Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Science Fiction Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A Different type of space battle.
Miles    3/7/2007 12:35:36 AM
What kind of space battle could you think of, which is different from Star Wars, Star Trek, and Halo. It can be an idea, fact, or something you made up. But it can not be from a novel that you read. It must be different and new.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
flamingknives       4/10/2007 6:00:00 PM
Defence in 3D (4D really, because you can't make anything stay still) is pretty tricky, but it assumes that the enemy has the capacity to make use of all three spatial dimensions. Near future tech would restrict travel, and therefore manoeuvre, to the ecliptic plane, because it would take to much fuel to go in any other path. Even if you do have spare fuel, at most practical sublight velocities, you would be detectable so far out that any attempt at surprise would be lost. 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/10/2007 8:59:42 PM
Your still thinking about spaceships though arn't you.  What if in the future, it isn't about spaceships, but inter-planetary nuclear missiles?  I would think that would make a lot more sense - given that it is much easier to launch a probe to Mars (or a nuclear warhead) than it is to send a human crewed space ship.

In fact, I reckon if we want to find out if there is (sophisticated) intelligent life on a planet, we may as well launch a nuke at it.  Thats the way to find out where the little grey men are, none of this soil sample rubbish.

 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       4/11/2007 9:28:06 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       4/11/2007 9:30:05 AM

Jeff_F_F, brings up a good point about direct feed into the brain. I don’t completely accept this because I have reservations about having a direct feed into soft brain tissues when there might be lots of EMP effects going on. This doesn’t mean I think he’s absolutely wrong. It’s probably more plausible to say there could be a combination of both approaches. Of course the screens don’t have to be mounted on the walls, you could have on VR goggles or helmet where the graphic and alphanumeric interface system is projected onto your eyes. The helmet makes sense because it could also be part of an emergency life support system when the hull gets breeched by projectiles or shrapnel.

 

Flamingknives says the fighting might be conducted from the core in the ship, like my bunker idea, and the ball unit idea from andyf sounds like a great idea for combat stations within the bunker. The question is: who is in the command bunker? I believe someone said something about command crew. I agree. The crew may not be large, but I would add medical and damage control people. Since some of the damage might occur in the middle of combat maneuver phases, the damage control parties would be strapped into some type of G couch that behaves like flamingknives suggested. They could be jacked into teleremote robots (what you might call “proxoids”), capable of moving through the ship’s interior to make repairs.

 

Another possibility for dealing with high G maneuvers is suggested in Haldeman’s Forever War. There the crew was strapped into these fluid bags and breathing oxygenated water, or something like that. Arthur C. Clarke used the same idea in one of his Rama novels when the ship accelerated to relativistic velocities. The problem with this is it might take lots of time for the crew to get into such a contrivance. But then again if you can see your enemy far off, you probably have lots of time to prepare.

 

TrustButVerify talks about defensive implications. I agree with him about attacking first to spoil any hostile intent from a belligerent power. In reality there will be powers (and I’m thinking of a balkanized solar system here) that will be less aggressive, more inclined to defense than offense. And of course you may have such people in your own camp that oppose attack, and may contrive politically to foil or hinder your ability to attack first.

 

Treadgar

 
Quote    Reply

TrustButVerify       4/11/2007 2:47:35 PM
Several writers have pointed out that space warfare will resemble naval operations as much as anything else. With that in mind I think warship design has a few lessons to offer; for instance, the use of two command centers (I forget the proper term) on ships or strategic prepositioning of early warning nets and resupply stations as a part of non-combat operations. As long as I'm on the topic of the command centers I agree that EMP is an issue when considering brain/machine interfaces but I also believe it might be overcome. EMP shielding is already well understood and not terribly difficult. For instance, using optical fiber for data runs and including Faraday cages as part of standard hull designs could become common.

I concur that certain constraints are imposed by orbital mechanics, but I still believe the attacker has a good strategic advantage if they have sufficient time to plan their attacks.

 
Quote    Reply

andyf    weapons   4/11/2007 3:01:09 PM
thought of at least 3 sorts of firearm that would function reliably in vaccuum-
a percussion musket
double barrel shotgun
 
metal storm
oh yeah
 
Quote    Reply

andyf    detection   4/11/2007 3:07:34 PM
im not too sure about the claim on atomic rockets that you can detect a manuver thruster from those sorts of ranges.
seems a bit unlikely to me.
it may be possible in theory to use the hubble space telescope to detect a cigar being lit from orbit-- but what kind of area would you have to scan to detect it?
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar    detection and naval influence   4/11/2007 4:23:54 PM

TrustButVerify, I think naval combat experience will play an important role in determining war in space between opposing groups of ships. Air combat will have something to say as well.

 You’re right about two bridges for warships. I was recently aboard the USS Alabama and there I saw two bridges. One was the combat bridge. I had the chance to go in, but it was really cramped, so I only stuck my head in. It was surrounded by sixteen inches of armor. There was also the CIC, or Combat Information Center, also very well protected. I’ve read about battleships since I could first read, and actually seeing one was awesome. I can now truly appreciate how big those sixteen-inch gun turrets are. Of course as I went through the ship, even deep into the main turrets, I tried to imagine how this might inspire the design of space warships. After that I paid a visit to the USS Drum (a Gato Class submarine), and that seemed even more of an inspiration for spaceship design for obvious reasons. Talk about a tight fit with all that sharp edged machinery! Imagine you’re in the middle of a depth charge attack and the ship is rocking back and forth. Lots of places to break your head open on. Further imagine it’s really a spaceship and saturated sensors suddenly detect a swarm of brilliant pebbles coming your way. The pilot is jacked into the control system, he thinks, “evade” and the ship dodges hard. You better be strapped in!

 As for andyf’s point about detection: I don’t quibble with the ability to detect a ship firing a thruster, and especially the main drive system. But you’re correct in asking the question: will you actually see it? Imagine you’re in a domed stadium. There’s you and someone else inside. It’s pitch dark. He’s on the opposite end from you, and he lights up a cigarette. If you’re looking in the general direction, chances are you’ll see it. If not, he lights up the cigarette unseen. Space is big. There are lots of things giving off heat visible to your sensors, and you need to worry about looking at the heat sources with harmful intent. Your enemy could be hidden in the background, especially, as flamingknives suggested, when you have lots of nonbelligerent traffic moving through the ecliptic.

 

Treadgar

 
Quote    Reply

TrustButVerify    Detection   4/12/2007 11:10:14 AM
Regarding cigarettes in stadiums, I think the example is an oversimplification. Taking a cue from missile-warning satellites, it seems to me that thermal sensors would still reign supreme for this stuff, and networks of early-warning satellites looking "outwards" with such sensors would probably spot the heat bloom quickly before alerting whatever command centers are involved.
You could try to skirt this by using "cold" material as reaction mass for these thrusters, perhaps iron pellets expelled by magnetic means. Hmm...

 
Quote    Reply

andyf    ir detection   4/12/2007 12:59:04 PM
as with those missile launch detector satellites, theres , what 20 of em?
that lot covers the earths surface from a range of what 22000 km or so?
so with a formation of satellites you get a fair pasive detection radius.
but,the surface of the outward notational sphere is much greater and the chances of missing a detection are much higher, more satellites would be needed
 
i think the analogy of the stadium is a good one, but the detector is a telescope- only a small field of view.
and some bastard has strewn the entire space with firecrackers,  <all your backround space junk, stars ,grb etc>
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics