and kitchen knives

>>12005262
10 meter diameter focus ultraviolet laser will achieve about 0.005 arcsec at diffraction limit and that's a theoretical limit of accuracy, you don't need to imagine how wide the beam is by the time it gets to jupiter.

>detect enemy
>make rock go very fast
>enemy dead

>>12005342
Isn't that all warfare?

>>12004668
maybe Kessler syndrome will be the next MAD doctrine

>>12004678
>More like pretty much impossible not to spot one.
Citation(s) requested.

>>12005508
You can spot a rocket launch with current technology from jupiter, it's not even funny how easy it is.

>>12004422
I have this idea that since you know what area of the background space appear darker you can be careful enough not to occlude any stars when approaching isolated enemy

also approaching from off planetary plane might be unexpected

>>12004375
Weird ass question, but would the shape of the space warships really matter? In the void they won't have any need for aerodynamics like a plane would, nor would they have to be built around buoyancy or the same weight concerns of a naval warship. Would it be smart to focus on construction with pivotal instruments and weaponry on every part of the ships external surface outside of what is needed for movement/exhaust or would that cause it's own problems?

Bump

>>12004447
Can't wait for next season. I haven't read the books but the ending of S4 looks like a clusterfuck.

>>12005444
Orbital denial has been a thing for a while and is the reason china and india have both shot down low flying sats of their own just to demonstrate that they can.

>>12005783
Well it still has to sustain acceleration, so for example if your big radiators are too flimsy they could break when you accelerate

Wouldn't space-era warfare just be massive-scale terrorism? Planet-bound populations are just too easy and too tempting a target, and it doesn't look like defending against all attacks would be possible.