What will the first space wars be like?

[awsumguy76801]

I'm sure a lot of you nerds are imagining star wars stuff but I am talking modern 21st century space warfare. By this I mean anti satellite missiles, space interceptors, space station raids,  nuclear missiles exchanged between large space ships or stations in orbit. I also think it would be nice to bring up what astronaut vs astronaut combat will be like. Floating around in 0G shooting at enemies inside a space station will be an entirely different kind of war. And this kind of war is very likely to play out soon. So what do you guys think the first war in space will be

[kerbiloid]

A mass collision of Starlink and OneWeb sats. The Chinese one and (forgot the name) will join a bit later.

[KSK]

Boring.

Anti-satellite weaponry almost exclusively because they’re the only space-based assets with any military value. Perhaps a resurgence of ABM systems if the US gets serious about point to point travel with Starship.

If anyone is stupid enough to resurrect Rods from God or any such space to ground weaponry, those assets will be first on the target list for any ASAT strikes.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

will be first on the target list for any ASAT strikes.

It will take several hours for a below-the-space ASAT missile to approach the (already empty) orbital launch platform on HEO.

1 hour ago, KSK said:

Anti-satellite weaponry almost exclusively because they’re the only space-based assets with any military value

A LEO -based hypersonic glider with a 2 000 km crosswind maneuver can reach any place on any large country territory within an  hour, from the non-Arctic direction which lacks radars.

***

(And that's without the lunar backside silos.)

[KSK]

Yeah, I did say almost exclusively. And your hypersonic glider falls into the same category as ‘getting serious about point to point travel with Starship. 

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

It will take several hours for a below-the-space ASAT missile to approach the (already empty) orbital launch platform on HEO.

Which then gets blown to smithereens before it can be reloaded. Or, more likely, blown to smithereens before it can be loaded at all.

Space war with 21st century technology is a stupid idea.  Because conducting warfare with very expensive, easy to track, and fragile assets is a stupid idea.

Not that I expect that will stop anyone from trying. Because ever more elaborate ways of murdering each other is what humanity does best.

[kerbiloid]

20 minutes ago, KSK said:

And your hypersonic glider falls into the same category as ‘getting serious about point to point travel with Starship. 

BOR, HTV, and X-3x have been being tested since 1970s.

20 minutes ago, KSK said:

Which then gets blown to smithereens before it can be reloaded.

It won't be reloaded in any case, at least because "90%" of its mass are the impactors/warheads, and "9%" is fuel.
It's anyway easier to launch a built new one.

So, it makes no sense even to shoot at it when it has shot.

20 minutes ago, KSK said:

Space war with 21st century technology is a stupid idea.  Because conducting warfare with very expensive, easy to track, and fragile assets is a stupid idea.

The word "expensive" is for poor countries. The rich ones prefer "profitable".

Edited February 24, 2022 by kerbiloid

[KSK]

1. And have any of those ‘being tested since the 70s’ vehicles progressed beyond testing?

2. A one-shot platform isn’t a platform - it’s a MIRV. See previous comment on ‘resurgence of ABV’.

3. On that much we can agree. Hey, let’s go all out and put Bitcoin mining rigs on all the space assets. Truly we can reach peak capitalist nirvana.

Anyway, I’m getting salty and this is getting off topic. Time to leave this thread I think.

 

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, KSK said:

1. And have any of those ‘being tested since the 70s’ vehicles progressed beyond testing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle) ?

2 hours ago, KSK said:

2. A one-shot platform isn’t a platform - it’s a MIRV. See previous comment on ‘resurgence of ABV’.

If it has a ten of megaton-range warheads, it's a MIRV wing.
A Salyut-like orbital platform is not even a cost for that. 

2 hours ago, KSK said:

3. On that much we can agree. Hey, let’s go all out and put Bitcoin mining rigs on all the space assets. Truly we can reach peak capitalist nirvana.

A one man's "cost" is another man's "profit".
Just be on the right side of the trading table.

[MKI]

10 hours ago, awsumguy76801 said:

By this I mean anti satellite missiles, space interceptors, space station raids,  nuclear missiles exchanged between large space ships or stations in orbit. I also think it would be nice to bring up what astronaut vs astronaut combat will be like.

With this sort of setup, you'd probably have to make a few assumptions on the state of the world to get to this level. Current "space warfare" would be more limited to anti-satellite weapons, cyber warfare and jamming. Space as a "location" to fight just isn't worth it when everything important is still "on" earth. Plus its a lot more expensive to send up a satellite that has 0 defenses than it is to just strike whatever targets your opponent sends up. 

So lets assume there is a significant investment into LEO with multiple space stations in orbit. We could even possibly include beyond LEO assets, but lets ignore those for now.

 

My assumption with multiple militarized large space stations in orbit would probably be either really stupid, or require some extra considerations to even exist. Mainly because unlike traditional warfare if you blow up your enemy, depending on the orbits you could end up effectively shooting a shotgun at yourself. At a bare minimum you can screw up large portions of the orbit and possibly create a chain reaction of orbital debris (Kessler Syndrome). I'd put this on a similar level of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Except unlike having nukes as a military deterrent, your expensive militarized space station doesn't actually defend anything. 

Extra considerations to change this to be a more realistic scenario would be for if we go beyond LEO, or maybe have massive advancements in orbital debris prevention (space lasers, and ability to dodge?)

 

Finally astronaut vs astronaut  space combat would only possibly exist on orbital bodies, where you'd need a human to do similar jobs as they would on earth, such as breaching/peacekeeping. 0G is where robots/drones are more effective. Since your not limited by "cover", you really just need to ram your target. This would be similar to asking "what does man on man combat look like underwater". Which as we know doesn't exist outside of Bond films. Everyone is in a sub launching torpedoes. Space warfare would be the similar in that sense, except at vastly larger distances, vastly faster timescales where time, speed, range and information are everything. When something the size of a pea can cut your craft in half defense and even firepower don't matter. 

 

 

[DDE]

28 minutes ago, MKI said:

My assumption with multiple militarized large space stations in orbit would probably be either really stupid, or require some extra considerations to even exist. Mainly because unlike traditional warfare if you blow up your enemy, depending on the orbits you could end up effectively shooting a shotgun at yourself. At a bare minimum you can screw up large portions of the orbit and possibly create a chain reaction of orbital debris (Kessler Syndrome). I'd put this on a similar level of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Except unlike having nukes as a military deterrent, your expensive militarized space station doesn't actually defend anything. 

The problem you then run into is assymetric interest. The runner-up may be willing to risk a Kessler Syndrome to unseat the leader.

29 minutes ago, MKI said:

This would be similar to asking "what does man on man combat look like underwater". Which as we know doesn't exist outside of Bond films. Everyone is in a sub launching torpedoes.

 Allow me to stick a needle into that.

http://www.hisutton.com/Covert_Shores_Guide_to_Underwater_weapons.html

[MKI]

16 minutes ago, DDE said:

 Allow me to stick a needle into that.

http://www.hisutton.com/Covert_Shores_Guide_to_Underwater_weapons.html

Interesting read about stuff I didn't know about. Very "bond-esque", and its somewhat interesting reading about how some designs where "left in the armory" since they are essentially useless outside of a very niche environment. All of them with the goal of getting you on the beach where you can use more conventional weapons. 

If we consider "space" the ocean, still none of these apply. If the "beach" would be say landing on the lunar surface we get into the realm of some kind of "space-drop" assault weapons which not only would be incredibly sci-fi cool, could technically work out in the open of space itself. Just good luck hitting anything beyond visual range haha. 

 

18 minutes ago, DDE said:

The problem you then run into is assymetric interest. The runner-up may be willing to risk a Kessler Syndrome to unseat the leader.

Maybe, a madman with a nuke would risk MAD to trigger the apocalypse to get what they want. I'm not sure if there could be a madman with their own launch capabilities... wait :O 

[DDE]

1 hour ago, MKI said:

Very "bond-esque", and its somewhat interesting reading about how some designs where "left in the armory" since they are essentially useless outside of a very niche environment. All of them with the goal of getting you on the beach where you can use more conventional weapons. 

I think you're conflating marines and frogmen. You may notice the Soviets/Russia are overrepresented in that list, mostly because of an entire dedicated corps of anti-frogmen who never get to see the beach.

1 hour ago, MKI said:

If we consider "space" the ocean, still none of these apply. If the "beach" would be say landing on the lunar surface we get into the realm of some kind of "space-drop" assault weapons which not only would be incredibly sci-fi cool, could technically work out in the open of space itself. Just good luck hitting anything beyond visual range haha. 

I think the problem is less about spacedrops and more about... non-cooperative embarkation. On "vacuum worlds" orbital bombardment would be king; you'd basically only send infantry to claim habitats that you don't want destroyed (whether you'd want the potentially non-cooperative people inside to stay alive a different question), or to act as "tunnel rats" against ultra-deep underground installations. Even then, "liberation through destruction" may be a less costly option than infantry action.

[MKI]

19 hours ago, DDE said:

I think you're conflating marines and frogmen. You may notice the Soviets/Russia are overrepresented in that list, mostly because of an entire dedicated corps of anti-frogmen who never get to see the beach.

I never thought about this aspect of warfare, let alone heard about it.

Then again I'm an American, so Marines are what I think of "amphibious* soldiers" 

 

19 hours ago, DDE said:

I think the problem is less about spacedrops and more about... non-cooperative embarkation. On "vacuum worlds" orbital bombardment would be king; you'd basically only send infantry to claim habitats that you don't want destroyed (whether you'd want the potentially non-cooperative people inside to stay alive a different question), or to act as "tunnel rats" against ultra-deep underground installations. Even then, "liberation through destruction" may be a less costly option than infantry action.

If this is the case, going back to a sensible "large orbital station" lets assume the opposition forces need to actual enter/embark the station and thus need infantry action in 0g. Traditional guns wont work due to the risk it poses to the station itself, which would make things more problematic. I could imagine lower velocity weapons being used, to possibly indirect weapons, or maybe even lasers (!)

I'd also assume combat would look similar to what is described in Ender's Game for the kids "battle room" techniques, where speed and maneuverability is everything.

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by MKI

[Akagi]

Yeah

but without IF

1 minute ago, MKI said:

I never thought about this aspect of warfare, let alone heard about it.

Then again I'm an American, so Marines are what I think of "ambitious soldiers" 

 

If this is the case, going back to a sensible "large orbital station" lets assume the opposition forces need to actual enter/embark the station and thus need infantry action in 0g. Traditional guns wont work due to the risk it poses to the station itself, which would make things more problematic. I could imagine lower velocity weapons being used, to possibly indirect weapons, or maybe even lasers (!)

I'd also assume combat would look similar to what is described in Ender's Game for the kids "battle room" techniques, where speed and maneuverability is everything.

 

 

[Admiral Fluffy]

39 minutes ago, Akagi said:

but without IF

Whats IF? Infantry?

41 minutes ago, MKI said:

I could imagine lower velocity weapons being used, to possibly indirect weapons, or maybe even lasers (!)

Flamethrowers? Bows? Crossbows? Nerf Guns?

[DDE]

6 minutes ago, Admiral Fluffy said:

Flamethrowers? Bows? Crossbows? Nerf Guns?

 

[Akagi]

36 minutes ago, Admiral Fluffy said:

Whats IF? Infantry?

International Fleet

[SunlitZelkova]

"Space war" will be "Earth launched" low kiloton nuclear weapons hitting space centers, rocket factories, launch pads, and satellite control centers. There is no point in ASAT when you can just destroy the supporting infrastructure on Earth.

In a scenario in which the conflict has not escalated to nuclear weapons use, it will be the same thing, but with cyber attacks either directly on the facilities or on surrounding civilian energy infrastructure that supplies it.

Which actually raises some interesting questions- to what extent are crewed spacecraft (i.e. ISS and Tiangong) dependent on contact with the ground? To what extent is mission control connected to the internet? If MCC is attacked, would it be possible to take control of the spacecraft? And if that does happen, could the crew do anything to circumvent it?

If contact is lost with the people who monitor different systems, would this raise the danger of an accident on the space stations?

[DeadJohn]

3 hours ago, MKI said:

Maybe, a madman with a nuke would risk MAD to trigger the apocalypse to get what they want. I'm not sure if there could be a madman with their own launch capabilities... wait :O 

Country: North Korea

Rocket: Capable of reaching GEO altitude when launched in a westward "reverse" orbit.

Payload: One million small pieces of scrap metal.

 

[NFUN]

I know not with what weapons the First Space War will be fought with, but the Second Space War will be fought with sticks and stones... in space

[awsumguy76801]

Like this:

(and yes I know this might not be the most realistic bc call of duty)

Edited February 25, 2022 by awsumguy76801

[DDE]

7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

"Space war" will be "Earth launched" low kiloton nuclear weapons hitting space centers, rocket factories, launch pads, and satellite control centers.

Why low-kiloton, though? I know that this can double the range of the delivery platform, but as yesterday's events show, conventional cruise missile barrages can be deadly enough, and allow you to penetrate across the entire strategic depth. And space-related facilities are pretty damned sensitive.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Why low-kiloton, though? I know that this can double the range of the delivery platform, but as yesterday's events show, conventional cruise missile barrages can be deadly enough, and allow you to penetrate across the entire strategic depth. And space-related facilities are pretty damned sensitive.

I meant "only" 50-100 kilotons vs. 400 megaton or 1 megaton. It is just pure personal opinion rather than based on anyone's doctrine.

I am skeptical about cruise missile attacks or any kinetic weapon use. Even if a submarine or two could get within range, there would still only be a handful of missiles. In the case of the US, perhaps there might be enough complacency to allow such a strike to go unopposed, but the other space faring nations would certainly put lots of air defence units around their space facilities.

On that note, military Starship, that is, the unarmed transport version, is a horrible idea. Boca Chica and SpaceX in general will be a major target, which could then threaten any active Mars or Moon missions, not to mention access to the ISS.

Edited February 25, 2022 by SunlitZelkova

[MKI]

17 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Which actually raises some interesting questions- to what extent are crewed spacecraft (i.e. ISS and Tiangong) dependent on contact with the ground? To what extent is mission control connected to the internet? If MCC is attacked, would it be possible to take control of the spacecraft? And if that does happen, could the crew do anything to circumvent it?

I'd assume current space stations are vulnerable to this sort of attack, but any serious militarized station wouldn't be as reliant on ground control, at least before they can do their job. The same way during the cold war there would be multiple attack platforms that could launch their own nuclear payloads essentially by themselves. From subs, to b-52s, I'd assume a militarized station would be capable of holding out for sufficient time execute whatever it is for why its there (launch the rods from god?). 

There is of course the question of just hacking whatever your using to control whatever, but I'd apply that to satellites and drones as well, which would be probably just as difficult and probably more rewarding in regards to capabilities. 

 

19 hours ago, Akagi said:

Yeah

but without IF

There's no International Fleet because there is no alien invasion. In the book the moment the threat was eliminated, the world waged war on each other once more as detailed in the Shadow series.

 

[Spacescifi]

On 2/23/2022 at 10:40 PM, awsumguy76801 said:

I'm sure a lot of you nerds are imagining star wars stuff but I am talking modern 21st century space warfare.

 

You cannot possibly be serious.

A cursory look at several scifi themed threads reveals just how grounded in reality some of the more vocal/mathematical members are on the forums.

I have 'spoken' with them. I would know. And I would think you would as well if you frequent this forum enough.. which is why I cannot believe you think what you wrote.

 

Now as regards space war, I feel the same as others have said.... it's all or nothing if it comes to that... Earth os where all is based so trust me... you do not want WW3.... which is the easiest way to start shooting down satelites since at that point no one has anything left to lose.

Regarding the bullets in space video.... guns have recoil... especially in microgravity on low earth orbit.

I actually think guns would need to be strapped to the chest of the suit and the user would have to hunch into a 'ball' before firing, so that the recoil only pushes him backwards instead of flipping him silly.... which is what would probably occur if you try firing a rifle from your shoulders in a spacesuit in.... spaaace.

8 hours ago, MKI said:

I'd assume current space stations are vulnerable to this sort of attack, but any serious militarized station wouldn't be as reliant on ground control, at least before they can do their job. The same way during the cold war there would be multiple attack platforms that could launch their own nuclear payloads essentially by themselves. From subs, to b-52s, I'd assume a militarized station would be capable of holding out for sufficient time execute whatever it is for why its there (launch the rods from god?). 

There is of course the question of just hacking whatever your using to control whatever, but I'd apply that to satellites and drones as well, which would be probably just as difficult and probably more rewarding in regards to capabilities. 

 

There's no International Fleet because there is no alien invasion. In the book the moment the threat was eliminated, the world waged war on each other once more as detailed in the Shadow series.

 

 

That is a great ironly.

A relative aptly noted after seeing the first ID4 scifi movie, "They (Earth nations) unite to fight but not to make peace."

The truth is actually darker than that though.

ID4 is the kind of movie that assumes humanity will unite to fight a common threat and cooperate well to that end.

COVID-19 revealed that.... we uh.... are not as cooperative in fighting known large scale threats as ID4 would have moviegoers believe.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Spacescifi