How is warfare in space gonna look like?

File: 209 KB, 1280x800, space.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:06:53 2015 No.7582991 [Reply] [Original]

How is warfare in space gonna look like?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:12:12 2015 No.7582994 >hurl asteroid the size of the moon towards your planet >watchu gonna do when they come for you, bad boy

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:17:18 2015 No.7582997

>>7582991

If there were spaceships armed with weapons they'd be so far apart that they couldn't see each other, also because of the distance the last known location on radar or whatever they have would not be wholly reliable for a moving ship so you'd need scatter weapons or fleets of drones

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:19:11 2015 No.7583001 mostly bombs

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:20:17 2015 No.7583004 What's there to fight over in space?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:20:49 2015 No.7583005 >>7583004 Space cash

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:21:08 2015 No.7583007 >>7583004 Ideas

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:25:41 2015 No.7583013 >>7583007 Space religion

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 09:59:05 2015 No.7583112 >>7583004 As of today, having satellit overview of enemy territory offers a huge advantage, so naturally, in case of a war of two nations with space program, each nation would try to destroy the satellites of the other nation

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 10:17:57 2015 No.7583136

>>7582991
sci fi has explored this extensively. Of the more hard stuff, there are two main approaches.
1. cloaked bombs will pursue the enemy ship as stealthily as possible. Speed is less important as not being detected. Short of landing the ship somewhere and getting away from it, one's target is generally doomed.
2. Use incredible amounts of fast dumb projectiles to fill all possible vectors the enemy ship can take with death. This can burn through resources fairly quickly depending upon distance (more distance = more possible escape vectors to fill with death), so battles will largely be decided by whom can afford to shoot first.

Basically real space warfare will largely be uninteresting.

Defending a planet from space based warfare is a much more interesting topic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 10:23:38 2015 No.7583145 >>7582991 Rockets on space rocks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 11:12:45 2015 No.7583192 Relativistic bombs

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 11:41:56 2015 No.7583226

>>7582991

I highly recommend reading through the "Atomic Rockets" website

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

It's basically a collection of articles written and curated by one guy, with lots of sections written by guest authors. The website aims to dispel common inaccurate sci-fi tropes and to realistically speculate about how advanced spaceflight, space warfare, etc. would actually work.

It's pretty much the "hardest" sci-fi treatment of these topics I've found online. Nearly everything is firmly rooted in known physics and engineering principles.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 12:12:46 2015 No.7583274

>>7583136
>1. cloaked bombs will pursue the enemy ship as stealthily as possible. Speed is less important as not being detected. Short of landing the ship somewhere and getting away from it, one's target is generally doomed.
How are you gonna cloak in space?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 12:27:30 2015 No.7583293 Shrapnel bombs would secure the peace in space until we get conquered by aliens.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 12:36:37 2015 No.7583307 >>7583274 ask the klingons

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:09:14 2015 No.7584101 I. Unmanned II. Lasers or missiles, or some futuristic gravity/time weapons III. No need for dog-fighting bullshit

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:25:28 2015 No.7584127
File: 30 KB, 500x500, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7582991
Shooting great amounts of whatever shit you have from huge distances to wherever you think the enemy is until you manage to hit it
Would probably be more interesting to go watch LoGH

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:35:50 2015 No.7584149

Fighting will be done through diplomacy and careful navigation across rivers of knife edges. Consider how fragile humans are after leaving earth and compare it to our current state of warfare.
Island nation is throwing rocks and calling you a dick? Carpet bomb. They pick up the pieces, repair infrastructure, and escalate. Repeat until one nation has too many new assholes ripped in it and surrenders. In space and offworld colonies, this isn't how it goes down, because it's much harder to be self sufficient off earth. Phobos-ites are singing their hippy crap too loud it's keeping the Martians up. All the martians would have to do is cut off the water/food supply and keep an eye out for resupply ships coming from elsewhere in the system. Papers are signed, agreements are reached, and everyone goes on with their lives.
Earthlings are pissed at the Phobos-ites, pissed enough to plunge into total war. All it takes is a single bomb, the right size and in the right place, and everyone on that sad rock is gone. Same for a space station or an asteroid base or anything else except a planet-based colony decades into development, long enough for them to get shit underground. It's the cold war all over again, except all it takes is a single nuke. It will be boring, mostly political, and at the same time terrifying, because one off-comment can start the path towards very scary things.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:45:27 2015 No.7584163 >>7582991 Read this and get the fuck out of /sci/: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/ /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:46:00 2015 No.7584167 >>7582991 Probably over extremely long ranges with drones and nuclear smart missiles. Oh and lasers. Real lasers, not the hollywood kind. Also >>7582994 And >>7583136

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:29:30 2015 No.7584260 >>7582991 High tech police forces shitting on bands of insurgents. You think MAD is a problem with war right now? In space, MAD is turned up to 11 thousand. Conventional warfare simply won't be worth it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:43:23 2015 No.7584273

Military forces are generally scaled inversely to the complexity of the environment, that is, high complexity : small combatants :: low complexity : large combatants (Compare the environments where battleships and navy seals are employed). Improvements in firepower, range, and detection ramp up complexity in all environments over time, so the future of warfare looks much the same in all arenas: swarms of tiny stealth bomb robots. Space will be no exception.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:49:34 2015 No.7584281 >>7582991 It'll never happen. Too expensive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:52:13 2015 No.7584286 >>7584281 It'll become less and less expensive as technology progresses.

Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:06:31 2015 No.7584309

>>7584286
I doubt an anti-matter propulsion system will ever be invented. Anything else would be too inefficient.

As it is, there are diminishing returns for making more efficient propulsion systems.

Even if an anti-matter propulsion system were possible, using such ships for war would make about as much sense as having a war in Antarctica.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:10:46 2015 No.7584315 Nasty, brutish, short and long-ranged.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:37:58 2015 No.7584350 >>7582994 >hurl asteroid the size of the moon towards your planet And just how the fuck do you propose to do that, genius? >>7584163 >muh capital ships >muh nuclear propulsion >Economic costs and detectability be damned Yeah, nah.

Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:46:34 2015 No.7584362

>>7584309
It doesn't have to include anti-matter propulsion systems or these "ships" you're talking about. It'll most likely be satellites shooting at other satellites in order to knock out the enemy's communication or visuals, at least in the beginning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:56:20 2015 No.7584379 >>7584362 It wouldn't be possible to defend against anything up there. It would be a waste of resources to even try. It would be too easy to send rockets to destroy satellites. Nothing can defend against nukes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 01:06:20 2015 No.7584394 would war in space be safer because you don't have to worry about harming planets?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 01:41:12 2015 No.7584438 >>7582991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Defense_measures

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 05:17:26 2015 No.7584663 it's not.

Anonymous Mon Oct 12 06:03:10 2015 No.7584723

>>7583274
>cloaking in space
We already have decent multispectrum cloaking, it just doesn't work well on the ground. Works just fine in space. It's also relatively hard to spot a missile that's only emitting any kind of signature when it's making a course correction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 06:05:41 2015 No.7584728 >>7584350 >mfw how are we gonna do that >mfw this retarded >never taken 1st year level physics

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 06:10:06 2015 No.7584730 >>7584728 >1st year level physics and suddenly energy is virtually infinite K buddy, have fun maneuvering 10^22 kg around the fucking solar system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 06:19:09 2015 No.7584737 >>7584730 >cnfirmed for retard >cnfirmed for not even basic knowledge of space maneuvering techniques

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 07:33:58 2015 No.7584781 >>7582991 With the use of light to see. Your eyes then use this light to distinguish colors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 14:24:44 2015 No.7585228 >>7582991 Like this: https://youtu.be/pTU6Gat_ai4 Right on, Commander!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 14:27:20 2015 No.7585236 with gandams

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 14:30:39 2015 No.7585243 Like in 40k except not Cathedrals. Just extremely long range weapons from huge ships.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 14:46:36 2015 No.7585275 >>7583274 I'd assume a low radar profile would suffice. I doubt there will be much use for windows on a military craft.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 16:01:21 2015 No.7585378 warframe

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 21:06:08 2015 No.7585882 >>7584149 >It's harder to be self sufficient off earth Sure, but you know what's even harder? NOT being self-sufficient, and maintaining interplanetary supply lines.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 21:24:45 2015 No.7585919 >>7582991 Quantum bombs. Teleport bombs into the enemy ship and detonate. Or nations will have emdrive kinetic weapons co stantly accelerating in the outer solar system then impacting at ftl speeds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 21:50:20 2015 No.7585968 >>7583005 That's so dumb. You mean "credits"

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 01:59:33 2015 No.7586321 I wonder how long until we have the first actual battle in space, even if it is just between two satellites trying to poke each other's eyes out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 02:06:03 2015 No.7586330 Long range missile/drone duels. Missiles and drones are the best as they're flexible and rely on existing knowledge and tech and they're effective. You won't see lasers much outside of point defense as they're too inefficient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 02:23:09 2015 No.7586352 >>7585919 Would you have to manipulate quantum entanglement to do that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 02:24:28 2015 No.7586354 >>7586321 How about a fistfight on a space station?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 08:06:30 2015 No.7586605 >>7584167 I think lasers, although they provide the best ballistic properties, are easily countered. Just make the outer shell of your ship a mirror. Yet, one would have to give up current stealth technology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 08:41:34 2015 No.7586628 first air combat started as banter between the pilots ending in someone firing a revolver

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 13:10:36 2015 No.7586934

>>7582991
1) Flak guns... flak guns everywhere. There's no need for nuclear missiles or high powered lasers when you can just fling clouds of high-speed shrapnel at enemy ships and tear them to pieces.

2) Tactics and navigation will become the predominant force in space battles - combat will be more like chess - both opponents see each other's moves and can respond long before those moves become relevant. Combat then becomes about predicting your opponent's next ten moves and setting traps for them to fall into. You don't fire where your opponent is, you fire where you're going to force him to be in 20 minutes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 13:13:11 2015 No.7586942 >>7586352 Yes. You target the material, make it become entangled and reform into a bomb, preferably an antimatter once since that gives more bang for your buck.

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 13:50:16 2015 No.7586999
File: 1.73 MB, 1920x816, moonraker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>chinese space marines take over the ISS
>recoilless defensive guns are placed externally on the station
>shenzhou resupply vehicles also carry recoilless defensive guns
How do you retake the station?

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 14:06:05 2015 No.7587015

>>7583004
>What's there to fight over in space?
Strategic positions in space such as Lagrange points. Strategic positions on the moon like Peaks of Eternal Lights or resources like He3 rich moon dust. Access to fuel lakes of Titan or metal asteroids like Psyche having an enormous value.

I am sure there are plenty more cases. So there are good reasons for why guys in uniform are considering space war.

As to how to fight, well probably by sabotaging space vehicles on ground before launch. Or by taking over the command channel to fail the mission. Or by massive jamming to prevent command uplink to adjust orbit preventing dive into atmosphere.

There are plenty of ways that do not involve futuristic weapons.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 14:09:06 2015 No.7587020 >>7583004 What's there to fight over on Earth?

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 14:09:43 2015 No.7587021

>>7582991
High velocity rail guns and coordination nets of sensors will determine everything. Bombs are pretty useless in space, there's not much besides the energy of their explosive shrabnel to do damage; so the most effective ones will be like rpgs, using cavitation with their explosion to cause more damage. EMP bombs will also be useful but they can be guarded against.
in the end, precise targeting and lasers will take care of most targets, as they can fire over an infinite distance

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 14:35:22 2015 No.7587058
File: 107 KB, 450x338, WhyDoesGod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7582994
> hurl asteroid the size of the moon
Not necessary.

Just park a spaceship in the Asteroid Belt. If your propulsion system is Newtonian, or you have a magnetic rail device of any significant size, you should be able to push thousands of smaller asteroids, say 0.5 to 1km wide each.

It's the difference between dropping a piano on someone or shooting them with a shotgun. They're dead either way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 14:38:43 2015 No.7587068 >>7583013 Space government Space religion etc basically ideas, all disagreements and war are over ideas.

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 15:11:19 2015 No.7587115

>>7584350
As part of my evil genius phase I designed a way to do it without an insane amount of resources. Using existing technology that any large government or multinational corporation could get. It is not very fast often taking 5 to 10 years depending on the path, but the decaying orbital path means the energy needed to stop it grows to ridiculous levels very fast making it next to impossible to stop.

>>7586999
James Bond.
No, seriously get a spy to join the enemies ranks and do something.

I haven't thought this through but I guess sabotage life support while air-force blockades resupply ships. Then take station. If turrets are still up have the spy turn them off or throw disposable decoys to deplete turret ammo if spy died with everyone else.

>>7586605
Larger lasers can overwhelm all known material structures, including mirror armor. This would only make longer cool down cycles and larger radiators on laser cannons which are annoyances, but wouldn't stop them from shooting you to death.

Granted if you can stack enough annoyances war could be go a different way, but it going to need a lot more then just mirror armor.

>>7587058
correct, it is much easier then my old moon pushing scheme.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 15:18:54 2015 No.7587128 >>7587058 Another benefit is that smaller and faster has the same kinetic energy but is harder to detect and deflect once you go high enough speeds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 15:28:24 2015 No.7587135 >>7583004 More space

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 15:30:47 2015 No.7587140 >>7583007 Great answer

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 08:19:58 2015 No.7588465 Assuming you can detect incoming kinetic "bullets" from an ennemy ship, and have the time to react, could you just burst all your thrust to move in the same direction of the bullets, but slightly slower so the relativistic impact would be minimal?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 09:28:26 2015 No.7588554 close quarters astronaut fights in deep space

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 10:00:26 2015 No.7588591

>>7582991
Torpedos/missles not quite sure what you call them in space and Point defense canons is probably what its going to look like at first.
but it all depends on what your power source looks like if you got near infinite amount of energy on your "battle ship" railguns will definitly play a part mabey even lasers depending on how well lasers works as a weapon in space.
and we would probably be talking about insane distances that the battle takes place in you would most likely not have visual conformation off your target

Lets just hope we have no need to figth in space once we are capable of figthing in space.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 10:04:35 2015 No.7588605 >>7586999 Checked btw but that one is easy >recoilless defensive guns are placed externally on the station just shredd the marines and shenzhou vehicles to peices with the defence canons before they take over the station

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 10:17:40 2015 No.7588625 So just who can puncture the other's suit first? Or would we use heavy medieval-esque armour to counter that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 10:18:42 2015 No.7588627 >>7588625 Meant for >>7588554

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 10:25:49 2015 No.7588642

>>7588625
Well since weigth isent a issue in space i would assume the suits would be heavily armoured
but that dosent explain why people would try close quarters combat in the depths of space since space is fucking huge and you would most likely run out of air before you even saw your opponent

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 10:29:26 2015 No.7588652 >>7588642 Obviously you wait until your ships are close before getting out of the ships to knife-fight, anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 11:48:20 2015 No.7588743 >>7582991 There is a good game about it... from 1995 :). Ascendancy. Basically ships hurling miniature black holes at each other, plasma and lasers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 13:05:02 2015 No.7588888 >>7588625 Actually form fitting suits work well for that. If there is a hole your skin would bruise but the suit would not be compromised

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 13:08:54 2015 No.7588897 >>7588888 >all these reoccurring digits.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 13:56:53 2015 No.7588989 >>7588888 is this for real.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 15:46:15 2015 No.7589269 File: 219 KB, 660x500, dava-newman-04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7588888 >Actually form fitting suits work well for that. Dava Newman knows.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 16:09:55 2015 No.7589320

>>7588652
Oh yeah what was i thinking
obviously humanity would return to edge based combat once we conquer the surly bonds of earth it is the only logical way to figth in space
i mean space ships are expensive and hard to build so knife figths in zero G would save alot of resources and money

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 16:12:56 2015 No.7589328 >>7582994 >hurl asteroid the size of the moon towards your planet Implying an asteroid the size of a small football stadium wouldn't be more than sufficient

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 16:13:57 2015 No.7589333 >>7588888 Also, your skin will die off due to exposure to 0 degrees Kelvin. Have fun with that one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 16:19:13 2015 No.7589349 >>7589333 >0 K Son, you don't deserve those trips

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 16:42:03 2015 No.7589405 >>7589349 It could be colder, but the sun is in the way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 17:02:26 2015 No.7589440 File: 55 KB, 653x786, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7583004 A seat on the council

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 17:08:30 2015 No.7589451 >>7583004 Memes

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 17:14:33 2015 No.7589459 >>7582991 Drone missile carriers, mass accelerators, and lots and lots of nukes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 17:30:08 2015 No.7589486 >>7582994 Kek

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 17:37:16 2015 No.7589499
File: 11 KB, 300x247, crashing_this_ship_with_no_survivors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7582991

>Sabotation.

>Electronic warfare/hacking.

>Basically anything that could disable/fry enemy ship's electronics.

Seriously, why is everybody so Star Wars-tier here?
Blowing up stuff in orbit (huge ships/drones/whatever) is a bad fucking idea.
Kessler syndrome is a bitch.

It's way better (and more viable) to "convince" the enemy ship to shut down forever or take a detour for a one-way trip into the atmosphere (or moon/asteroid surface) minimizing the debris.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 22:05:32 2015 No.7590006 File: 591 KB, 793x1050, ASAT_missile_launch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7586999 Anti-Satellite missile like the ASM-135, pic related

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 22:31:01 2015 No.7590031

>>7588888
Sorry, was distracted by the glory that was all these 8's

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacesuits.php#id--Skintight_Suits

>>7589333
>your skin will die off due to exposure to 0 degrees Kelvin
The vacuum of space isn't cold the way you think it's cold. It's cold because there is nothing there. While the effective black-body radiation temperature throughout most of space is very close to absolute zero, a vacuum is unable to transfer of heat by conduction nor convection; the main temperature regulation concern is excess naturally generated body heat.

Trust the quintuple, I've even written a book with science based on science. I'm no rocket scientist though.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 22:39:01 2015 No.7590044

The only "space-warefare" we'd ever see would be stationary objects (like space stations) possibly firing lasers at incoming transport vehicles specially designed to withstand these lasers. Actual space-battleships are so unnecessary because who wants to defend space? Only places with valuable materials are worth defending and fighting over and all materials are locked away in plants, gas clouds, and astroids which would require MASSIVE scale operations to make it worth it. Also you wouldn't want to damage the equipment too much, because you wouldn't want to spend more resources in order to actually obtain materials.

Even with the concept of a possible "resource war" in space the idea of that happening is pretty damn unlikely because if we can advance enough to engage in "space-warfare" at scales large enough to actually matter then we probably can get those materials by other means, without conflict, and without using up current resources.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 22:41:32 2015 No.7590048 >>7590031 I heard it's actually pretty damn hot in space since you have to use a spacesuit which is notorious for being like an oven since the medium that would normally take away the heat isn't there so you just keep heating up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 22:53:37 2015 No.7590072 >>7590048 If you're near a star, yes this is true. Don't get close to stars.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 22:54:57 2015 No.7590074 >>7590072 I meant more like your body heat is heating up the suit.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:13:50 2015 No.7590109

>>7590044
>Actual space-battleships are so unnecessary because who wants to defend space?
I think you greatly underestimate humanities warfare capabilities. Sure it would mostly consist of sieges like in earth warfare but I can definitely see the tactical advantage of holding a certain orbit or lagrange point with a mobile weapons platform.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:19:57 2015 No.7590117

>>7589333
Even though space is cold, your skin wouldn't transfer heat very well. The primary chilling you would experience is the moisture in your skin boiling off because of the 0 pressure vacuum. This boiling water will pull some heat from your body and quickly dry out your skin. This would be the primary source of chilling you would experience. After the moisture is gone your body's internal temperature would reheat your skin. If you were somehow still alive or conscious by this point, you would feel your body heating uncontrollably from here until you die because you would not be able to chill yourself in any way to maintain equilibrium (skin won't sweat cuz all dried out). If you were dead by now, then your core would very slowly radiate off all of its heat after a few weeks or so

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:27:01 2015 No.7590135

>>7590044
Almost. It is true that attacking any individual ship or station is effectively impossible. Any attack would either be detectable, or easy to avoid (even just by accident).

Planets, however, would be extremely easy to attack. Simple accelerating a relatively small mass to near the speed of light with a mass accelerator loop will do. A car traveling 99.9% the speed of light will deal catastrophic damage to a planet and would be detectable for only a brief moment before impact, which would be far too little time to react (like evacuate). The light from the launch of the object would reach the planet at nearly the same time as the object.

A fast attack like this would be impossible on anything smaller than a Moon though, because only a slight deviation in orbit would result in a complete miss. (Of course, assuming that the attackers are a significant distance away, so that the enemies couldn't just nuke the shit out of you when they see you build the thing)

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:29:59 2015 No.7590143

>>7590109
This is pointless. Let's say the Russian move an attack platform to a L-point and actually use it. We see them turn it on, sleep for a day or two, then nuke the shit out of Russia, celebrate for a day, then intercept whatever the weapon launched before it reaches atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:42:46 2015 No.7590157 >>7590143 Why do you assume we're talking about modern day space fights? Of course we wouldn't have space battles today that would be pointless. This is a speculative topic about what space warfare might look like in the future.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:50:15 2015 No.7590168

>>7590157
It would be superfucking inefficient to send something out there just to send it right back really fucking quickly. It would be even stupider to send something all the way out there just to send back a piece of it really quickly. Unless the country already owns the entire fucking planet, their enemies would nuke the shit out of them before the mobile platform even reaches an L-point. If it is a fight between planets, Solar L-points still wouldn't have full coverage for the entire orbit, and it would take even fucking longer for the attack to reach and be far easier to intercept.

The only option for future space weapons is either throwing black holes at planets, or throwing shit at near the speed of light at a planet, and doing either from extreme ranges. Anything less and mutually assured destruction is guaranteed, or the attack will just be intercepted/avoided

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:52:03 2015 No.7590173 >>7586605 This would require a perfectly reflective mirror if it was to be a perfect counter. Stealth technology that works by having the light flow around rather than bounce off the vessel would be a perfect counter however.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 23:56:53 2015 No.7590183

>projectile travelling at 99.9% the speed of light, from a range of 10,000,000km
>arrives 3 jiffies after it can possibly be detected
Space fights are probably just going to be ships sniping each other with high speed particles, rather than the close range naval fights seen in the movies.
0.999c isn't even that fast as particle beams go, you could easily have that on an obnoxiously small fighter.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 00:00:56 2015 No.7590193

>>7582991
One thing that always annoys me about large space fights in movies is how all the vehicles are orientated on the same plane. If they really had a battle like that ships would be pointing all different directions and shit.
Also, why do so many sci fi movies make the ships look aerodynamic? Shit makes no sense.
Still have yet to see an epic space battle on the big screen that really satisfies me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 00:01:20 2015 No.7590197 >>7590183 >an obnoxiously small fighter. Oh my god, space gnats. It's like cliff racers but far more annoying

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 00:04:46 2015 No.7590210

>>7590197
Yup, because it's also like having a good thousand snipers in an FPS game, except that unlike the usual situation of there being cover, flank routes, and reasonable distances, they're further away than the moon and they constantly have clear line of sight on you.
Also, they're all aimbots.
A thousand unavoidable aimbots.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 00:12:20 2015 No.7590230 >>7590168 Okay I'm entirely sure what your trying to say right now. Are you saying that holding defensive infrastructure in certain orbits would be pointless? What are you getting at?

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 00:13:28 2015 No.7590236

>>7590193
Good points. I think aerodynamic ships are supposed to be for takeoff and re-entry into an atmosphere.

But can you imagine being surrounded in six directions instead of four? Your shit would get fucked up. There should be a game about space tactics.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 00:15:05 2015 No.7590239

The rules of our reality were perfectly selected. In the countless eons to come, there will never be an encounter with a hostile invading alien. Not once, not ever. If they show up, they will be friendly. Or when we get there, they will be primitive or at war. A house divided cannot stand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 00:59:28 2015 No.7590360 Most battles would likely consist planetary assaults. Since borders are very fuzzy in space and practically impossible petrol there probably wouldn't be any deep space battles.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:13:10 2015 No.7590380 >>7583136 Sounds a lot like current naval warfare.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:17:06 2015 No.7590386

>>7590230
Shooting at a ship would be pointless because either the projectile is traveling too slowly and will be intercepted, is traveling too quickly and will miss, or is a laser and won't do enough damage.

Shooting at a planet, or anything that can't move out of the way in time would be pointless because of mutually assured destruction. UNLESS the damage is dealt before a counterattack can be launched. Thus, the attack method would have to arrive basically as soon as it is detected.

This means sending a small mass at very very nearly the speed of light at a planet very far away. If the planet is too close, they will notice you spinning up the mass. If they are small enough to move, they might accidentally sneeze and dodge your projectile. If the attack is any slower, then they notice too quickly and will do the exact same thing to you: mutually assured destruction.

The only option is a car sized mass traveling at 99.999% the speed of light from a long distance away. This is the only option in the future thanks to nukes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:17:18 2015 No.7590388 Silent and deadly. Probably with some kind of directed emp blasts. No nukes, to expensive, for cheapo nations it would be kinetic bombs, as they are legal to keep in orbit and are already there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:21:27 2015 No.7590401 >>7588605 He said the Chinese put them there. How do you handle the station now equipped with them?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:21:34 2015 No.7590402 >>7582991 extreme long range battles, basically aerial fights on steroids

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:23:53 2015 No.7590407 >>7588642 >weight isent a issue in space Weight is not an issue, but mass is. The more mass you have, the more force it takes to accelerate it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:26:08 2015 No.7590413

>>7590183
A particle beam would deliver a very very small portion of its energy to the target. You can hit a mission critical component like an engine and the engine could still survive. The particle beam wouldn't even breach hull and leak significant atmosphere. Also, on a very small ship, the heat generated by the particle accelerator would destroy the ship, and the beam would accelerate the tiny ship.

Essentially you would have a big loop with engines and massive huge fucking radiators to distribute heat. The only time the ship would move is when you turn on the particle beam and that would be in the direction opposite the direction of the beam's travel. The engines for the tiny ship would not be enough to accelerate it significantly unless it wasn't really a tiny ship. Even then, the proton beam would not destroy the target. Could possibly damage it though. Only destroy if you leave the beam on for a very long time and try and cut it up. But remember you have minutes-long speed of light delay to react to evasive maneuvers, so after the first hit you never hit it again.

Build a Dyson sphere around a star, include a mass accelerator loop, launch car sized rocks, and destroy any planet you aim at. Only solution.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:27:29 2015 No.7590414 >>7589333 >never going to school smh, anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 01:56:15 2015 No.7590466 File: 144 KB, 550x550, 1444490370701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7588888 This is an actual post

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 08:01:27 2015 No.7590901

>>7590401
Nuke china

OR

you could have high precision railguns mounted on a ship thats to far away to be noticed and take out the defensive guns and ships
you have small undecteable probes closer to the space station then the ship to relay info back to the railguns
computers stand for the aiming and calculates the trajectories so no chance of missing since a space station cant do evasive manouvers also you

send in grunts to deal with the marines and hope for the best

OR

EMP that shit blow up the ships then send in the grunts and hope for the best

OR

stealthy torpedos without explosive payloads/ very small payloads so you dont damage the station and only the defensive guns

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 08:03:40 2015 No.7590905 >>7588888 What about radiation and the unfiltered rays of the sun? is that not going to be bad for you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 09:06:28 2015 No.7591011 >>7582991 Basically Star Wars.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 09:20:36 2015 No.7591042

>>7590407
>the more force it takes to accelerate it
And to turn it. Massive ships used massive defenses as they are so damn slow.
Smaller craft can rely on mobility to evade most attacks.

>>7590466
>This is an actual post
In retrospect I should have given much more detail.

>>7590905
>What about radiation and the unfiltered rays of the sun? is that not going to be bad for you?
Momentary exposure. You know how you can walk around outside and not worry about the sun? If you spend all day at the beach, you wear sunblock, but if you walk to the beach, hang around for an hour an leave, you don't need a damn thing.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 09:26:13 2015 No.7591053

>>7591011
>Basically Star Wars.
No.
Small manned fighters will instead be drone craft on closed systems so they can't be remote hacked.
FTL that allows you to warp DIRECTLY TO A PLANET means NO SPACE BATTLES EVER except if you already have a fleet in orbit. The fleets can avoid each other and simply bombard planets.
Combat spacecraft won't have windows.
No spacecraft would put their command deck IN AN EASY POSITION TO SHOOT.
I don't care what reasons they give, space fighters don't fly around and bank like real atmospheric fighters.

And much more

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 13:13:24 2015 No.7591473

>>7591053
Small fighters, droned or manned, don't really work in space. The smaller the craft, the less fuel the craft has. The main problem with designing a maneuverable craft is that they have to maneuver all the time, and thus waste fuel very very quickly.

To top it off, the weapons systems will require extra mass that does not assist acceleration, only hurts it, and some will even require a ton of energy. A very strong laser generates a lot of heat, and small spacecraft can't cool off quickly, so it will be very limited. Might as well just shoot more missiles instead of smaller ships that shoot smaller missiles.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:44:19 2015 No.7591967 >>7586999 EMP, then send the grunts in.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:46:55 2015 No.7591969 >>7583004 >What's there to fight over in space? Escaping of world dictatorship >UN say everything outside earth belongs to UN NOW well we are fucked

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:46:58 2015 No.7591970 >>7586999 Launch the Gundam

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:47:58 2015 No.7591974 >>7582991 I once heard is will be basically like a 2 trains battle each one with a guy glued on top of it with weapons.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:49:17 2015 No.7591976

>So, what are plausible technologies and tactics for space combat?
>
>Missiles/torpedoes will be vulnerable to ECM, I guess. Will it be possible
>to have guided-missile frigates in space with buckets of ECCM, guiding
>their torpedoes by remote control?
Lightspeed communications delay makes guiding anything by remote control
pretty much unworkable. Everything must be self-guided over the sorts of
distances likely to be involved.
ECM is of limited usefulness in space battles, where ships and weapons
will be seperated by vast empty distances. It's harder to confuse the
enemy about where you are in such an environment. Of course since ECM
isn't tremendously hard, and the enemy is going to see you even if you
don't use it, it will probably be used. Just not to huge effect

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:50:34 2015 No.7591978

>>7591976
>Will it be worth attempting stealth technologies to avoid observation, or
>is IR always going to give you away? How conspicuous will spaceships'
>drives be at range?
Stealth is only useful under very limited circumstances. You have to
build a huge radiator structure to dissipate heat in one direction, you
can't accelerate at any point in which you are in the enemy's view, and
you are screwed if he has sensors in the direction you are radiating
heat from. In other words, it could be useful to sneak your ships into
close range from deep space for an intricately planned surprise attack
(involving months drifting under special radiator shields, and then
ditching the shields when you reach the point where you will be detected
anyway). It is not a useful strategy in battle. Sensors small enough to
be carried on board (large) ships could detect pretty much any engine in
operation anywhere in the solar system.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:51:36 2015 No.7591982

>>7591978
>Will spaceships be painted black to prevent telescopic detection, or
>mirrored to bounce laser-beams?
A mirrored surface probably wouldn't be very useful. It would only
affect lasers, and even then would only reduce the power of the laser
attack for a fraction of a second before the mirror at that spot boiled
away.
>Perhaps ships with heat-superconducting
>armour will not be susceptible to significant damage by laser beams,
"Heat-superconducting armor"? To my knowledge, no such thing exists.
Normal superconductors superconduct electricity, but _not_ heat.
>How effective are nuclear warheads going to be in space?
They will destroy a ship if they explode very close to it. If they don't
explode very close, then they are little more than an annoyance that
blinds exposed sensors. Even the largest warheads won't seriously damage
a shielded space warship if they explode over a kilometer away, and in
space a kilometer is pretty short range.
>Sure they won't
>do blast damage, but neutrons and gamma-rays might still be effective.
>What about nuclear claymore mines? Nuke-pumped grasers?
Nuclear-pumped lasers would do impressive damage, if they hit. If you're
in a situation where it is easier to evade beam weapons than to hit with
them, and each side fires a hundred laser pulses for every one that
hits, then nuke-pumped lasers aren't very useful because they only fire
one shot, and a short one at that. Tremendous power only matters if you
can be reasonably sure of a hit

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:52:50 2015 No.7591984

>>7591982
>Are KE weapons going to be effective, or is guidance and delivery going to
>cause problems? A ship might kill itself running into a crowbar, but how
>easy is it to get a crowbar in front of a ship?
Crowbar-sized objects would have to be guided, and subject to
countermeasures. Filling the area around a ship with pebble-sized or
smaller debris, however, will cause serious damage unless it can
outright fly around the area.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:53:32 2015 No.7591986 Homeworld was an awesome game.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 17:14:47 2015 No.7592041 >>7582991 Ships will literally tear themselves apart as fuel for their anti matter weapons and shields. Seems like the only way to win is to control the most mass.

Anonymous Fri Oct 16 05:06:43 2015 No.7593332

>>7590413
One question to the mass accelerator loop: Lets assume that the car we launch weighs 1 ton, wouldn't it cause incredible amounts of friction at near c with even the slightest amount of shit if we assume that even space is not a complete vacuum?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 05:12:14 2015 No.7593338 >>7593332 I'm pretty sure no one knows what fluid mechanics look like at relativistic speeds

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 05:14:06 2015 No.7593341 >>7593338 Can we calculate the energy that is needed to actually speed up a rock to near c? Im a physics newb, bear with me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 05:16:48 2015 No.7593344 >>7593341 yeah, it's around the energy of a rock that travels at a speed near c.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 05:18:40 2015 No.7593346 >>7593344 Welp, could have thought about that myself. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 05:26:56 2015 No.7593354 >>7593344 So from energy=1/2massvelocity^2 i calculated it to be around 10700 mega tons which is equivalent to 214x the zar bomb. Wouldnt this actually obliterate the surface of our planet already?

Anonymous Fri Oct 16 09:50:24 2015 No.7593649

>>7593332
Well for the most part, every single atom or molecule that the 1 ton mass encounters would be embedded into the mass, until the mass encounters an object of roughly equivalent size and density. Then something else would happen. The smaller atoms and molecules would not significantly slow down or destroy the projectile, and the odds of it hitting anything larger than that before impact with target would be very very low.

Even though large explosions would probably occur during these minor collisions, there would hardly be anywhere near enough energy released to fracture the projectile.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 12:40:54 2015 No.7593965 Read Forever War. It's pretty based approach to the topic.

Anonymous Fri Oct 16 12:42:59 2015 No.7593972

>>7582991
>be several ls away

>accelerate uranium sphere full of hydrogen to near light speed

>hit target with a few milliseconds of warning

>impact compresses hydrogen while pushing uranium together to cause nuclear explosion

Nearly impossible to detect, basically impossible to shield against, would be incredibly easy to aim since you just need to change the strength of a magnetic field a bit.

There's basically nothing you can do if there's a ball of heavy metal racing towards you at 60% of light speed. You can't deflect it in time, you can't block it since even if you have the 50+m of armor you would need there's still several MT of TNT in explosive power there, and you couldn't move out of the way in the time you would have to react.

Anonymous Fri Oct 16 12:44:53 2015 No.7593978

>>7593972
also a lot of people are saying stuff like "accelerate a meteor at them", like 1) they wouldn't see it coming several hours from impact and 2) it wouldn't take disgustingly large amounts of energy. It would be like fighting tanks by rolling 50m balls of iron over them, why do it like that when you can just use a pointy artillery shell for the same effect at a minute amount of the cost

Anonymous Fri Oct 16 12:45:52 2015 No.7593982

>>7593354
Meteor impacts have a much higher energy release.
>Based on crater formation rates determined from the Earth's closest celestial partner, the Moon, astrogeologists have determined that during the last 600 million years, the Earth has been struck by 60 objects of a diameter of 5 km (3 mi) or more. The smallest of these impactors would release the equivalent of approximately 40 zettajoules ( 50 million megatons of TNT) and leave a crater 95 km (60 mi) across. For comparison, annual energy consumption on earth is 0.5 zettajoules; the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 40 petajoules (50 megatons).

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 12:55:32 2015 No.7594017 Space warfare will take place inside space stations or devolved into planetary assaults. Space battles with ships would take a while because space is fucking huge. Shooting missiles would take dozens of minutes to reach target.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 16 12:55:36 2015 No.7594018 >>7591042 Yeah well im pretty sure the unfilterd rays of the sun are going to be seriously fucking you up within minutes not hours so self sealing suits would be alot better then skin tigth suits

Anonymous Fri Oct 16 13:03:49 2015 No.7594048

>>7591042
the majority of the dangerous shit the sun sends out gets deflected by earth's magnetosphere.If it didn't the average person would be getting roughly 3 times the radiation dose they get right now and solar storms could be fatal.

Dust absolutely is a problem though which is why all current EVA suits are designed to stay airtight even if they get hit by it.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math