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
Treadgar       4/12/2007 2:25:56 PM

TrustButVerify, I welcome your thoughtful comments, and I agree the use of a single cigarette is an oversimplification of what we’re discussing. The purpose was to illustrate how easily a warship could be detected in space. Space is such an alien environment compared to what we’re used to that we have to work with what limited conceptual tools we have beneath the blue skies of Earth. The tactics Nelson would use at Trafalgar were actually conceived, according to my recollection, by a man who’d never been to sea, but used common items you’d find on a tabletop to illustrate naval tactics. Anyways, like andyf said, someone has filled the sky with firecrackers, so a single cigarette is indeed too simple an analogy.

You had an idea about magnetically impelled pellets. I’ve thought of this, but one question I have is that I know that the 16 mega joule railgun the US Navy is experimenting with generates lots of heat, so how much of this would be transferred to the projectiles as they pass through the magazine and the serial electromagnets then out into space? Furthermore, after launch how long would it take for said projectiles to cool down to a temperature sufficient for them to blend into the ambient background? Also, would they actually cool down to ambient since they would be absorbing heat from the sun? I actually have lots of questions about railguns, but enough for now.

 

Treadgar

 
Quote    Reply

TrustButVerify       4/13/2007 11:52:46 AM
For my part I'm glad to have a naval cognoscente involved the discussion. There are so many things to consider which don't seem to get any  play in most science fiction because it isn't sexy enough to make for a good story. Thermal sensing and crafting trajectories for low-observability doesn't make for a bracing read when it's easier to invent FTL and antimatter projectors. Of course we're still whistling in the dark; all we can do is nicely described by Frederik Pohl: tap the barometer, go up on the roof to look for clouds on the horizon, and then give your best guess. So for my part, the naval paradigm (especially submarine warfare) looks most useful. Information technology adds a spin, and we have all sorts of moves and counter-moves to consider. How important is stealthiness? How good are the opposing sensors? Do you fight with drones? With DEW? With nuclear missiles?

I think our biggest limitation is that we don't know what big technolical changes are ahead. It's been said out that our existing spacelift technology is the equivalent of vacuum tubes. For space combat to be a big issue, we need a better way to get mass into orbit than chemical rockets, just as computers needed transistors to jump from UNIVAC to the IBM 608. (Space elevators have too many problems IMHO, and catapult-type arrangements aren't wholly satisfactory either.) Here, I think, is the nub of the whole issue; without that puzzle piece, even our best educated guess isn't any good. Whatever technology opens the door may bring entirely new concepts which change the entire picture, just as networked communication is changing things today.

That said, what can we agree on? What do physical laws dictate?
 
Quote    Reply

TrustButVerify       4/13/2007 1:58:08 PM

You had an idea about magnetically impelled pellets. I’ve
thought of this, but one question I have is that I know that the 16 mega joule
railgun the US Navy is experimenting with generates lots of heat, so how much
of this would be transferred to the projectiles as they pass through the magazine
and the serial electromagnets then out into space? Furthermore, after launch how long
would it take for said projectiles to cool down to a temperature sufficient for
them to blend into the ambient background? Also, would they actually cool down
to ambient since they would be absorbing heat from the sun? I actually have lots of questions about railguns, but enough for now.

Excellent points, I hadn't thought of the solar warming effect. Come to think of it, the pellets (or whatever) would be warmed by the heat of the spacecraft. Oy... You'd have to refrigerate them somehow, adding to the ship's thermal overhead. Using "cold" gas doesn't make sense to me either. What gas is uncondensed at 2.7 Kelvin?
I suppose it's time to do a sanity check and wonder, is it reasonable to posti a thermal sensor which is that sensitive?
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/13/2007 2:22:44 PM
There's not much that is gaseous at 2.7K, at normal atmospheric pressure. In a vacuum, however, there are a few things that are, Hydrogen and helium being the two most obvious.

When vented, the gas probably won't be at 2.7K, but it will be a great deal closer to it than burnt propellants. To pick up the lower temperature differential, you'd need a more sensitive thermal sensor, so you'd get lots more false positives.

The iron pellet approach is all very well, but it does leave lots of iron pellets floating about the place. Unless you have a clever way to get mass into space, ships are likely to be quite lightly built, and an iron pellet at orbital velocities would be every bit as deadly as one deliberately fired at another ship.
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       4/13/2007 2:34:53 PM

TrustButVerify, you’re definitely right about things that don’t get considered in sci-fi because of the story. I for one would like to see something that takes these things into consideration, but it’s difficult to do. I think you’re right about submarine warfare as being one of the best guides we have right now. Yet we have to keep in mind the environmental differences. You don’t have thermo clines to hide beneath or over. Obviously acoustical methods of detection won’t work. Then of course there are radically different speeds involved. There is the 3D component however, the fact that both environments are absolutely inimical to human life, and you are therefore completely dependant on your life support systems.

 Information technology is indeed important. I think that would include AI, and the level of AI you have at your disposal dictates what you can do, especially with combat drones. As for stealth I’m not sure about that. I think the only thing you can do is to try and blend in, kind of like insurgent or terrorist types who swim like fish through a sea of people. That might mean something along the lines of the undercover commerce raiders that operated during the first two World Wars. Another important element, as flamingknives pointed out, would be fuel technology. What kinds of space drives will be used, we have choices that run the gamut from ion propulsion to nuclear, fusion, and antimatter, and more. These would dictate how fast transit times between different points in the war zone. Speed can change your strategy and tactics. Then there is one we haven’t really talked about, nanotechnology. My imagination has problems with that. So you’re right, technological developments could make so many of our ideas obsolete. Still, when I read old science fiction novels, I am still surprised about some of the little things authors get right.

I do think the cold projectile system might have some merit. You could launch them on an orbital trajectory to meet up with your target, which might be an enemy station, base, habitat, or world. Nasty surprise. 

I’m not sure what we can agree on, but perhaps it would be better if, for the sake of discussion, certain “what if” parameters were set, like 50-500 years in the future, with a specific level of AI, propulsion, and weapons sophistication?

 

Treadgar

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       4/13/2007 4:31:13 PM
no need to lose any sleep over the iron balls being used as reaction matter in a drive.  they will be moving so fast that there is no chance they will be lurking in the system much less in orbit.

course a drive like that makes a hell of a weapon system you know.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/13/2007 6:26:25 PM
One thing to remember with cold projectiles is that, given time, they will be spotted. We know of all sorts of asteroids and space debris that float around doing nothing much and certainly not having any heat source besides the sun.

 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       4/13/2007 9:33:05 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       4/13/2007 9:39:00 PM
I must be doing something wrong. Everytime I try and quote someone I get a blank post. Anyways, I was responding to flamingknives assertion that given time a cold projectile would be spotted. It's a good point. So you need to fly casual and get close, just like Han Solo at the moon of Endor. 
Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

andyf    cold iron reaction thrusters   4/15/2007 4:01:56 PM
would be a wonderful steering system for a kinetic missile,possibly , if you designed em as radar reflectors thy would make terminal defence very , very complicated.
 
 
really for practical space combat we need an antigravity system of some sort, otherwise your just not going to get reasonable amounts of mass up into orbit,
maybe podkletnov's research will prove out in the end.
such a device would also be a practical interstellar drive, 1 year of acceleration gets you to lightspeed.
you ould have to be careul however, because gravity is linked to the mass of the object in its field, that means that there wouldnt be that slowing down effect caused by relativistic mass increase, however when you actually got alsmost to c,- youd collapse into a singularity- wooops
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics