Poll: Space Combat
- Thread starter feather240
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The question none of you want to talk about is propulsion. All current propulsion relies on reaction mass and Newton's third law: burn fuel in a conical nacelle the expanding gas provides a relatively small amount of thrust (rocket boosters), or propel an inert mass from the vessel to achieve thrust (attitude jets using compressed gas).
I voted for lasers, but honestly, kinetic kill weapons are currently our best bet.
For interesting fictional reading on the topic, I suggest Haldeman's The Forever War and Scott Westerfeld's Risen Empire. Both books invent means of propulsion and tech that has no current theories to support or develop, but also deal with combat at relativistic speeds largely with technology that at least has analogous existing technology already in existence.
I voted for lasers, but honestly, kinetic kill weapons are currently our best bet.
For interesting fictional reading on the topic, I suggest Haldeman's The Forever War and Scott Westerfeld's Risen Empire. Both books invent means of propulsion and tech that has no current theories to support or develop, but also deal with combat at relativistic speeds largely with technology that at least has analogous existing technology already in existence.
Interesting side note, the only weapon to have ever been mounted on a space station was a cannon. The space station in question was a soviet spy station, prior to the widespread use of spy satellites. It actually worked, although it was only fired once
Anyway, my understanding of physics tells me that
a) any ship equipped with radiation shielding to survive space in the first place won't have much trouble dealing with lasers. Especially since their intensity decreases with the square of the distance, so they would only be useful at a very short range.
b) missiles would have to have small thrusters around their chassis to maneuver, which makes them large and heavy. They could be very effective, but at a relatively large pay off
c) Force fields? As in magnetic or EM fields? Yeah, those don't work that way...
d) Ramming would deal as much damage to your ship as it would to the enemy's. You know, every action results in an equal reaction...
e) Boarding could work. I think the scenes in BSG are actually fairly realistic. Of course, you could only have a small team per shuttle, and going up against the crew necessary to operate an interstellar vessel does not exactly have favourable odds
f) Railguns would work nicely. They have no recoil, relatively low energy requirements, ammo weighs very little, and they can fire rapidly enough to be effective.
My money's on kinetic weaponry.
Anyway, my understanding of physics tells me that
a) any ship equipped with radiation shielding to survive space in the first place won't have much trouble dealing with lasers. Especially since their intensity decreases with the square of the distance, so they would only be useful at a very short range.
b) missiles would have to have small thrusters around their chassis to maneuver, which makes them large and heavy. They could be very effective, but at a relatively large pay off
c) Force fields? As in magnetic or EM fields? Yeah, those don't work that way...
d) Ramming would deal as much damage to your ship as it would to the enemy's. You know, every action results in an equal reaction...
e) Boarding could work. I think the scenes in BSG are actually fairly realistic. Of course, you could only have a small team per shuttle, and going up against the crew necessary to operate an interstellar vessel does not exactly have favourable odds
f) Railguns would work nicely. They have no recoil, relatively low energy requirements, ammo weighs very little, and they can fire rapidly enough to be effective.
My money's on kinetic weaponry.
I agree with you on the point defensive laser idea. However we still have the combat space craft to worry about. How much would it cost to keep a laser cooled vs. say a mass driver? I'd prefer being able to use lasers since 6mkps is still pretty slow at the ranges we're talking about, even with wide dispersal. Is there a cost effective use of lasers and advanced cooling systems? I don't think the radiators are a bad idea because if you get shot you're screwed anyway.Wicky_42 said:I quite agree - as I said in my first post, the only place to stick lasers would be on celestial bodies, eg moons, where you have a huge amount of mass to absorb the energy. They'd be effective defensive deterrents, but you'd need some means of protecting them from distant bombardment as orbits are pretty predictable and kinetic range in space is effectively unlimited.feather240 said:[spoiler = snip][/spoiler]Wicky_42 said:Thing with shrapnel is that, sure, you're more likely to hit the target, you're splitting the energy of your shot between multiple smaller projectiles, the majority of which you are expecting to miss with - it's a waste of energy. You'd do more damage more reliably by having faster single-round shots, imo.feather240 said:
Combat in space is more like a physics puzzle than it is in our atmosphere. The distances are titanic, the speeds can be huge, and it all boils down to who can deliver the most energy the fastest with the greatest accuracy without melting. By using buckshot you need to have MUCH more powerful weapons than your opponent because you're wasting a lot of each shot's energy, whereas using larger rounds focuses the shot's power onto a single point of carnage >
I just don't think that lasers would be practical compared to a mass driver. ...
Try putting them on a closed system such as a space ship and you'd either need to have huge heat sinks eating up the ship's mass, really effective radiators (that could get shot off) or have tanks of coolant to flush away, a la Mechwarrior, in which case you've just limited the ammo for your lasers, which kinda defeats the point (unless you have some sort of external dispersal/reclaim system - was that in Mass Effect? Can't remember...). Otherwise everyone would melt, and no-one wants that.
These statements are almost entirely wrong. A laser is a focused stream of photons (quanta of EM radiation either in the visible spectrum of light or not) all traveling along the same vector. A diffuse light source's intensity drops off at distance squared, a laser does not.thethingthatlurks said:
Railguns do indeed have recoil. Railguns actually have a very significant recoil despite the relatively small mass of the projectiles. An early test of a magnetic railgun performed by the US Navy collapsed the deck of the ship it was mounted aboard.
And railguns qualify as kinetic kill weapons.
I think it's pretty funny that you appear to think that "force fields" and "shields" are more scientifically credible than lasers. Sure, Star Wars-type lasers are pretty ridiculous, and they're probably quite impractical as weapons, but at least we know how they could conceivably be made.
My opinion? Battlestar Galactica was probably right. Battleships will likely be defended with flak guns, fighters will duke it out with bullets and missiles, and battleships will be destroyed with missiles. A kinetic weapon like the MAC guns in Halo is impractical because it is so hard to aim. Missiles can miss, sure, but they can also be made more complex and capable of identifying their targets and pursuing them intelligently.
My opinion? Battlestar Galactica was probably right. Battleships will likely be defended with flak guns, fighters will duke it out with bullets and missiles, and battleships will be destroyed with missiles. A kinetic weapon like the MAC guns in Halo is impractical because it is so hard to aim. Missiles can miss, sure, but they can also be made more complex and capable of identifying their targets and pursuing them intelligently.
The slightest imperfection in the mirror's surface would stress the material and likely cause it to shatter.BonsaiK said:
Objects in space move so insanely fast that attempting to board would be suicidal. Make a sudden turn into the person trying to board you and they'll probably end up as a greasy stain on your hull.
Suicide. Even if shields could save the two ships from crumpling like soda cans, imagine what kind of effects that sudden deceleration would have on the crews inside.
I picture Das Boot with combats lasting hours and hours and hours. It would be really boring.Nwabudike Morgan said:
Blood doesn't [quite] boil in space and bodies don't explode. You would swell like crazy and nitrogen bubbles in your blood would give you the bends, though.grimsprice said:
Making the shot connect is the most important thing. The single projectile is not more efficient if it never hits.Wicky_42 said:
If the hull is breached, radiation is probably the least of your concerns. The impact of that projectile would generate a huge pressure wave inside the ship that would wreck the shit out of its structural integrity and liquefy all the people caught in it.Kiefer13 said:
To be honest, I see the idea of space combat as being ridiculously impractical.
This is my view as wellGood morning blues said:
Out of all the options in the poll id say missiles and KEWs are the most likely.
Definately kinetic-based things, as it stands missiles will be ineffective compared to kinetic-based stuff and lasers will always be inefficient.
As for ramming and boarding parties, ramming is kind of like a knife fight, no one ever wins. Also, by the time you get close enough to deploy parties the enemy ship will probably just have shot holes in your hull, killing everyone on board.
As for ramming and boarding parties, ramming is kind of like a knife fight, no one ever wins. Also, by the time you get close enough to deploy parties the enemy ship will probably just have shot holes in your hull, killing everyone on board.
i was scrolling down to the bottom to say that when i saw this picSacman said:we do it Outlaw Star style...
grapler ships and magic spells using the parse "pago wa san fa" ftw
Lasers: Well, then you use a mirror without imperfections. If we can create combat spaceships I'm sure we can also create a mirror that works the way a mirror has been meant to work for thousands of years.SlowShootinPete said:
Boarding: But you can't make a "sudden turn" in space. What matters is relative speed between the two ships, not absolute speed. Two ships whizzing alongside each other at exactly the same speed would in fact appear completely still to each other and boarding would be a piece of piss (that's how boardings happen nowadays). It's the "hostile" thing that would make boardings hard, not the actual speed of the ships themselves.
Ramming: well, yes, that's why I suggested an unmanned probe.
"Pew Pew" gets you excited?Aylaine said:Whenever someone says pew pew I get curious.marter said:I must be missing something, as it doesn't seem like a big thing to question.Aylaine said:Aha!marter said:
Ok then, just wanted to see why you really picked lasers, thats all.
What're you up to?
Space combat is an impossibility as far as I'm concerned. Oh we'd all love to say it'll be fought with lasers or super high speed missiles, but in reality it won't happen at all.
First problem is sheer speed, by the time you detect your opponent he'll have gone right past you and be long gone, or at least, he would if we're assuming interstellar travel.
Second problem is size. Space is big, space is huge. Space is so impossibly mind bogglingly huge that it is impossible for most people to comprehend just how big it is. You'll never find your opponent, and even if you do, he has that much space to move around you, same problem if you're defending a planet.
Oh, and just so you know, a fully powered weapon strength laser is not going to be affected by any kind of mirror armor, nor is a 90 degree mirror going to result in shooting yourself. The energy transfer from a weapon strength laser is far too great and would more than likely shatter most materials.
EDIT: Oh yeah, point three, the odds of two moving objects traveling at near luminal speeds hitting each other is nearly nil, even if they're trying. Don't believe me? Boot up a flight sim, pick the fastest jet you can, go full speed, and just try and ram another flying jet. Now increase the speed ten thousand fold and and area in which to maneuver by infinity.
First problem is sheer speed, by the time you detect your opponent he'll have gone right past you and be long gone, or at least, he would if we're assuming interstellar travel.
Second problem is size. Space is big, space is huge. Space is so impossibly mind bogglingly huge that it is impossible for most people to comprehend just how big it is. You'll never find your opponent, and even if you do, he has that much space to move around you, same problem if you're defending a planet.
Oh, and just so you know, a fully powered weapon strength laser is not going to be affected by any kind of mirror armor, nor is a 90 degree mirror going to result in shooting yourself. The energy transfer from a weapon strength laser is far too great and would more than likely shatter most materials.
EDIT: Oh yeah, point three, the odds of two moving objects traveling at near luminal speeds hitting each other is nearly nil, even if they're trying. Don't believe me? Boot up a flight sim, pick the fastest jet you can, go full speed, and just try and ram another flying jet. Now increase the speed ten thousand fold and and area in which to maneuver by infinity.