Poll: Space Combat
- Thread starter feather240
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What about EMPs? Is there anyway to use them?Andantil said:
Thanks, that was interesting.Furburt said:
http://gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles
Read this before posting, "MISSILES FTW". They won't work well in space.
Railguns seem better for damage, but tracking would be a problem, lasers will be used for disabling ship systems.
Read this before posting, "MISSILES FTW". They won't work well in space.
Railguns seem better for damage, but tracking would be a problem, lasers will be used for disabling ship systems.
I think that once we really develop space combat, so that might be in a good number of hundreds of years, things will be a mix of plasma weapons, missiles, and magnetically accelerated kinetic weapons, but not lasers. First off, I think lasers are too slow to do damage, since all it does is heat the target area. It may heat it fast, but a lump of plasma flying at high speed has some impact damage, heat damage, and it can splatter, spreading chunks of plasma out like shrapnel.
Obviously, you would probably not even see your enemy with the naked eye, as you would be shooting at eachother from many hundreds of kilometers away. I suspect there would be cold-plasma shields, as well as missiles to intercept missiles, those built to kill ships, and those meant to take out fighters and whatnot. There might also be point defense guns to fire a bolt of plasma to intercept another, like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet.
Then, of course, there would be fighters to act as close range assault vehicles, since they are smaller and with appropriate tactics and technology have a better chance of defeating enemy detection from a long distance given their small size.
Missiles could also work the same way, ad with good enough AI (not like autonomous AI, the kind that isn't stupid because it won't decide to kill US) to use discretion. Think of it like this. You fire a missile, and say it uses ion propulsion. The ions would produce some electromagnetic signal that the enemy could see. So, the missile could point at the target, accelerate to a decent speed of travel, and shut down all thrusters, reducing its signal just that much. Basically glide stealthily more than make a daring, very visible entry like a bright piece of plasma.
Also, I just thought of something about lasers. A laser is light, and we have prototype invisibility cloaks TODAY which take the light around the object. While not entirely perfect, future systems could most likely eliminate 90% of the projected energy.
Read Tom Clancy's book, Red Storm Rising, take the naval combat parts, put them in space, as a 3D environment, and crank up the technology and range of the deployment of weapons.
Obviously, you would probably not even see your enemy with the naked eye, as you would be shooting at eachother from many hundreds of kilometers away. I suspect there would be cold-plasma shields, as well as missiles to intercept missiles, those built to kill ships, and those meant to take out fighters and whatnot. There might also be point defense guns to fire a bolt of plasma to intercept another, like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet.
Then, of course, there would be fighters to act as close range assault vehicles, since they are smaller and with appropriate tactics and technology have a better chance of defeating enemy detection from a long distance given their small size.
Missiles could also work the same way, ad with good enough AI (not like autonomous AI, the kind that isn't stupid because it won't decide to kill US) to use discretion. Think of it like this. You fire a missile, and say it uses ion propulsion. The ions would produce some electromagnetic signal that the enemy could see. So, the missile could point at the target, accelerate to a decent speed of travel, and shut down all thrusters, reducing its signal just that much. Basically glide stealthily more than make a daring, very visible entry like a bright piece of plasma.
Also, I just thought of something about lasers. A laser is light, and we have prototype invisibility cloaks TODAY which take the light around the object. While not entirely perfect, future systems could most likely eliminate 90% of the projected energy.
Read Tom Clancy's book, Red Storm Rising, take the naval combat parts, put them in space, as a 3D environment, and crank up the technology and range of the deployment of weapons.
Explosions are a waste of energy in space because there is no medium to transmit shockwaves (which is the biggest effect of an explosion), so missiles are out, unless they are purely kinetic. They don't slow down so could use a large payload. Still, very hard to maneuver at high speeds.
Ramming would be insanely expensive and hard to do (try maneuvering at several km/s). Not something you want in a scrap. Same goes for boarding.
Simple kinetic slugs would be cheapest and do-able (the Russians tried). Just calculate orbit and trajectory and fire up the mass drivers. *soundless impact* "Hullbreach in sector 2! Send repair crews!" Still, very hard to aim though. Maybe shotguns in space would work.
Lasers would be best IMO. In space, they just don't lose power over distance, so you can just keep tracking the enemy and cut open their hull and scramble their sensors. Oh, and you can't see them, the enemy can't track you by your own weapons.
Also, the magnetic fields and radiation of a nuclear weapon in space would be very effective.
Ramming would be insanely expensive and hard to do (try maneuvering at several km/s). Not something you want in a scrap. Same goes for boarding.
Simple kinetic slugs would be cheapest and do-able (the Russians tried). Just calculate orbit and trajectory and fire up the mass drivers. *soundless impact* "Hullbreach in sector 2! Send repair crews!" Still, very hard to aim though. Maybe shotguns in space would work.
Lasers would be best IMO. In space, they just don't lose power over distance, so you can just keep tracking the enemy and cut open their hull and scramble their sensors. Oh, and you can't see them, the enemy can't track you by your own weapons.
Also, the magnetic fields and radiation of a nuclear weapon in space would be very effective.
I'm pretty sure a good solution to the tracking problems of missiles and th recoil of kinetic weapons would be to have a dumb, non homing missile that's basically just a solid rod. Have it so it is somehow jettisoned from the ship, is pointed where it needs to be fired and ignites and accelerates after release, constantly until it runs out of fuel/impacts.
Also, don't forget, unless we find some magical way of shielding crew from background radiation they're exposed to normally in space, a way of building ships LARGE enough to feasibly carry weapons and have the need for such defenses,this probably won't happen within our lifetimes.
One space-fighter is one thing, but more than one, on opposite "sides" in conflict? That'll take awhile.
Also, don't forget, unless we find some magical way of shielding crew from background radiation they're exposed to normally in space, a way of building ships LARGE enough to feasibly carry weapons and have the need for such defenses,this probably won't happen within our lifetimes.
One space-fighter is one thing, but more than one, on opposite "sides" in conflict? That'll take awhile.
Missiles.
remember: YOU CANNOT SEE THE TARGET. Missiles can, using the thermal emissions of a ship (remember how the Normandy's stealth worked?). Thus, they can be used at longer range.
Space combat will not take place at close ranges. Or long range. The idea of long range you have? that's like two guys fighting with knives, when real long range is on a scale of hundreds of thousands of kilometers at least.
You won't see the target, you'll need a guided missile to hit them. By the time a kinetic slug has reached the target, the target will be back in port.
Then you get to kinetic weapon ranges at tens of thousands of kilometers. Seriously, lasers lose energy more quickly in space than kinetics. The laser energy will disperse. with the vacuum of space, there's nothing to slow a slug down.
Even shorter range will be lasers, which will probably be used to intercept projectiles.
At least, that's what I think I remember from Mass Effect's codex. Just read that, it's all as accurate as gamers are going to need to be.
remember: YOU CANNOT SEE THE TARGET. Missiles can, using the thermal emissions of a ship (remember how the Normandy's stealth worked?). Thus, they can be used at longer range.
Space combat will not take place at close ranges. Or long range. The idea of long range you have? that's like two guys fighting with knives, when real long range is on a scale of hundreds of thousands of kilometers at least.
You won't see the target, you'll need a guided missile to hit them. By the time a kinetic slug has reached the target, the target will be back in port.
Then you get to kinetic weapon ranges at tens of thousands of kilometers. Seriously, lasers lose energy more quickly in space than kinetics. The laser energy will disperse. with the vacuum of space, there's nothing to slow a slug down.
Even shorter range will be lasers, which will probably be used to intercept projectiles.
At least, that's what I think I remember from Mass Effect's codex. Just read that, it's all as accurate as gamers are going to need to be.
Our earliest attempts a space battle would most likely be similar to naval battle. A combination of kinetic projectile weapons and missiles (torpedoes). Current bullets use an oxidizing material (produces oxygen as it burns) in the gunpowder and thus would be a less expensive alternative to railguns. Missiles would require quite a few modifications to be anywhere near as maneuverable as atmospheric ones, but since they would not require constant thrust to maintain speed they would have extremely long effective ranges. Plus tracking a target would be easy since heat signatures couldn't be very well hidden in space. This is all keeping in mind that I'm looking at a realistic concept of our first battles in space; which means that weaponized laser technology would still be inefficient, ramming would be a viable option still, G-forces would prevent high speed manuevering, and force field technology would be immature or non-existant.
Also, if you want a game that has a realistic space combat physics model you should check out the Independence War series. Not only is it a HUGE universe, but everything is affected by inertia and you could feasibly thrust in one direction and continue accelerating with no maximum speed... trying to stop after that is an issue though.
Also, if you want a game that has a realistic space combat physics model you should check out the Independence War series. Not only is it a HUGE universe, but everything is affected by inertia and you could feasibly thrust in one direction and continue accelerating with no maximum speed... trying to stop after that is an issue though.
Space is BIG and EMPTY.feather240 said:
Boarding is impractical, because the ship would have to already be virtually destroyed to hold still long enough to board it.
Lasers are impractical, because we can hardly dissipate the heat of a laser IN atmosphere, how the hell would we vent that kind of heat in space where there isn't any atmosphere to transfer heat away to? You'd cook yourself to death in the first volley.
Kinetic weapons lack guidance systems, and there is no way you'll hit a target if it changes it's trajectory even a tiiiiiny bit when these distances are so incredibly vast. It'd be like trying to shoot a bullet to hit another bullet out of the air...while the bullet is actively dodging...and from across the planet.
Missile is the most plausible, but even this is hard and expensive, because unless your missile has it's own sensor suite(which will be expensive if not impossible), it needs to communicate with your ship for course adjustments, and as the distances get farther, the response time increases. Even 10ms lag can result in a big miss when things are moving that fast.
Ramming assumes completely imaginary technology.
Really, most of the offensive tech we have right now are self-defeating in space like lasers, or are too limited to be of any use in space. All the defensive tech they'd need is to apply a random thrust to their manuevering system at random variables, and you're screwed when trying to figure out where they're going to be by the time your weapon reaches them.
You're a bit lacking in information...feather240 said:
1) Boarding would require actually getting to the target physically which would be ridiculously difficult, given that it's going to be hard to equip a human to survive point defence fire from a spaceship let alone main cannon fire whilst still allowing him to move in the relatively cramped interiors. Even getting close would be an absolute pain - stealth is a ***** in space as everything you do generates heat which takes a long time to radiate away and stands out like a sore thumb in the cold background radiation. And before you think that cold space = good cooling, bear in mind why vacuum flasks work: vacuum is a good insulator..
2) as people have already pointed out, we already have lasers, and the US has weaponised them. If they wanted to, they could start making an air fleet of C130s with lasers, and atm are researching boat-based laser point defences. The advantage of them in space is there's no atmosphere to attenuate the beam, allowing far greater ranges and accuracy than in atmosphere. Plus of course, they are the fastest weapon system we have.
3) Missiles are great as a kinetic weapon, less so as explosives. Whilst they still have fuel they can correct their flight path, unlike with ballistic rounds, and they'll cause a hell of a lot of damage on impact. Of course, their relative complexity compared to solid slugs means that point defence weapons are more effective against them, but if you're using kinetic warheads anyway (read: big heavy lumps of metal designed to rip the target a new one) they you're still in with a chance to cause damage.
3) Kinetic weapons are slow. The damage potential is huge, but you're going to have to get close to actually hit. I'll go into that more in a minute.
4) Ramming... erm, have you been watching too much Star Trek? What's this about disintegrating forcefields? Even if 'shields' were defined, would not the enemy have them too? And how close do you think these ships are?!
Most important point: DISTANCE. Star Wars and Star Trek, and the majority of other popular sci-fi might look all cool and flshy, with battleships grazing past each other spitting firey death into each other's shimmering deflector bubbles, but take a step back for a second and think.
You have lasers, which can be pin-point accurate at light-second distances. LIGHT SECOND - that's 299,792.458 kilometres. In one second. By comparison, a 1950's naval cannon might have a muzzle velocity of 808 meters/s - that's like 370,000 times faster. At one second time intervals your manoeuvring options are limited, so you'll want to be further away if you don't want crispifying by lasers. Then again, as Kelbear points out, lasers are HOT to use, so perhaps it's best not to.
Use magnetically accelerated slugs instead - current tech is looking to fire 1.1g slugs at 7000 m/s, and with no atmosphere to attenuate speed you're going to be hitting your target at full speed (and therefore energy). If you hit. That's the problem with kinetics: they are hit-and-miss. Sure, you're going to be turning their armour to plasma if you hit, but at any range they are going to be able to evade you easily in all three dimensions.
That brings us to missiles: fire them from your mag accelerators to extend their range, just as you would with the kinetic slugs, but then they use their onboard propulsion to stay on target. The increased accuracy this gives is offset by the increased complexity and expense of each round, and the missile's vulnerability to damage by point defences - hit the propulsion system and the missile's screwed. No need to use explosive warheads, just have them hit really hard. Even nukes wouldn't be that great as most of the thermal energy would be lost to space and radiation shielding would be standard on spaceships. Of course, get a nuke into the ship inside a kinetic missile and that would be a different story, but would be FAR to expensive to do on a mass scale.
[TL; DR]
So, kinetics rape at short range, missiles at longer range, point defences are necessary to protect against missiles, and if you've got some large celestial body to act as a heatsink then lasers would be a great static defence!
I'm worried about the lasers overheating the ship. What about mass drivers that fire large balls of shrapnel? Even if only a small amount of it makes contact I'd imagine it would do significant damage.Wicky_42 said:
Super-long range kinetic missile combat.
And by super-long range I mean that computers would be doing EVERY calculation, and humans would be pretty uninvolved since the combat would happen way beyond visible range. Like, hundreds of kilometers away.
I've actually read a very interesting scientific article on theoretic space combat. They dispelled a lot of rather stupid common myths and ideas about space combat we see in most tv shows or novels.
I wish I could find a link, but I'm too lazy.
And definitely not lasers. And definitely not like in Star Wars... Star Wars lasers aren't lasers. Real lasers will fuck you up as bad as your enemy in space... If not worse. They HEAT up. And given that it's space and vacuum is a good insulator, you'd fry yourself. And that's without considering all the power used up by the said laser.
Meh, our generic space combat ideas in fiction are way too influenced by, you know, sea ships and cannons. Circling around close, shooting cannons, and all that. Add some bad pseudoscience and it almost seems believable!
And by super-long range I mean that computers would be doing EVERY calculation, and humans would be pretty uninvolved since the combat would happen way beyond visible range. Like, hundreds of kilometers away.
I've actually read a very interesting scientific article on theoretic space combat. They dispelled a lot of rather stupid common myths and ideas about space combat we see in most tv shows or novels.
I wish I could find a link, but I'm too lazy.
And definitely not lasers. And definitely not like in Star Wars... Star Wars lasers aren't lasers. Real lasers will fuck you up as bad as your enemy in space... If not worse. They HEAT up. And given that it's space and vacuum is a good insulator, you'd fry yourself. And that's without considering all the power used up by the said laser.
Meh, our generic space combat ideas in fiction are way too influenced by, you know, sea ships and cannons. Circling around close, shooting cannons, and all that. Add some bad pseudoscience and it almost seems believable!
How bout we don't kill each other in space?
Frankly... i don't want my blood to boil and explode. That would totally suck. Especially after i JUST GOT TO HOLY FUCKING SPACE.
Frankly... i don't want my blood to boil and explode. That would totally suck. Especially after i JUST GOT TO HOLY FUCKING SPACE.
For some reason, I doubt that explosions would work in space the same way they work in regular Earth atmosphere. Y'know?Nouw said: