Meditations on Space Combat

[pchang]

Honor Harrington Books

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).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
If you had a rough idea of where the enemy was, you could present an ambient face towards them, dumping heat in another direction.

You suggest that a ship could easily cool an entire face to ~3K? Including things like radar or passive sensors?

[Kuciwalker]

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

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Honor Harrington Books

Originally posted by pchang
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).

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

[onodera]

Re: Re: Honor Harrington Books

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!"

[Kuciwalker]

btw, the most space combat I think will actually ever happen will involve ground-launched ASAT missiles and unmanned satellites with high-powered lasers. Manned space warships just don't make very much sense, even in Earth orbit.

[Blaupanzer]

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
btw, the most space combat I think will actually ever happen will involve ground-launched ASAT missiles and unmanned satellites with high-powered lasers. Manned space warships just don't make very much sense, even in Earth orbit.

I think there is the underlying assumption in the thread that humanity won't remain a one planet species.

[Blaupanzer]

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?

[MORON]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html

Though one of the strangest thing when talking about space combat is the attachment to ships. I see no reason for having "ships" as opposed to interplanetory ballistic missiles or even interstellar ones....in the vast of majority of cases.

Stealth is lol if you want to move anywhere. Space is dark, ships putting out enough energy to get anywhere within a few thousand human life times can be found easily.....

[GePap]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
I think there is the underlying assumption in the thread that humanity won't remain a one planet species.

Interplanetary conflict would most likely involve missiles launched from rail guns on the moon or in Earth orbit.

Interstellar conflict just doesn't make sense, full stop.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

I cannot imagine it being feasible to transport an invasion force all the way from the Earth to e.g. Mars, without absolute space superiority.

Furthermore, I can't imagine it being feasible to transport enough soldiers to actually fight a conventional war, period. You'd basically have to nuke all the human settlements/military installations before sending in soldiers to round up the scattered survivors.

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.

Simple: everything that applies to the missile applies to an crewed ship a hundredfold. A missile also probably could achieve some approximation of stealth, at least until it started moving under its own power.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Furthermore, I can't imagine it being feasible to transport enough soldiers to actually fight a conventional war, period. You'd basically have to nuke all the human settlements/military installations before sending in soldiers to round up the scattered survivors.

I think that you first ignore any idea of possible conventions about space warfare that humans beings might create. After all, what would be the point of any warfare if the only thing you are bound to win is ruins, and if engaging in it for any side without enough might to have the ability to wipe out the other is complete destruction?

The question of space warfare is no more only technical than that of warfare on Earth.

Simple: everything that applies to the missile applies to an crewed ship a hundredfold. A missile also probably could achieve some approximation of stealth, at least until it started moving under its own power.

I don't think that is particularly true. The issue of tracking and finding would be the same, but a platofrm with an intelligence on it (manned or AI) will always have abilities that a disposable one won't. Mainly, the ability to defend itself, and overcome any attempts to destroy it en route.

[MattBowron]

Do any of the ideas from Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" novel make sense with ideas of space battle?

By the way, a film version of that is said to be in the making by Ridley Scott, or at least is in the script stage.