intercepting kinetic kill projectiles fired from something like a rail gun would probably be impossible. a rail gun would fire projectiles at relativistic speeds (near the speed of light). it would be like trying to intercept a laser beam. at distances less than a light second, you would have been hit before you knew they fired. i guess at longer distances it is concievably possible to track the projectile, but it would be easier to alter course to avoid collision rather than intercept it.

But does it not cost a lot of energy to get a shell up to relativistic speed? Also at that speed the shell acts like pure antimatter, right? So the shell will contain enought energy to penetrate a target and exit out the other end. And if the shell does this, it would still contain joules of damage, taht it failed to inflict on the target. So we would be waste energy to speed the round up, just to go into an enemy ship, and out the other end, while inflicting less damage, then if we made the round slower?

Only one other thing - why does everyone discount stealth so readily?

If you use today's thinking as a basis I see it but no one 60 years ago would of though you could reduce the RCS and heat signatures the way it is being done today.

Stealth could be as easy as blocking a sensor...or as in today's world feeding back the wrong information saying nothing is there.

What do you guy's think about the ice warship ideal? Where you use an asteroid to use as fuel, ammo, and a heat sink. The following, is from Atomic Rocket: Space Warship Design, about the ideal of an ice warship.

" The simplified logistics suggests that "steam rockets" using nuclear light bulbs as the energy source and water as the reaction mass would be the system of choice for military and commercial spacecraft. Operations in deep space will create a different paradigm for operations (as so many people have noted). My take on the matter revolves around the requirement for protection from cosmic radiation and debris in transit, as well as the provision of artificial gravity for the crew(s). The cycler concept of having a large space station traveling between the planets is a good starting point, and the "Ice spaceship" provides many of the features a Space Navy might desire. The 215m diameter ice ship is protected by 40,000 tonnes of water ice, a vast thermal sink against energy weapons and a pretty hefty shield against kinetic energy impactors as well. Since the basic structure can be created with a 60 tonne "bladder" and filled with water extracted from asteroids, large numbers of cyclers can be assembled in space.

The actual warships would be clustered in the middle, connected to the structure to provide thrust and electrical power with their engines, while drawing water as reaction mass from the ice spaceship, or using the ice as a thermal sink for the engines and energy weapons while clustered together. The large size of the ice ship also serves as a means of supporting a large sensor array, which can support operations both while clustered with the warships, or when the mini fleet is dispersed. This sort of arrangement would work well when dealing with planetary sized targets like Mars or the Jovian moons, you have a base to maintain and preserve your ships to and from the theater, but can disperse independent warships with full tanks and weapons load when you reach the area of operations. (presumably the Fleet HQ has sent several empty ice ships to intersect the planet at different times so you can refit, rearm and go home, but the ships are capable of doing so independently if necessary). In effect, the Space Navy would be based on a series of "submarine pens" moving between planets.

This isn't such a far fetched analogy. I suspect the actual warships by that time would resemble an OSCAR class submarine in size and function. Even construction of the spaceship would be broadly similar, with the outer casing being used to house reaction mass (in the form of water) and the missile racks or beam weapon emitters, while the inner hull would probably be very small and heavily automated like an ALPHA class submarine. Since the crew would be inside the 214m ice ship during the cruise portion of the flight, they would have their gravity and cabins there, while in combat they would be in the warship cycling between zero g and "forward is up" orientation, spending their time strapped into acceleration couches.

For small targets like an asteroid, the smaller 100m ice ship might actually be the warship. It has 8000 tonnes of ice to act as a heat sink or reaction mass, is powered by three NTR's (according to the author. This could be reduced if more powerful nuclear light bulbs were substituted), and has lots of interior room for a large crew, supplies and so on. Rather than carry independent warships in the center cavity, it might be loaded with hundreds of missile busses; a space going arsenal ship. For mass fleet actions (i.e., conquering the Uranus system to seize the Helium 3 facilities), a combination of 100m arsenal ships and 214m cyclers carrying independent warships seems to provide the balance of firepower and flexibility a Space Navy would want. "

GenKnight there is a section also on this website, on why there is no stealth in space. But for a short is stealth main goal, is to make the object your trying to hide look like billions of other object out there. The stealth fighter has a cross section the size of a bird or a bee. So you must look at all the birds in the sky and find the one that is the stalth fighter. Which becomes a problem as the number of object that you must look at go up. The problem with stealth in space, is that there are very few objects that you can make yourself look like. And therefore less to hide behind.

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

Unless you can violate the laws of thermodynamics, which has grave consequences, there is no stealth in space as you can not mask your heat difference from all thats out there. Any attempts to do so just exposes you more.

not really. most people forget the basics. Why is a stealth jet black? cause it blends into the night. Stealth could be a simple as putting passive rather than adaptive camouflage on the ship but who says adaptive camouflage wouldn't work.

If I remember correctly heat packets from the sun come of in almost indetectable small clouds of heat. isn't it possible to do the opposite of cooling yourself down to hide yourself in a cloud of waste heat making yourself a harder target. Then again dispersing the cloud of heat would make you a target but you would be very hard to hit.

also If I remember correctly astrologist lose comets and other spacial things from time to time in dust clouds in space with out realize the dust cloud was actually there. But thats what ECM and ECCM is for though I don't those would work well in space.

In fact wrapping yourself in a huge thermal blanket would work theoretically. but then how would you fly through space with out damaging that blanket or setting yourself on fire or tearing it in someway. scratch that you probably couldn't move with a huge blanket wrapped around you unless you had some sort of diffusion wave engine or something like silent speed boats.

well I guess that these wouldn't be called stealth more like an evasive tactics but still the ideas have merit. since the act of even turning on your engines makes you visible in an entire system.

but other than those accounts anything else would make you a rather obvious target unless you can find a way to move through different dimensions and hide in them while still be able to attack either while cloaked or at the last possible second which I gather is impossible unless you watch Stargate and think like they do.

Oh I also would like to add that weapons don't need to make an impact in space warfare they need to pierce or blast. Piercing and blasting weapons are most effective since the more holes in a ship the bigger = more chance win for you. so it would make sense to want a laser or plasma bolt to burn straight through a ship.

Missiles that blast or even pierce a target are logical, however a missile that makes an impact will simple damage the hull a little and echo off. Unless the weapon can get into the hull it does little to no damage. this goes for lasers and projectiles as well. but with basic projectiles like bullets they would need to be superheated to be of any use.

A piercing or blasting round serves to
1) expose the target ship to vaccum bringing stress on the ships hull and infrastructure (kinda like what water and pressure do to a submarine.)
2) it will cause fires and melt through plates of the interior of the ship and almost every part of the ship is vital to begin with.
3) then theres the chance you will hit a reactor or something and thats an insta kill.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Stealth is of little use today, practically all nations have figured out how to track and engage stealth aircraft. You see Stealth works by blacking out a certain range of Frequencies, so when the Enemy switches to different frequencies you have to completely design a new aircraft with different Stealth capabilities. Its cheaper to build radars with different Frequencies than it is to build new stealth aircraft.

Scroll down abit to Stealth part.

Also Plasma weapons are impracticable. Too short of a range and dissipates too quickly considering its a gas.

Anyone here watched the anime series Starship Operator? Personally I think if there will be ever be space combat, that's the most realistic model. Each ships are several dozen thousands kilometers a part attacking with long range weapon that take a few seconds to hit.

Think about it, navy ships are about the biggest hardware we have these days and even in WWII, they already engage from a few kilometers apart, nowaday they engage each other froms several dozen kilometers a part. Spaceship is supposed to be much bigger so it's hard to realistically imagin all those big masses clustered doing battles in just a few kilometers radius.

Space Warfare IS NOT PRATICAL. If you fire a missile and MISS, WHERE DOES IT GO?! Into a Sun? In a slingshot to Earth? On a Commet? A Moon? Asteriod? Because of that we will not have space warfare. Also the only thing needed to destroy a space ship is a Small golf ball... FORE!!!

No need to scream, espeacilly when you haven't think through your analysis :p



Eh ... who care? Space is big, if you misfire a hundred missiles in the same direction, the chance of its causing some catastrophic incident is about as big as a snow ball in hell. The Sun? It'll be burned before even touch it. The earth? Sure, if it can survive re-entry. Plus, nowaday most advance warhead has a self-destruct mechanism that goes off when they miss the target so they don't land on a random target anyway, you think they don't do that in the future?




I'm sorry if I miss the joke as admittedly I don't understand the word "Fore". But the reason a small thing can destroy stuffs in space because they have an insane acceleration, I would like to see you throw a tennis ball at a space station and see how much damage you can make. Even now space landing crafts are built to withstand even a crash landing, in the future they probably will have better alloy and material to build stuff with.


So no, I don't see why space combat is impractical, at least not with those reasons you mentioned. The thing is when it does happen, I doubt it will be following the same rule and physic we're used to down here, as of now most the space combat sim more or less just an adaption of a naval sea battle.

Space Combat is certainly practical... it depends mainly on whats possible... for all we know future space warfare could be completely automated or remote controlled due to the expense of getting people out there. Also space isn't hospitable.... Solar radiation is constantly pounding our astronauts when they space walk and the loss of gravity can damage internal organs. micro meteorites the size of a pebble can rip through a tank (Micrometeorite hits are rare on current spacecraft)..... next, a couple of missiles wouldn't do much damage even to the moon(unless they're nukes), its constantly being pounded by asteroids going at insane velocities. I think the most realistic example of space combat can't be found in any games I've seen due to the fact that when ships attack they tend to get too close... fighters and smaller ships may get in close but the larger more heavily armed ships would fire rounds of missiles or rail-gun ammunition into their targets... maybe some others would be outfitted with smaller anti-fighter and smaller ships weaponry which would go in and help to eradicate this kind of opposition.... we really don't know how technology will advance... are Lasers plausible despite the fact that they do exist? There is the possibility that a FTL(Faster Than Light) technology may never be developed.... there is so much waiting out there but it could not be within reach(not to say it isn't) even if FTL tech. Never works we will most likely create sleeper ships to create colonies.... btw if you have any problems with what I've written it's most likely the fact that I wrote this really fast, did not research and am only 14 yrs old.

Except for the detached laser module thing, and plasma weapon...I agree...

Um, a bit of question...has anyone think of how will the spacecraft will position themselves in the battle, if there are many of them?

Considering things like propulsion...(too much power and it can kill other crafts easily...), weapons sytem...you know...those stuff...

I have seen Starship Operators too. It was a good anime, but was to short in my mind. I would like there to be an Starship Operators 2, but that what I thnik of that anime. Things I like from it, is that most planets only have one guard ship(or battleship) per planet. Made it fell as space warship come at a high price. But I don't like how there is only one class of ship, and there for the battles turn into who has the bigger fleet and/or best warships, instead of who has the best comb. arms fleet. I mean how would you make a game out of that, with only one class of ships? What strategy, could you use with only one type of ship? But still it was a good anime.

Taking about Starship Operators, could all there offensive weapons be used as point defense?

Also what do you guy thing about that rail gun or asteroid ship(they did not give the name of the ship, in Starship Operators)? I had posted before about the ideal of an ice ship, in which the ship uses the asteroid as fuel, ammo, and a heat sink.

Also if there is no stealth in space, and there is also no interstellar trade, the how does espionage work in space warfare?

To try and aanswer your question onyhow, I would think that spacecraft will position themselves based on there class. As you make a class to do some kind of job, or mission. So if one ship class is there to guard other, then the that class of spaceship, will position itself near or in a way to protect the other class of ships. The only question now is there more then one type(or class) of space ship, and what are there jobs?

^ eh ... I don't think I meant to make a game out of Starship Operator, I just mean that in term of space combat physic and orientation, Starship Operator has a pretty reasonable presentation.


That doesn't mean it will make a good game. In game, fun >> realisim. I guess that's why most space combat games (or any games) are made to show case the awn effect, not a correct presentation.


If you think about it, almost any simulation games that gear heavily toward real physic is very niche and unpopular among gamers. For example:

Jane's Fleet Command: show exactly what modern naval combat look like. Ships launching missiles and planes at long distance without ever come in view of each others, and the biggest gun in the game is the one on the escort destroyer. Realistic? Yes. Fun? Well, only for geek like me, and boring pretty much to everyone else. Even when it's called a "naval sim" games, most gamers will still prefer to see close skirmish with big guns pounding against each others, which technically what most games are about.


Independent War 2: until today it's still the only game that implement a full physic space fly model. For its day, the graphic was top notch, the gameplay was plenty, and the story is good for its gerne, yet it does not come anywhere near the popularity of other so called "space sims" but actually only have an arcade control (yes, Freespace 2 is an excellent game, but it's not a sim). Why? Just exactly how many people manage to master the fly control in Independent War 2 anyway?


I would be thrilled if Starship Operator is made into a game, but I won't expect a lot of people is going to play it.

This is such a stupid argument, people are claiming that they ACTUALLY KNOW how space combat would work.

The truth is, you're all probably wrong, and should stop arguing about it. This thread is about what you think it would be like, not a thread to stomp on other people's ideas of science fiction.

Not a valid argument. Show proof using real science that space combat will fit your interpretations.

Just saying it is all fiction doesn't fly kid. Just because I label a historical novel about Napoleon as Historical Fiction doesn't give license to me to use WW2 fire team tactics with men who are using smoothe bore muzzle loading muskets which aren't designed for those tactics.

Hey, wanderer, tell me, when did I put forth my own interpretations? All I said was that you cannot accurately predict these things, and your pathetic attempt to stomp the interpretations of everyone else in this thread are, well, pathetic.

Honestly, you can have your interpretation, they can have theirs. Do you really have to shit all over everyone else simply because you think you're right and they're wrong?

The truth is, you're not any more right than they are. This is about what you think makes for interesting space combat, and you're simply ruining the thread.

tl;dr version: gtfo

When you used the Fiction excuse fallacy.

Also we can accurately predict what the future in space combat will be, provided we survive Global Warming.

Furthermore, my arguments are backed up by science and math, the burden of proof is upon you to prove your vision of Space Warfare is correct with science and math or concede.

You cannot predict what space warfare will be like any more than people during the revolutionary war could predict what modern warfare would be like. That much is simple logic.

There is no "fiction excuse fallacy." If writers of science fiction take no liberty in bending science, then all science fiction will be the same.

Wanderer, repeating things over and over again does not make them true. You should learn this.

Lasers are not practical. Space is a vacuum, there is nothing to dissipate the heat a laser generates with. On Earth the heat from a laser is transfered to a heat sink which transfers it to the air where it spreads around until it is undetectable. There would be no way to cool down a large laser in space. Sure, you could put the heat sinks INSIDE the ship, but now you're just going to delay the problem since eventually it will get too hot and you'll either have to stop firing or burn to death.

Simple. You have a coolant system based on a towed heat sink that you drop into the upper atmosphere of a planet like Jupiter, where the temperatures are ridiculously cold.

Actually they did. Useful breech loading rifles were developed during this war and tested. Read up on the Ferguson Rifle.



Which many people here including you have yet to show.



Yes there is you dishonest child. Look I have valid and unassailable points you must disprove or concede to.



It is you who must respect science. Stop dodging the points I made and either disprove them or concede.

"In this house you will obey the laws of Thermodynamics"-Homer Simpson

(Lisa or Maggie built a working perpetual motion machine, that got faster...)

A novel idea, but the cable would not transfer the heat as efficiently as you would think. A long cable would take a while for the heat to build up to transfer to the heat sink, and by that time the laser would fry. Besides, if your battle is so close to a planet you might as well use planet based defenses

It was Lisa

Lisa Simpson "Look, I've created a perpetual motion machine"

Homer Simpson "Lisa! In this house we obey the law of thermodynamics!"