realistic spaceship combat

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
Why is a cube inefficient in terms of the materials used to make it?

A sphere has the smallest surface area ratio to volume of any 3D shape.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel

But a cube is inefficient in terms of the material used to make it. A sphere is better if you want to mimimize the volume of the device, and thus it's mass. The sphere will also stand up better to space dust and anti-missile fire.

I don't understand anything you said, except the last sentence.
Why is a cube inefficient in terms of the materials used to make it?

The surfaces of a cube require more internal structural support than does the surface of a sphere.

[Sandman]

A sphere with the same volume as a cube has a smaller surface area.

Smaller surface area = reduced volume/mass of fuselage = lighter, cheaper missile

Edit: What they said ^

[Victor Galis]

What about missiles launched from a rail gun (or rather slugs that could make adjustments to their course after launch). The rail gun would give them a big initial boost, and they could make minor deviations after that to increase accuracy. They'd probably be a lot cheaper than a single missile that has to do all the work of accelerating towards its target by itself, so you could probably aford more of them.

[Az]

A sphere with the same volume as a cube has a smaller surface area.

Smaller surface area = reduced volume/mass of fuselage = lighter, cheaper missile

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Unless you were running through an area with alot of junk, which you probably wouldn't be, these objects could probably be detected by the ship pretty easily, and taken out at a sufficient distance. Active detection systems would hardly be ridiculous if you knew you were in an area where you were going to be seen and you had a reasonable assurance that you could disable incoming missiles.

Active detection systems would broadcast your position, bearing, course and velocity for a range that is (in space) hundreds or thousands of times the range where you would get a sufficient return signal to positively detect an enemy.

You wouldn't be able to detect an inbound missile if the enemy had plenty of time to maneuver it right into your path before it goes active.

The difference in active/passive range is far higher in space than in the atmosphere, since passive detection systems are subject to ghost signals, harmonics, bounce, etc., so they're always picking up junk.

[Az]

A sphere has the smallest surface area ratio to volume of any 3D shape.

So what?

The surfaces of a cube require more internal structural support than does the surface of a sphere.

a-ha! Thanks, MtG.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
How would explosions work in space? Given that it's a vacuum I doubt there'd be much flames and stuff like you often see in movies, but I ain't exactly a scientist.

You are right. there wouldn't be any large explosions since there is no atmosphere or medium to carry the shockwave. Of course, if the missile hits the enemy ship, then it would produce damage.

Missiles would probably be most effective if they manage to pierce through the enemy hull and explode inside. If the missile exploded inside the hull, it would tear the ship apart from the inside out.

Missiles could also be used as great EMP devices. A nuke that exploded in space would not produce any shockwave but it would produce a huge amount of EM radiation which could damage electronic devices, and the radioactivity would severely affect the crew (ie, kill them slowly).

[Sava]

good thread

even with rail guns, wouldn't you still have recoil? you are still accelerating a projectile...

Due to the speeds involved, even in our primitive means of space travel, I doubt projectiles would be used to shoot incoming vehicles. I imagine they would be restricted to missiles defense roles like the Phalanx system on carriers.

I don't think space combat would be very practical. To be realistic, you have to ask the following questions.

1. What are we doing in space in the first place?
2. Where would such battles take place? Space is pretty big, I doubt many confrontations would take place in the middle of nowhere. More likely, battles would take place in areas of importance, like planets, moons and such.

Anyways, I'm having too many problems with trying to think about this practically without reaching into some sort of sci-fi realm.

[gsmoove23]

For large and even medium sized ships an effective response would probably be sending reconnaissance probes ahead and to the sides of their trajectory, giving them a greater passive range, stereo-scopic views, results could be checked against each other. These probes could even be used for active detection in cases where the enemy already knows of your presence, giving him a general, but not exact, knowledge of where you are.

[Giant_Squid]

Combat in interplanetary space or even a decent distance from the Earth sounds pretty unlikely - unless the two country's ships were travelling together for some reason or someone discovered an incredible leap in propulsion technology, it would take at least weeks for someone on Earth to get a ship to intercept another ship halfway between Earth and Mars, by which time either the war would be over or the defender would have had ample time to move out of the way. I think if any space combat occurs in the near future it would be either in Earth orbit or in Mars/Moon/any other colonized body orbit.
Considering that spaceships are not known for being manueverable or stealthy and are extremely expensive, the best bet would probably be the drones - maybe something as simple as a nuclear missile with guidance and engines. I would think that it would be easiest to keep these on Earth and launch them when an enemy ship is identified, especially considering the cost of putting extra weight on a spaceship. Give them the heat-seeking stuff like we've got on SAM missiles today and keep them in contact with Mission Control so they know what direction to go, and it shouldn't be much of a problem, especially if they've got decent stealth technology.
If people learn how to shoot down missiles very accurately, I wonder if a big unmanned ram might not be a bad idea. Considering the speed spaceships can go, it would cause a huge amount of damage, and if the enemy tried to destroy it, it would just shatter into a lot of fragments that might work just as well.
Any sort of close combat would probably be suicidal for both, since they'll both have missiles (which stay around after the ship is destroyed) and they'll both only need one shot. Depending on how close "close" means, maybe a smart commander could put a nuke on board and detonate it when the ship goes down, taking the enemy with it.

Do we have the technology to make X-Wingesque fighters that can function in space?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava
even with rail guns, wouldn't you still have recoil? you are still accelerating a projectile...

Yes you would have a recoil effect because of the law of conservation of momentum. This would make rail guns on spaceships highly unlikely because the recoil would be too much. You could however, have rail guns on planets, since there the recoil would be regligeable.

[GePap]

Would manned ships be the most efficient?

I know that a human intelligence obviosuly would be better able to adapt and create new strategies in the heat of battle, but at the same time, the use of humans puts a whole set of constraints. If we assume no such thing as inertialess drives or antigravity, a ship with people in it is far less manueverable. In a ship with a crew, you need to have protective armor (against cosmic rays) everywhere a crewmember may go, making the ship more massive. You need lots of space for Oxygen, water, and food and life support systems, and in theory, also escape modules.

Wouldn't autonomous ships be far cheaper and almost as effective? (give how much battle would be automated anyway, due to the realities of space?) The ship would not have some sort of AI, but instead would be given its ission parameters from the start, and the onboard systems then make only tactical decisions and navigation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Yes you would have a recoil effect because of the law of conservation of momentum. This would make rail guns on spaceships highly unlikely because the recoil would be too much. You could however, have rail guns on planets, since there the recoil would be regligeable.

Recoil can be taken nito account. Modern ships have to deal with it, no reason to believe it would be a major detriment to space ships. On top of that, missiles will cause recoil also.

[gsmoove23]

I think putting all that weaponry into the hands of an AI is just a little too frightening. You would need someone on hand, though the crew can be very small in proportion to the size of the ship, making the areas that need radiation shielding and oxygen storage very small.