Star Wars & Sc-Fi Talk

solarz said:

Well, telescopes are just a form of sensor that concentrates visible light. A ship from millions of km away won't be reflecting enough light to be caught by a telescope. Heat and radiation are far easier to detect.

Click to expand...

all are just forms of radiated energy and in the limitations of the Solar system the Sun being the light source an object would either reflect light or block light unless caught in the eclipse of another object.

For the feasibility of space combat, the first question would be: why?

Space is big. Really big. Why would two opposing fleets ever meet each other in battle? What would be the purpose?

Click to expand...

Space is empty, Resources though are in space. If two forces meet in space they will do so in one of four possible locations, Lagrangian points where a object can sit and more or less Blockade a planet cutting it off, Interplanetary Transport Network nodes where said fleets intend jump from one orbit to another There are relatively small corridors used for entering and exiting the gravity well of a planetary body , Refueling or resource supply depots like space stations or asteroids and of course orbit of a colonial body. The reason people or any one would fight in the solar system is the same as why people do today. Resources.

You can snipe fixed targets from millions of km away. By the time your enemies come to investigate, you'd be long gone. Planetary invasions will consist of long range bombardment until the enemy defenses are crippled, and then you send in ground forces.

Click to expand...

agreed to a point but a race with space travel can outsource there defences having spacecraft can allow counter attack from range.

The second question is, what would be your method of delivery? If space ships can travel at interstellar speeds, they will be faster than any missile you can shoot at them.

Click to expand...

Interstellar speeds indicates FTL which is the biggest issue for Hard Science. A Object at or above C would pretty much be impossible to intercept by any means (And that assumes that light speed could be reached) It would also be impossible to attack from. ergo a attacker would need to be at Sublight Missiles are one means of theoretical attack a railgun based system being another. In Space I am happy to see we both agree that Kinetic energy would be the prime kill means.
A Firing solution on a target in space would likely be based on a combination of point of origin for the projectile, rage to target, relative speed and targets course. to allow intercept.
Remember the Mir collision
Getting something up to speeds is easy moving it off course or slowing to a stop is hard. the Progress impact on Mir was a love tap when compared to what we are talking about.

I love Scifi make no mistake but, I really really want some more Hard to semi hard Scifi. I am happy to look the other way for Alcubierre drives or other more exotic Physics theory but that's Science actual science.

Interestingly, you just made me think of a reason for lots of small ships vs a few capital ships in space: the ability to attack from more vectors.

It's easy to evade a shots fired from a few points of origin, much harder to evade shots from dozens or hundreds of point of origin. A multitude of small ships can use an enveloping formation to attack capital ships.

It's hard for orbital objects to change course, but this doesn't apply in free space, assuming the spacecraft is designed for evasive maneuvers.

solarz said:

Interestingly, you just made me think of a reason for lots of small ships vs a few capital ships in space: the ability to attack from more vectors.

It's easy to evade a shots fired from a few points of origin, much harder to evade shots from dozens or hundreds of point of origin. A multitude of small ships can use an enveloping formation to attack capital ships.

It's hard for orbital objects to change course, but this doesn't apply in free space, assuming the spacecraft is designed for evasive maneuvers.

Click to expand...

Not just outer space but pretty much all 'space'. Attacking from multiple vectors is a fundemental war strategy that encompasses all things regardless of technology, environment or lifeforms.
From cavemen hunting the Wholly Mammoths to pack of lions hunting their prey.
This is why I think the concept of a 'mothership' i.e aircraft carrier will never go the way of the dodo bird like some believed or predicted.

Interestingly, you just made me think of a reason for lots of small ships vs a few capital ships in space: the ability to attack from more vectors.

Click to expand...

Again I fall back to the issues of fighters in space They lose their key advantages. however smaller unmanned objects might do the job in some kill zones.
Lack of range, light mass, no armor and facing a foe that can swat them from the black. Missiles and drone mines might be able to do the job.

It's easy to evade a shots fired from a few points of origin, much harder to evade shots from dozens or hundreds of point of origin. A multitude of small ships can use an enveloping formation to attack capital ships.

Click to expand...

Swarm missiles from Anime? the other issue here is how much power could your swarm have? that's the other issue. remember in Space Nuclear warheads are flash bombs they do little actual damage same for explosives. you need impacts and powerful ones.

It's hard for orbital objects to change course, but this doesn't apply in free space, assuming the spacecraft is designed for evasive maneuvers.

Click to expand...

any space craft is designed for maneuver counter batteries I think would be a major play here. laser turrets small point defence systems and antimissiles would likely be more critical. in space even orbital evasive is of limited effectiveness as there is little to hide around other then a planet or asteroid.

Not just outer space but pretty much all 'space'. Attacking from multiple vectors is a fundemental war strategy that encompasses all things regardless of technology, environment or lifeforms.
From cavemen hunting the Wholly Mammoths to pack of lions hunting their prey.
This is why I think the concept of a 'mothership' i.e aircraft carrier will never go the way of the dodo bird like some believed or predicted.

Click to expand...

since we are talking battle in a solar system I see Carriers in a interplanetary arena more as a Orbital assault ship like a LHA. you park it in orbit and use it to deploy fighters and drop ships and capsules loaded with starship troopers... ( couldn't resist) along with smaller capital ships like SSTO class Frigates, destroyers alongside craft serving as landing craft bringing armored vehicles.

The normal fighter paradigm doesn't work in space, but what about kamikaze fighters? We can use maneuverable drones as weapons themselves.

I'm thinking of a mothership that launches hundreds of these drones toward the enemy fleet. The drones would have nothing but sensors and propulsion. They would spread out into position, and then propel themselves toward the target at near light speed.

They don't need to be agile, they just need to be able to move into position and then accelerate as fast as possible toward the enemy. Once they reach enough speed, not even point defense weapons can stop them.

Empire Strikes Back given the James Bond opening treatment.

I think it has been proven in many battles over and over again that small maneuverable crafts IS absolutely crucial in taking down a larger entity.

solarz said:

The normal fighter paradigm doesn't work in space, but what about kamikaze fighters? We can use maneuverable drones as weapons themselves.

I'm thinking of a mothership that launches hundreds of these drones toward the enemy fleet. The drones would have nothing but sensors and propulsion. They would spread out into position, and then propel themselves toward the target at near light speed.

They don't need to be agile, they just need to be able to move into position and then accelerate as fast as possible toward the enemy. Once they reach enough speed, not even point defense weapons can stop them.

Click to expand...

That's basically cruise missiles? Drone interceptors as a defensive "cloud" could work as extra guns for local defense, but I think ultimately space war will be defined by long range gunnery and lasers. Very difficult to dodge light.

N00813 said:

That's basically cruise missiles? Drone interceptors as a defensive "cloud" could work as extra guns for local defense, but I think ultimately space war will be defined by long range gunnery and lasers. Very difficult to dodge light.

Click to expand...

Cruise missiles with the ability to move into strategic positions, travel at near light speeds (or even 0.1c), and be able to attack in coordination. Not really a cloud as they would disperse into an area millions of kilometres in radius.

The problem with lasers is that their range sucks. At the range we're talking about, lasers would be about as damaging as flashlights.