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

[GeneralVeers]

That is the traveller rpg (and associated board games like Mayday, Brilliant Lances, and Battle Rider). Unfortunately, while canon traveller, it's indefensible, though they tried to hand wave it with fields holding the sand, etc. It just would not work.

A sandcaster would work just as well in space as a smoke screen does on Earth. Probably better, in fact, with no atmospheric currents to blow the sand away. After all, when you undock a ship in KSP, what happens? Nothing. The undocked ship just sits there, half an inch away from the docking clamp. Eject sand at low velocity, and you've got a decent anti-laser smoke screen for at least a few minutes.

Basically I envision that little armour would be the norm since greater amounts of armour impact delta V. Having a high delta V coupled with high acceleration is necessary for a warship. As the prominence of modern destroyers at sea tell us, speed is the key to successful warfare both offensive and defensive.

Not entirely true here on Earth. Some nations still use tiny little two-man speedboats in their naval fleets; much faster than a modern aircraft carrier or missile cruiser, but just completely useless. A proper navy, whether water-sailing or spacefaring, requires a variety of platforms, large and small.

Also, as to countermeasures, one could imagine that chaff would find extensive use.

No imagination necessary. A common tactic during World War II (codenamed "Window" by the Allies) was to drop clouds of aluminum strips from planes to create false returns on enemy radar screens. We'd certainly see that in outer space.

[Kibble]

A sandcaster would work just as well in space as a smoke screen does on Earth. Probably better, in fact, with no atmospheric currents to blow the sand away. After all, when you undock a ship in KSP, what happens? Nothing. The undocked ship just sits there, half an inch away from the docking clamp. Eject sand at low velocity, and you've got a decent anti-laser smoke screen for at least a few minutes.

The sand will drift away even if ejected with zero velocity because each particle is at slightly different altitudes but with the same speed - IE, different orbits. Also what is a cloud of sand supposed to accomplish?

[Rakaydos]

The sand will drift away even if ejected with zero velocity because each particle is at slightly different altitudes but with the same speed - IE, different orbits. Also what is a cloud of sand supposed to accomplish?

The primary weapon in these scenerios (lasers) deposits the entirety of it's energy on the first thing it strikes- any secondary effects are caused by diffraction through the sand and the destruction of the superheated sand.

[tater]

A sandcaster would work just as well in space as a smoke screen does on Earth. Probably better, in fact, with no atmospheric currents to blow the sand away. After all, when you undock a ship in KSP, what happens? Nothing. The undocked ship just sits there, half an inch away from the docking clamp. Eject sand at low velocity, and you've got a decent anti-laser smoke screen for at least a few minutes.Not entirely true here on Earth. Some nations still use tiny little two-man speedboats in their naval fleets; much faster than a modern aircraft carrier or missile cruiser, but just completely useless. A proper navy, whether water-sailing or spacefaring, requires a variety of platforms, large and small.No imagination necessary. A common tactic during World War II (codenamed "Window" by the Allies) was to drop clouds of aluminum strips from planes to create false returns on enemy radar screens. We'd certainly see that in outer space.

No, it would not work at all in traveller.

For Kibble: in traveller, written in the late 70s, early 80s, they had a defensive system whereby you disperse specialized particulates that they called "sand," but varied based upon handwaving, that would absorb/scatter incoming laser fire.

For WedgeAntilles:The reality is that traveller lasers are doing MJ/cm^2 levels of energy deposition on the target, and would pretty much just turn the tiny amount of sand in the way to plasma, and keep going. It is 100% indefensible, and "gearhead" traveller guys (myself included) dismissed it decades ago. Really.Later iterations of traveller tried to do some better handwaving by proposing that since traveller has gravity as a force they can manipulate at high enough TLs, then the sand is kept from dispersing via what amounts to a tractor beam. Nice try, but it still doesn't work at all. Now tossing out sand from a missile on an intercept course is another mater... that would scour any hull pretty well and a few hundred km/s closing rate (though there were never rules for that).

Edited September 10, 2015 by tater

[GeneralVeers]

Tater, what's the Most Important Rule In Science?

Testing.

In real-world testing, laser weapons have, in fact, had serious problems dealing with sandstorms, clouds, and the like. Even humidity can refract the beam in screwball ways (one of the most difficult parts of designing functional laser weapons was the focusing system that adjusted the beam to compensate for such refractions). Truth be told, a sandcaster would have to be tested to verify its effectiveness; but it would definitely be effective to a degree, and have the added advantage of interfering with enemy radar and sightline. You can't hit it if you can't see it.

[cantab]

NThe reality is that traveller lasers are doing MJ/cm^2 levels of energy deposition on the target, and would pretty much just turn the tiny amount of sand in the way to plasma, and keep going.

Actually plasma strongly absorbs laser light, causing the plasma to heat up further and impeding the laser beam from propagating. It's a big problem for laser weapons in atmosphere, where unwanted plasma forming somewhere along the beam prevents it effectively hitting the target, though the issue can be mitigated by simply using a brief high-power pulse instead of a continuous beam. When the plasma instead forms in contact with the target that can be useful, as in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_energy_projectile

In space the big issue is that a hot plasma will quickly expand and cool. That I think would nix the idea of a cloud of solid particles as defence. However a shield of plasma from the start might be confined using magnetic fields. Which I believe was suggested already in the thread. Keeping the plasma energised and dense enough to be useful will be a challenge.

[Halsfury]

Not entirely true here on Earth. Some nations still use tiny little two-man speedboats in their naval fleets; much faster than a modern aircraft carrier or missile cruiser, but just completely useless. A proper navy, whether water-sailing or spacefaring, requires a variety of platforms, large and small.

No imagination necessary. A common tactic during World War II (codenamed "Window" by the Allies) was to drop clouds of aluminum strips from planes to create false returns on enemy radar screens. We'd certainly see that in outer space.

i was in fact referencing window, nice catch, however, as to the thing about speed in warfare, what you failed to account for is that everything is a compromise, but I really doubt that in space the compromise will be skewed towards armour at all.

It has often happened in warfare that when faster projectiles come about, armour is abandoned either somewhat or completely because if the armour development can't keep pace with the weapons it's supposed to defend against it becomes obsolete so it's preferable to just get rid of it totally for added maneuverability. This happened with the invention of muskets and cannons. As the weapons got better from 1500 to around 1650 armour totally disappeared from the battlefields of early modern Europe.

So armour went from knights in armour in 1400 to breastplates and morions, which would have been familiar armour in the Renaissance. Then morion helmets were abandoned leaving only the breastplate which was worn by french musketeers. Finally by the time of Napoleon I foot-soldiers wore no armour except perhaps the odd gorget worn by officers. This trend has only just been reversed by the discovery of high strength ceramics.

Space warfare will not have armour for a long time because any missiles or projectiles fired at the speeds achievable in space can easily overcome all armour yet devised

[tater]

Actually plasma strongly absorbs laser light, causing the plasma to heat up further and impeding the laser beam from propagating. It's a big problem for laser weapons in atmosphere, where unwanted plasma forming somewhere along the beam prevents it effectively hitting the target, though the issue can be mitigated by simply using a brief high-power pulse instead of a continuous beam. When the plasma instead forms in contact with the target that can be useful, as in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_energy_projectile

In space the big issue is that a hot plasma will quickly expand and cool. That I think would nix the idea of a cloud of solid particles as defence. However a shield of plasma from the start might be confined using magnetic fields. Which I believe was suggested already in the thread. Keeping the plasma energised and dense enough to be useful will be a challenge.

Agreed, but the sand density would be quite low, so we are talking a couple grains turning into a plasma in a 1 cm^2 cross section at best. I think CT has the sand "ammo" as 50kg. Assuming a cloud about the size of a traveler scout ship (20m radius sphere) that's ~1.5 grams of sand per cubic meter. Assuming grains around 5mg, that's about 300 grains per cubic meter. That's substantially less than a single grain per cc (0.003/cc), so with a 1cm beam, it will likely hit 1 grain if it goes through the thickest part of the cloud. The sand would need to be vastly finer to even have a shot at the beam hitting just 1 grain per cm of path length through the cloud. Pulse length would likely matter as well.

[Frozen_Heart]

Rather than sand, ablative hull plates would probably do a better job. Probably lighter than having to carry tons of sand around as well.

[tater]

Rather than sand, ablative hull plates would probably do a better job. Probably lighter than having to carry tons of sand around as well.

In traveller, the sand wasn't even heavy, like I said, 50kg a shot. The idea was a more "realistic feeling" defensive system for small, player ships than "shields." Ended up being just as silly.

As I keep saying, though, the "universe" matters a lot. What kind of ship drives are available? Are their minimal size limits to some, or reasons why "fast" drives would not be put on small crafts/missiles (cost, for example). Are we talking Orion ships blasting around, or chemical rockets that are lucky to have enough dv to do a simple transfer to the next world over?

[Rakaydos]

Plasma shields might be made to work against lasers, but they are two way barracades, blocking your own sensors.

[GeneralVeers]

i was in fact referencing window, nice catch, however, as to the thing about speed in warfare, what you failed to account for is that everything is a compromise, but I really doubt that in space the compromise will be skewed towards armour at all.

Actually, armor in space will be an absolute requirement--for two reasons.

First, if you're anywhere near or inside of Earth's orbit, the Sun's radiation is deadly. Both at infrared and gamma wavelengths.

Second, micrometeoroids. Smaller than a grain of sand, but travelling around ten kilometers per second. They're a big problem for spacecraft designers; once the craft is out of the Earth's atmosphere, it will spend the rest of its trip getting sandblasted, and over time that does significant damage.

It has often happened in warfare that when faster projectiles come about, armour is abandoned either somewhat or completely because if the armour development can't keep pace with the weapons it's supposed to defend against it becomes obsolete so it's preferable to just get rid of it totally for added maneuverability.

And once armor technology catches up, armor becomes relevant again. Which is why you see tanks on the modern battlefield, and body armor for soldiers, and up-armored Humvees, and hull armor on missile cruisers.

You kind of cherry-picked one particular point in history when armorsmiths weren't doing their jobs.

Space warfare will not have armour for a long time because any missiles or projectiles fired at the speeds achievable in space can easily overcome all armour yet devised

And if you don't bother armoring the ship, the enemy can put smaller guns on their ships, thereby getting more firepower for less money.

What I said earlier on: a key tactic in any war is forcing your opponents to waste money. We will be seeing armor on starships. Because the extra ten centimeters of duranium armor will be a lot cheaper than the 200-megawatt railgun the enemy has to refit with because their 50-megawatt model no longer cuts the mustard.

[baggers]

A war between 2 planets is like a "war" between 2 small alone island in the pacific ocean: Probably full of nothing and some periodics invasions on transports ships. Having a warspace fleet for an invasion every 4-5 centuries (or way more) is certainly a big vaste.

I want to see a war between two archipelagos

At relativistic speeds, it's still full of nothing.

[Frozen_Heart]

In traveller, the sand wasn't even heavy, like I said, 50kg a shot. The idea was a more "realistic feeling" defensive system for small, player ships than "shields." Ended up being just as silly.

As I keep saying, though, the "universe" matters a lot. What kind of ship drives are available? Are their minimal size limits to some, or reasons why "fast" drives would not be put on small crafts/missiles (cost, for example). Are we talking Orion ships blasting around, or chemical rockets that are lucky to have enough dv to do a simple transfer to the next world over?

Yeah 50kg of sand would probably only disrupt a laser for a sec or so while before it drifted away.

As for universe, I just assumed that we're talking about real technology and how it would fight if there was a war. Aka ASATs and lasers to shoot down other nations satellites.

[Kibble]

As for universe, I just assumed that we're talking about real technology

That's what I thought too but people keep bringing up nuclear pulse propulsion lol v.v

[Rune]

Rather than sand, ablative hull plates would probably do a better job. Probably lighter than having to carry tons of sand around as well.

Spot on, I've been reading for a while how they are trying to re-invent ablative armor, only making it a consumable. It will probably take the form of sheets of a carbon-like material, probably a composite with a stupendous heat capacity before vaporizing. That way it doubles as whipple shield for MMOD impacts.

Rune. And yeah, to find particulars, you need to define a tech level. Sci-fish X-Ray lasers, or present-day chemical ASAT weaponry, or something in between?

[Kibble]

you need to define a tech level. Sci-fish X-Ray lasers, or present-day chemical ASAT weaponry, or something in between?

Grr there is no such thing as tech level! We wouldn't not launch a kilometer-long X-ray laser because it's too scientific for us. We wouldn't launch it because it would be extremely expensive and would have nothing to do. When there's a threat that requires us to launch a kilometer-long x-ray laser, that's when we will figure out how to build and launch it.

[Rune]

Grr there is no such thing as tech level! We wouldn't not launch a kilometer-long X-ray laser because it's too scientific for us. We wouldn't launch it because it would be extremely expensive and would have nothing to do. When there's a threat that requires us to launch a kilometer-long x-ray laser, that's when we will figure out how to build and launch it.

Depending on a bunch of other assumptions, it could be economically sound to have a X-Ray laserstar. For starters, you would be quite impervious to any enemy not equipped with such lassers, out-ranging them by a factor of about 10, and able to kill through radiation spillage. If you can build your stupendous death ray of amazing range for a reasonable amount of effort (i.e: you routinely build space structures in the km scale), and the advantage is big enough, as it seems when we can hardly envision how you would go about building one...

Rune. As I said, it depends on a really big bunch of assumptions.

[Hary R]

Spot on, I've been reading for a while how they are trying to re-invent ablative armor, only making it a consumable. It will probably take the form of sheets of a carbon-like material, probably a composite with a stupendous heat capacity before vaporizing. That way it doubles as whipple shield for MMOD impacts.

Rune. And yeah, to find particulars, you need to define a tech level. Sci-fish X-Ray lasers, or present-day chemical ASAT weaponry, or something in between?

Here is a base on the tech level achievable, every si-fish weapon (laser, particle canon, plasma) will require a tremendous (well may be i'm exaggerating) amount of power, the generator that can generate that amount of power will generate a lot of wast heat no matter what. So how much heat sinking system do you need on a military battle-ready spaceship? Will you opponent will aim to destroy your ship or render it inoperable by overheating it (lasers are good for that).

[Rune]

Here is a base on the tech level achievable, every si-fish weapon (laser, particle canon, plasma) will require a tremendous (well may be i'm exaggerating) amount of power, the generator that can generate that amount of power will generate a lot of wast heat no matter what. So how much heat sinking system do you need on a military battle-ready spaceship? Will you opponent will aim to destroy your ship or render it inoperable by overheating it (lasers are good for that).

Oh yeah, I'm not forgetting the power generation issue. Most of a starship's power output will go into radiators (unless it's using thermal thrusters, but that doesn't apply to weapon fire). So they will be soaking more heat due to their own workings than the enemy's. But the energy the enemy deposits on them will be highly concentrated, and to specific systems: once one of the ships is completely blind and has his laser optics destroyed, then the other one can just slowly heat it up to destruction by slowly melting the really, really big radiator system that is no doubt redundant to kingdom come. But then again, by then, the battle is already won, isn't it? Also, consider there are "battlefield measures" you could take to handle heat for short periods of time, like heatsinks and open-cycle cooling.

Rune. Again, assumptions: what is the scale of the power systems in use by military ships? kWs like now? MWs? GWs?

[Kibble]

Again, assumptions

This part of the conversation is really going in circles - let's not assume anything. It takes ridiculously large solar panels to generate power even in the dozens of kW range.

Edit: But lots of power can be generated by fuel cells. (until the fuel runs out)

Edited September 11, 2015 by Kibble

[Hary R]

This part of the conversation is really going in circles - let's not assume anything. It takes ridiculously large solar panels to generate power even in the dozens of kW range.

And going nuclear will just make the heat management during battle worse.

[RainDreamer]

I think there is something we can learn about this thread, aside from the analysis everyone have given - if you ever post about space warfare on this forum in any capacity, people will swarm to it and discuss about the possibility ad nauseam.

[tater]

Bomb-pumped x-ray lasers have already been worked on, and was successfully tested in the early 80s at the test site in Nevada. So you'd move them away from the parent ship, then fire them. They are basically a missile with a nuke warhead, and a mass of rods (tungsten?) pointing in the direction of aim.

Grr there is no such thing as tech level! We wouldn't not launch a kilometer-long X-ray laser because it's too scientific for us. We wouldn't launch it because it would be extremely expensive and would have nothing to do. When there's a threat that requires us to launch a kilometer-long x-ray laser, that's when we will figure out how to build and launch it.

This is why initial assumptions matter so very much in such a discussion. In order to posit "warships" you require a complete context, else we might as well just say "we'll have small ASAT weapons." Done.

[shynung]

That's what I thought too but people keep bringing up nuclear pulse propulsion lol v.v

Nuclear pulse propulsion is 1960s technology. We know how it's supposed to work enough to be able to build one today. It's just that no one's crazy enough to actually give this a try. Maybe when some alien race decided to try to slag our planet someone will be able to brush the issues aside and build a nuclear pulse battleship, like the one in Niven's Footfall.

I think there is something we can learn about this thread, aside from the analysis everyone have given - if you ever post about space warfare on this forum in any capacity, people will swarm to it and discuss about the possibility ad nauseam.

Hard for us not to, since this is a space-themed video game forum.

Edited September 11, 2015 by shynung