[zdoppiklonikaa]

best.thread.ever.

[k5wTvu9f]

*Spaceships, like submarines, are distinctly alien environments for human beings. Cramped quarters, no gravity or a very strange artificial variety, and total reliance on life support systems. A single hit that knocks out the life support will kill all the crew in moments, or at least doom them to death. The ship might be able to fight on without them, but with the crew dead... Surely the crew could wear spacesuits. Also, the phrase 'doom them to death' is awesome.

[Kilaoksrsa]

The energy generated by the ship's source can be used in a number of ways with military relevance. First, the life support systems will not overlap and will include sealants the hull will both generate and heat. Second, the ship will use rail guns to deflect small objects and tear holes in missiles and opposing ships. (As with all projectile weapons, one can also tear holes in the goodguys.) Next will be projected electroenergy beams aimed at disabling the electronics of the missiles or ships. Last would be nukes, their problem the indiscriminate nature of their damage. (A nuclear Claymore mine comes to mind where most of the damage is directed in a specific direction with only a small backblast.)

With the exception of the nuke Claymore, all of these technologies exist now. Two have had considerables due to the atmosphere and gravity. Both the electronic beam and the rail gun have considerable promise in the vacuum and zero gravity of space.

Speed will be a considerable problem in space in terms of patrol-type speeds and for one in describing to a second the speed of a third. While the geometry exists for that, humans don't normally speak geometry. What you have is a human translation of the method by which ship one's speed relative to ship two is expressed in a form that permits ship one to desribe the speed and trajectory of ship three to ship two. This becomes immensely more complex as more ships are added. Thus will decisions be made on what to launch, where to fly (avoidance or intercept), and how to distribute the ship's available energy toward future options.

One honest question: In zero gravity, why is it that "You can't really dodge either, because a ship traveling at any speed will have too much inertia to overcome without killing the crew with evasive maneuvers." Haven't kept up with why turning presumably adds gravity to the point of crushing the crew even if we put them in gravity resistant battle-station chairs. Note that no available technologies we know and have tested get us past about 20% of the speed of light and even that is theoretical.

[prpaims]

I'm skeptical about mass drivers. Spaceships will be constructed to handle orbital space debris gracefully. Space debris is moving at a much faster clip than a mass driver would generate.

I would choose lasers or masers as my weapon of choice. You might even ram an enemy ship, grapple and board it.

[Henldyhl]

BP, we could easily get over .2c - it just would take a long time. Solar sails would do it with no problem (over a long time), among other things.

The reason 'turning' (ie, course correction) would kill the crew is simple - if you have a velocity vector of, say, .2c in one direction, causing that vector to be even a degree off takes a tremendous amount of acceleration in the perpendicular vector. A missile (unmanned) could do that easily, and then some, but even 100g would crush a human like a cotton ball - I don't have the time to do the math but I imagine it would take many hundreds of g's to turn a few degrees at .2c ...

[fhutiussk]

I'm pretty sceptical about the whole concept of crews in space combat, considering there's already something like the UAV.

[DrunkMans]

There will always be space pirates.

[quottrethew]

I imagine maneuvering to avoid dumb projectiles is far from impossible. The ship doesn't have to turn drastically at all to avoid incoming fire particularly when you consider the tiny size of ships compared to the range of weapons.

On the other hand rail guns and whatever would probably be effective ways of shooting down incoming missiles.

I suspect early space combat will involve shooting missiles at each other and attempting to shoot down the missiles before they hit with lighter weapons.

[nithhysfusy]

Yes, I would imagine that most space battles would take place near planets or space stations. Aince we can assume a very high degree of technical prowess we can probably assume that combatants would engage each other at very long ranges too. They would probably never see each other. I would expect anti-missle technology to progress also, so maybe missles wouldn't be a major weapon unless they could be made sufficiently stealthy or their speed increased to the point that they couldn't be detected before impact.

[StizePypemype]

E-War will figure greatly into space combat. Sensor jamming and EMP bursts to incapacitate the electronics of your opponent are technologies that we have available now. A heavy reliance on unmanned sensor platforms for detection, possibly armed with drones for self-protection/boggy elimination.

I don't see manned space combat other than planet protecton from large platforms. At least until some sort of force shield technology is developed to allow smaller craft to move about without being shredded by space schrapnel.

[freddystone]

To elaborate: the EMP effect is the result of gamma rays ionizing large regions of the Earth's atmosphere, causing massive electric currents to flow that subsequently induce massive electric currents in electrical circuits, which tends to do bad things to transistors.

[PefeFoesk]

That doesn't hide the fact that their ship is hundreds of Kelvin hotter than space.

[SeLvesTr]

One stupid question: What if you had a material, that would reflect all heat - not absorb it and not let it go through ? Could you then not build some kind of layer around the ship, with this material on the inside, and the heat would be trapped in it (e.g. a perfect greenhouse) ? Of course, that would mean, that the ship itself would costantly heat up. Couldnt do that for too long maybe...

One step further: Say, your opponent scans for heat (long-wave). Then you may wanna use this shield. And you could have a device - another layer maybe - that would turn the heat (IR) into UV. Since the opponent is scanning for heat, and not for UV at this time, you´d go undetected without building up energy within your stealth shield. Of course, then it would be vital to know what your enemy´s sensor are going after at any given time. (Though i´d assume, if they can, they´d pick all the wavelength at same time, and then you´d be screwed). Well, just rambling...

[LeaderBiz]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
One stupid question: What if you had a material, that would reflect all heat - not absorb it and not let it go through ? You mean, a mirror?

[AffipgyncDync]

by David Weber
is pretty good about depicting plausible space warfare in the future. The caveat is that people develop control of gravity and faster than light travel (via hyperspace).

[Siffidiolla]

Originally posted by GePap
What kind of sensors would be picking up this heat?

An IR video camera, obviously.

Actually, this leads me to ask what kind of sensor would one use in a combat situation to measure the ambient temperature out in the combat area?

As above, an IR video camera. And the ambient temperature of space* is well known and constant; it's about 3K.

* more specifically, the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation

[ñàéäèíã]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I don't understand how you can call something plausible and then say "oh, by the way, it throws out Newton AND Einstein!"

[TopcigsCOM]

I doubt that anyone will randomly execute complex scans on areas of open deep space, like between galaxies, even if they could. There any anomoly at all would indicate something to avoid. However, almost all combat, such as it is would take place inside star systems or even near or in planet atmospheres, so the fact that hi-speed combat could only be mechanically activated for a few brief seconds is probably irrelevant.

[tobaccoman]

The only reason to "man" warships is when transferring ground troops between planet or to planetoids. Out to some limit on communications devices, only one lump in a star system needs to be occupied to control all commercial and supporting military activity as long as the occupier is the only one present in any system. Once others enter or are present in the system then combat opprotunities could present themselves. Note that fleets of ships in combat between star systems is a Navy writer's wet dream, but not a likely encounter scenario. Most warships will be automated and will shift energy between weapons, movement, "shields," communications, and repair. Life support would be ridiculously energy intensive and unnecessary. Ships would be flown by jockeys on the command lump in the star system and the ship would have to absolutely minimize mass. (Remember anything not manufactured in the system must be carried from some system where planets have manufacturing capabilities. Each unit of mass either limits the speed or the range of the carrier ship.)

So, weapons dependent on the warship carrying baby airplanes (which is what modern missiles are) or ammunition like projectiles will really limit the nature or functions of the warship. At the moment it appears nuclear will be the way to go across the board. Alternatively, perhaps the projectiles could be mined and formed at the destination and then loaded on, but the the patrol craft maneuvering would require much more sophisticated programming and processing if its mass is in constant flux.

Just thinking about what we think we know.

Note: Does a known method exist that could transfer infrared (heat) to UV (light) in real time?

[Worseacar]

A missile can only blow something up. It can't secure anything. If your only aim is to destroy something, then a missile is fine. If you aim to get control of something, a missile is counterproductive.

Also, what would prevent the missile from being destroyed en route? After all, it would be hard to hide it, and if its coming on a simple trajectory over long distances, it seems that stopping it would be relatively simple.