Space battles will they be point blank?

[tomf]

It took quite a lot of time, planning and money to wage war across the oceans in the 18th century but there were still plenty of intercontinental wars.

In general these space warfare questions are impossible to answer because the only way anyone is going to have a significant fight in space is if technology massively changes how space travel works, and then what warfare ends up looking like is entirely dependent on the details of what science fiction technologies you have invented to allow people to be there in the first place.

[luizopiloto]

Lasers... from far away...

[wumpus]

14 hours ago, fredinno said:

The problem is that suggesting FTL on a nerdy science forums is bound to get you in trouble. FTL is not Hard science.

It is even worse.  According to relativity, suggesting a FTL solution to a space battle is *exactly* like saying "go back in time and shoot him before he shot at you".  If you can avoid that (or work out a reason why it is acceptable), you are well on your way to a theory of everything that includes FTL.

I've always liked that Star Trek included both FTL and causality violations from the start.  I'm sure it was unintentional, but it at least gave them options of steering to harder science fiction.

[tater]

Any "space warfare" discussion really needs to entirely describe the tech level and background situation involved, or it is pretty much a non-starter, IMO.

[razark]

27 minutes ago, tater said:

Any "space warfare" discussion really needs to entirely describe the tech level and background situation involved, or it is pretty much a non-starter, IMO.

Exactly this.  For example, any space battles that are likely to occur in the near future will not involve lasers and particle beams and such.

[tater]

Lasers are entirely possible, now, actually. They are already being deployed. The USN has one in service on Ponce.

[razark]

What sort of orbit is the Ponce in?

 

You have a point, though.  I was more referring to the sci-fi magic lasers that rip ships in half.  Even less powerful lasers currently could be used to blind sensors on ships or satellites.  Is the Navy's system in a package that could be mounted on a spacecraft in a useful capacity?  I'd be wondering about power requirements, heating, and rate of fire.

[tater]

Any near-future space battles are more like ASAT stuff, anyway. The laser system on Ponce could certainly be adapted to spacecraft, though I'm sure it would not be cheap. Lasers are a reasonably mature technology, the only issue is every production, really. The ripping in half... yeah, that's not a thing any time soon  . Again, it's why a timeframe/tech level/sci-fi universe is a required given for any discussion.

[Gojira1000]

Naval warfare has consistently moved to longer ranges. I don't see that changing,

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Any near-future space battles are more like ASAT stuff, anyway. The laser system on Ponce could certainly be adapted to spacecraft, though I'm sure it would not be cheap. Lasers are a reasonably mature technology, the only issue is every production, really. The ripping in half... yeah, that's not a thing any time soon  . Again, it's why a timeframe/tech level/sci-fi universe is a required given for any discussion.

How about making a metal rod/asteroid hit a ship in a particular orbit by sending it in a trajectory that hits the target (maybe the impactor has its own propulsion)

[tater]

KE weapons would certainly work up to a point. The trick is hitting the target, I'd think. Lasers pretty much can't miss, so you can blind the targeting sensor on the missile (unless it is just remotely controlled) then evade at the last second (which you could do anyway if it is remotely controlled as there is a large between the controlling ship seeing your maneuver, then sending commands to missile). Once again, we need all the givens.

[razark]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

How about making a metal rod/asteroid hit a ship in a particular orbit by sending it in a trajectory that hits the target (maybe the impactor has its own propulsion)

That's basically just a kinetic kill missile.  All the target has to do is move slightly to one side faster than the missile can correct.

The laser has an advantage that it doesn't run out of ammunition, so long as it is provided with sufficient power and cooling.  Your rod launcher will eventually need to reload.

[fredinno]

12 minutes ago, razark said:

That's basically just a kinetic kill missile.  All the target has to do is move slightly to one side faster than the missile can correct.

The laser has an advantage that it doesn't run out of ammunition, so long as it is provided with sufficient power and cooling.  Your rod launcher will eventually need to reload.

Still, it should be easier as an early way to make space wars.

[razark]

Indeed. 

We tested it in 1985.

[Findthepin1]

Space battles will be in cyberspace. Puns aside. The best, most cost-effective, easiest way to bring down a spaceship is through its software. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Findthepin1

[GeneralVeers]

21 hours ago, daniel l. said:

Most people believe that with our current technology space battles will be a long range exchange of missiles. I personally believe that the eventual advent of FTL will return us to the age of broadsiding. What do you guys think?

I think it's impossible to draw conclusions from this until FTL is actually invented, if ever. Because if such a thing is even possible, we have no idea how it would really work. Would it transit through real space or blink out of one location and appear in another? How accurate would it be? Would there be a blast wave of any kind on re-entry? How big? And how long would the drive take to spin up if an enemy battle cruiser suddenly appears off the port bow and you want to make an emergency jump to get the hell out?

[Exploro]

3 hours ago, Findthepin1 said:

Space battles will be in cyberspace. Puns aside. The best, most cost-effective, easiest way to bring down a spaceship is through its software. 

Funny you should mention that. It was an image of a battle between a battlestar and base star that the op added in his post. In that series; utilizing cyberwarfare was exactly what the Cylons did which brought a virtually catastrophic defeat to the Colonials.

[PB666]

On 1/27/2016 at 4:23 PM, daniel l. said:

Most people believe that with our current technology space battles will be a long range exchange of missiles. I personally believe that the eventual advent of FTL will return us to the age of broadsiding. What do you guys think?

I  think you should have searched the archives, this is not even an old discussion and it has been discussed ad-nauseum (with all kinds of pukey noises to emphasize) here.

[StrandedonEarth]

8 minutes ago, Exploro said:

Funny you should mention that. It was an image of a battle between a battlestar and base star that the op added in his post. In that series; utilizing cyberwarfare was exactly what the Cylons did which brought a virtually catastrophic defeat to the Colonials.

Which was also turned against the Cylons to save the Colonial's bacon.

The biggest issue in using FTL in battle is how long it takes to to make the jump from the moment the command is given, which can vary depending on if the FTL is "hot" (ready to jump) or needs to be readied. As for the weaponry, lasers are the best bet, and by the time there are space warships the lasers will probably be in the gigawatt or maybe even terawatt class, which should be able to quickly make gaping holes in things. The only defense (aside from reflecting as much as possible) against something you can't see coming is to be constantly jigging.

Kinetic kill is also an option, but instead of single rods or missiles a cloud of ball bearings would be harder to defend against, aside from heavy armor. The worst nightmare of spacefaring nations is someone looping a craft around the moon towards a retrograde orbit at geostationary altitude, then releasing a cloud of ball bearings.. This would wipe out everything in GEO and kick-start a Kessler syndrome at the lower altitudes, basically rendering space inaccessible. 

[-Velocity-]

15 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Ok assuming we have a magic FTL drive that is completely impossible to known science. No space battle will still not be at point blank. A laser weapon can hit a target at lightspeed and you wouldn't know that you'd even been shot at until you've already been hit.

No form of FTL is even close to hard science by any stretch of the imagination. People have had to make things like negative mass and energy up just to make it work in theory. It may as well need pixie dust to work.

No, you forget, if you have a magic FTL drive then it IS possible to know the laser has been shot at you "before" it has hit you.  Even if you couldn't come up with an FTL signal, you could have little FTL probes that jump to the target ship and back to you at FTL speeds, allowing you to dodge lasers and pull off other impossible stunts (like receiving information about the enemy's future movements from the future).  

But it's all a moot point.  FTL is a fantasy in a universe where simultaneity is relative. 

[gooddog15]

Atomic Rockets has a lot of useful information on this, particularly in their "Space War" section. 

[Frozen_Heart]

7 hours ago, -Velocity- said:

No, you forget, if you have a magic FTL drive then it IS possible to know the laser has been shot at you "before" it has hit you.  Even if you couldn't come up with an FTL signal, you could have little FTL probes that jump to the target ship and back to you at FTL speeds, allowing you to dodge lasers and pull off other impossible stunts (like receiving information about the enemy's future movements from the future).  

But it's all a moot point.  FTL is a fantasy in a universe where simultaneity is relative. 

In which case you can have ftl missiles that instantly hit their target from whatever distance you like....

[AngelLestat]

there is absolutely no point in space battles by hundreds of logic reasons ..  That is just a thing that we will continue to see in movies or series. 

[razark]

Humans have never let logic or reasoning stand in the way of a good fight.

[Albert VDS]

8 minutes ago, razark said:

Humans have never let logic or reasoning stand in the way of a good fight.

There is how ever logic in what types of army crafts we create.
That's why we have tanks instead of giant mechs.