Space Warfare - How would the ships be built/designed?

[Sanguine]

An interesting question for me. Most of what I have read about space warfare originates from the Halo books, and they do a fair job of realistically portraying what it would be like. The human ships, at least - they're fairly scientifically possible. Structural strength and compartmentalisation seem to be the key to being strong, while kinetic projectiles and nukes seem to be the best armament, with their own strengths and weaknesses of course. Would this be an accurate representation, or would maneuverable ships who can dodge anything be more feasible?

Basically, I guess what I'm asking is what would be the best design for a ship given what we know about science today.

[SargeRho]

Depends entirely on technology level. Obviously a ship with some advanced form of high thrust antimatter engine isn't going to look the same as the USS Twiddle Your Thumbs with Ion Engines.

Certainly, though, space battles if at all would be fought at extreme ranges, using things like Lasers and Railguns, and possibly nuclear shape charge missiles.

Babylon 5's Omega class Destroyers might be a good start - or the Romanov, the ship that the Omegas are inspired by. William Black on DeviantArt designed some that appear plausible: http://william-black.deviantart.com/art/Battle-Over-Phobos-390865580 http://william-black.deviantart.com/art/Over-Mars-410382989

Stealth isn't really a thing in space, since a good enough IR sensor is going to pick you up firing maneuvering thrusters at Earth, all the way from Mars. So I think space warships would be built to fight at ever increasing distances. Rather than avoiding to get hit, you try to hit first, in that sense it would be similar to naval warfare, since real ships are also built to not get hit, but to hit first instead, while WW2-era ships were built to withstand heavy fire.

Edited September 6, 2015 by SargeRho

[Frozen_Heart]

If we're talking about modern day tech, then a satellite with some missiles seems like it would do the job. Put it higher up above the range of ASAT weapons and not much could hit it while it could remove hostile satellites in return.

[Kryten]

Put it higher up above the range of ASAT weapons and not much could hit it while it could remove hostile satellites in return.

Problem is, 'the range of ASAT weapons' is potentially all of earth orbit. They've already been demonstrated at GSO altitudes, albeit without a real target.

[RainDreamer]

Maneuverability will means you haul lots of fuel and little mass for anything else. And since combat will be likely at such distances that a little variation in positioning will make a shot completely missed, I doubt it will be an important concern.

I imagine a more effective weapon against ship vs ship combat would be flak cannons shooting clouds of projectiles that can occupy a large area intercepting and denying a number of possible orbits, rather than slugs or impact explosives rounds, because your opponent is already moving at hypervelocity, and at that speed even tiny things can deal massive damage. Missiles with nuclear warheads will be used rather liberally, but they are vulnerable to a lot of counter measures (flak, emp, flare/decoys, etc), so likely they are only used for harassment, or finishing off an enemy that can't counter any more. Any weapons that can move at the speed of light like laser will have a definitive advantage over kinetic, since you can almost just point straight at the enemy instead of having to account for orbital mechanics.

Though it is also entirely possible we will wage warfare from captured asteroids with loads of rail guns.

Edited September 6, 2015 by RainDreamer

[cantab]

It will depend heavily on the technology around, but I think there are a few general conclusions:

Don't expect guns to fire in the direction the engines thrust. After all the direction you're going and the direction you're thrusting can be two different things. Small weapons will probably be turreted, large ones may have their positioning dictated by the structures of the weapon and the ship.

Don't expect spaceships to be laid out like ocean liners, with decks parallel to the engine thrust. That should obviously be daft but it's so, so common in sci-fi. Much more plausible I feel is for spaceships to be laid out like buildings, with the engines at the bottom and the decks perpendicular to the thrust so that when the engines are firing the people inside feel a downwards gravity.

For that matter, don't expect space warfare to be anything like naval warfare - again, something that's so so common in sci-fi. Expect it to be a bit like air warfare, but really it will be its own thing. Naval-derived terms might stick around, influenced as much by science-fiction itself as anything.

Perhaps don't expect any people on military spaceships at all. We squishy meatbags held back the performance of the Saturn V in 1960. Drone spaceships will be able to accelerate harder than crewed ones, they can be lighter and more compact with no need for life support or large interior spaces, and they'll allow fewer human deaths in pitched battles.

Expect sophisticated point defense systems and possibly armour. Don't expect "shields", a sci-fi trope with little basis in reality.

Don't expect spaceships to always go kaboom when disabled. Nuclear missiles don't explode unless properly detonated, nuclear reactors don't explode either. If antimatter isn't in use a damaged spaceship might catch fire or suffer relatively small explosions from chemicals on board but it's not going to go up like a giant bomb unless there's a self-destruct that someone hits.

[ChrisSpace]

Atomic Rockets explains off of this.

[Pixel of Life]

I think electronic warfare and lasers would be the most likely options, at least for long range engagements. Projectiles should be sufficient for short range battles (a few thousand kilometers). One of the railguns developed by the US Navy could (theoretically) fire a 1 gram projectile at 230 km/s.

[Frozen_Heart]

Problem is, 'the range of ASAT weapons' is potentially all of earth orbit. They've already been demonstrated at GSO altitudes, albeit without a real target.

Ah, for some reason I thought that they could only reach up to LEO, and not up to GSO.

[cantab]

Laser vs kinetic for range is an interesting question. Lasers travel at the speed of light making them much more difficult to evade, but they spread out as they travel eventually becoming too diffuse to do damage. Projectiles stay together and so could inflict damage on a target unable to change its path (which notably includes planets and moons) at much greater distances but a manoeuvrable spacecraft can see them coming and take evasive or defensive action.

It's plausible then that against a small target a laser is better, while against a large one a kinetic is better. But it's also plausible that one pretty much dominates and the other is hardly used.

If you're interested in lasers, particle cannons, railguns, and the like then the book on the subject is Effects of Directed Energy Weapons by Philip E Nielsen, available as a PDF online. Written in the 90s for the US Air Force, it runs to nearly 400 pages and is incredibly comprehensive. Want to know why a laser weapon might need a large 'barrel', why a neutral particle beam performs better in space but a charged particle beam performs better in air, or how much damage an unladen swallow could do to a spy satellite? EDEW has it.

OK I'm exaggerating slightly on the swallow thing

[baggers]

The best projectiles will probably "flak-like": guided as close as possible to the target, and explose/spray pellets like "ball-trap shooting" ^^

That sort of ammo will probably the best if you need to blockade an ennemy planet too: a whole bunch of theses peelets in every orbits will greatly impair the hability to launch ships safely.

Note that any ammo pellet that miss his target will not fall anywhere, and continue to orbit until it hit something.

A planetary system at war could be quickly and durably polluted by big amount of projectiles orbiting everywhere!

[Frozen_Heart]

Laser vs kinetic for range is an interesting question.

If lasers can be got working, then kinetic become pretty much obsolete. A laser weapon can shoot down an incoming kinetic shot in seconds, and used offensively can't be blocked. Sensitive parts of a spacecraft could be fried very quickly.

However in space they would need bulky power generation and large radiators to remove excess heat.

Laser weaponry is still in very early development so far, so kinetic is really the only current option.

[SargeRho]

Lasers disperse. By the time a laser fired from Earth reaches the Moon, it has dispersed so much that it covers a huge area. Also lasers can be blocked by cold plasma 'shields', but those have a harder time intercepting guided railgun projectiles at extreme speeds.

[Mitchz95]

Don't expect spaceships to always go kaboom when disabled. Nuclear missiles don't explode unless properly detonated, nuclear reactors don't explode either. If antimatter isn't in use a damaged spaceship might catch fire or suffer relatively small explosions from chemicals on board but it's not going to go up like a giant bomb unless there's a self-destruct that someone hits.

That makes me think of the arkfalls in "Defiance". Dozens of derelict ships orbiting the Earth, periodically falling out of orbit every few months. That sounds like it would be pretty destructive to Earth's infrastructure.

[tater]

This is a question that requires a full statement of the assumed tech available, and what laws of physics are or are not broken by any SF tech. You also need a context (what would they actually be fighting about, etc).

[Kibble]

They will look like current space probes! Simple suborbital ASATs take care of anything on low orbit, while more maneuverable spacecraft will be put on hyperbolic transfers that intersect the spy satellite's orbit, rendezvous, and self-destruct. The Soviet killer probes using the self-destruct method were supposed to be effective a whole kilometer away from the target!

Some of the fighting spacecraft and spy satellites will probably be like current space telescopes - either for detailed observation of enemy activity, or as the telescope to direct a laser beam thru. Laser-equipped satellites will function the same as the self-destructing probes, except at greater range (i.e. requires less precise rendezvous) at the expense of greater cost.

[shynung]

I think a space warship would have two sets of engines; one for regular orbit-to-orbit travel, and another for evading projectiles, similar to afterburners on atmospheric fighter jets.

[Kryten]

Ah, for some reason I thought that they could only reach up to LEO, and not up to GSO.

The Chinese demonstrated it a few years back, 'Kunpeng 7'.

[Bill Phil]

Well...

Obviously they'll use the Pye Wacket descended space fighter.

[Nibb31]

I don't see why you would want to expose a manned vehicle to space warfare. It would be putting lives at risk for no reason and a manned spacecraft would also be a too expensive asset to risk in a conflict.

Space warfare would be limited to disabling enemy satellites with your own satellites. No warships needed.

[Aethon]

Everything you ever wanted to know about space warfare.

http://josephshoer.com/blog/2009/12/thoughts-on-space-battles/

http://josephshoer.com/blog/2010/07/projecting-space-battle-physics/

And an associated short story.

http://josephshoer.com/blog/2009/12/high-orbit/

Edited September 6, 2015 by Aethon

[Cocox]

I think it will pretty much resemble submarine to submarine combat..

[tater]

I'm with Nibb31. Anything remotely realistic would not use manned craft. Assuming a sufficiently advanced society that actually uses manned craft which might become targets, then I'd likely put countermeasures on those and have drones for active combat.

[SargeRho]

I think it will pretty much resemble submarine to submarine combat..

Not really. Submarines can't see each other half way across the inner solar system.

[cantab]

I think it will pretty much resemble submarine to submarine combat..

It's a cool idea, but probably not correct. Stealth in space is generally regarded as very difficult if not impossible. Spacecraft will be warm and their radiation visible, and when engines are thrusting that's massively multiplied. Observing an exhaust plume allows the mass and course of the spacecraft making it to be inferred even if the spacecraft itself isn't directly detected.