What can counter Laser weapons?

[Moon Goddess]

This, except that since everything in space is designed for minimum weight, so your defence against their missiles is likely to be more about ECM or other countermeasures than actively shooting them. Shooting an inbound kinetic kill warhead in space won't remove the threat it poses, it'll just mean you get hit by a cloud of debris instead of a unitary warhead, which isn't necessarily much better.

Well I envisioned dodging to be taking place, so when you kill a missile, it can no longer change trajectory and thus the hot slag will miss you.

[Seret]

Well I envisioned dodging to be taking place, so when you kill a missile, it can no longer change trajectory and thus the hot slag will miss you.

Depends what the target is I suppose. Small lightweight fighter types could do a bit of RCS boogie, but a space station would have to sit and take it. The latter probably might have the importance and weight budget that a projectile weapon system as a last line of defence after the other countermeasures might make sense anyway.

[falofonos]

Sand...

If your combat is taking place at high closing velocity, the sand becomes a weapon as well.

Not sure which scifi book i read it in but using lasers to ablate kinetic kill weapons, altering their trajectory was used. May have been plasma weapons of some sort.

[NGTOne]

Sand...

If your combat is taking place at high closing velocity, the sand becomes a weapon as well.

Not sure which scifi book i read it in but using lasers to ablate kinetic kill weapons, altering their trajectory was used. May have been plasma weapons of some sort.

Using lasers to alter the course of orbital objects is actually already being proposed (from the ground, no less) by NASA, as a means of clearing space debris. Might be a decent way of redirecting kinetic projectiles around your orbital installation/warship. Effectively the same principle as a naval CIWS, except that the goal is less total destruction and more disabling of the threat object.

As a response to the OP, though, as to the disabling of laser weapons: some fine-grained particulate (sand comes to mind because it's simple and cheap), released in a dense enough cloud into the laser's path (I'm talking about orbital combat, obviously), could effectively block the beam until the laser overheated/had to be shut down. Then you maneuver out from behind the cloud and fire back.

Edited August 17, 2013 by NGTOne

[Seret]

Then you maneuver out from behind the cloud and fire back.

Or just shoot through it with something that isn't a laser. Lasers are pretty rubbish weapons anyway.

[Rockhem]

in space if the vehicles are crewed all you have to do is burn a tiny hole inside the crew cabin and you have won, not enough time to patch it up air-tight.

if it is robotic then you could jam the signals from the controller (if it has one) assuming the fight is taking place within low-medium earth orbit.

[qeveren]

Past a certain intensity, lasers will simply destroy mirrors (even ones perfectly tuned to their wavelength) due to non-linear optical effects. No idea how metamaterial cloaks would fare, but I would guess similarly. Your best bet is to get something between you and the emission source (particulate clouds, plasma, huge chunks of ice) or do random walks, if you're far-enough away...

[NGTOne]

No idea how metamaterial cloaks would fare, but I would guess similarly.

My best guess is that it would depend on the "perfectness" of the cloak - the closer it is to "perfect" (in the proper spectrum), the less effective the laser weapon (asymptotically approaching zero effectiveness). Purely conjecture though, I'm no physicist.

[Spyritdragon]

Deployable black holes? If you can manage to carry would-be micro-singularities, or find a way to create them, i imagine you could use them to absorb the laser. Afterwards they should dissipate fairly quickly.

[Forty-Two]

The problem with lasers is that they are unguided, but the advantage is that they move way faster than anything else. Since lasers also move at the fastest communication speed, the will have see you at the same time you see them. The standard response to unguided missiles is to move out of the way, which happens to be very easy in orbit because a small change in veloocity results in a large change in position. Unfortunately, that position is usually on the other side of the orbit, meaning that evading close-quarters fire is fasirly hard. Fortunately, it's very hard to get close enough to a spaceship that lasers would not have prediction problems, and at this range, missiles would both be more effective and (maybe) cheaper.

In response to some of the previous posts, missiles could not be kenetic, specifically because of the amount of complexity that would add. The next time you play ksp, I'd like you to destroy a station in orbit around something by positioning it in an orbit going the opposite direction as the station. It's quite hard, because you have to get it to 0m seperation at closest approach, while getting <1 second to make an assesment on where you are. It is an order of complexity greater to do it when the other ship is maneauvering as well. The final blow to this is that the target could simply deploy some chaff. Good luck hitting your target when your missile has been taken out of commision by thousands of micrometeorites.

The way space combat is most likely to evolve is to support land combat on a planet or asteroid. An orbiting satellite could be quite effective at delivering large payloads (eg. nukes) and deliver intelligence (already being done). The other half would be ground-launched explosive countermeasures with lots of shrapnel. It is much easier to deal with a target orbiting in the same direction as yourself, and with and explosive warhead, you'd only need to get within the lethal zone (which could be anywhere from 1 km to 10 m). The countermeasures from satellites would probably be ecm in the form of disruptive electromagnetic waves. Anything else would be too heavy for a satellite.

[Seret]

In response to some of the previous posts, missiles could not be kenetic, specifically because of the amount of complexity that would add.

Not really. Terminal guidance is tricky, no matter what kind of warhead you have. From a missile's point of view, the target is likely to be maneuvering quite predictably, the vast majority of their velocity will be constant as any dodging it might be trying to do is minuscule compared to it's orbital vector. A projectile launched from another space vehicle relatively co-orbital to the target's orbit would be essentially attacking a static target.

A kinetic warhead makes sense because it's simpler, allows more of the weight budget to go to propulsion and guidance, and is less dangerous for anything except the target. When you look at the actual dedicated anti-satellite missiles that have been used in anger (eg: ASM-135, SC19) they've been KE weapons.

[Apature rocket science]

Just amagine people wearing thousands of mirrors to deflect laser guns, Lols

[magnemoe]

Not really. Terminal guidance is tricky, no matter what kind of warhead you have. From a missile's point of view, the target is likely to be maneuvering quite predictably, the vast majority of their velocity will be constant as any dodging it might be trying to do is minuscule compared to it's orbital vector. A projectile launched from another space vehicle relatively co-orbital to the target's orbit would be essentially attacking a static target.

A kinetic warhead makes sense because it's simpler, allows more of the weight budget to go to propulsion and guidance, and is less dangerous for anything except the target. When you look at the actual dedicated anti-satellite missiles that have been used in anger (eg: ASM-135, SC19) they've been KE weapons.

Yes speeds in space make anything contain more energy than explosives. You might want to use explosives to break up the warhead generating shrapnel to increase chance of hit but using any sort of explosives to do damage is pointless. Anti tank weapons shot by cannons are usually kinetic weapons to.

Also the US destroyed an satellite with an standard missile launched from an ship (Yes standard missile is the name of it, designed to confuse) missile went suborbital and impacted the satellite who was in low orbit so its indeed possible to hit satellites moving in orbital speeds. Best KSP example is mechjeb landing autopilot, it keep correcting until it has to brake. Imagine it correcting all the way to impact. First part is done with help of radars on the ship, later the warheads own radar and IR sensors start track it and the final tracking is done entire on missile.

This was an kinetic warhead, no explosion or even fragmentation of warhead.

Now hitting an spaceship in deep space would be far harder as it would zigzag to make it hard to predict it path exactly enough.

Nuclear warheads changes the rules somewhat, if you can make them shape charge or even x-ray lasers they makes sense as warheads. yes an fusion bomb required an directed fusion bomb.

[Wesreidau]

Space warfare will be nuclear missiles and counter-missile lasers, with the occasional boarding action against ships and crews too irradiated and EMP'd to fight. Capturing enemy hardware lets you reverse-engineer and defeat it, after all. There will be no mirrors, cloaking, anything of that sort.

[Rocket Farmer]

Simple...

Anti laser shields....

[Wesreidau]

I'll just use anti-shield lasers. Seriously, what makes you think 'shields' are anything but a scifi gimmick to make space combat cool on television?

[TJMcCaust]

Well there is no way to counter laser weapons in ksp so ya you're UNSTOPPABLE, unless I can finish My Weapons mod in time. ( I know I look Like A noob But check the profile picture )

[DJEN]

Minovsky particles all teh wai

Making optic weapons useless since 1979

AW YEH

[DJEN]

Minovsky particles all teh wai

Making optic weapons useless since 1979

AW YEH

Things that can block LASERs

-An asteroid

-An bigger asteroid

-A Dwarf Planet

-A Planet

-BFRs (Big Freakin' Radiators)

-TUNGSTEN CAN DO ANYTHING

[NGTOne]

Space warfare will be nuclear missiles and counter-missile lasers, with the occasional boarding action against ships and crews too irradiated and EMP'd to fight. Capturing enemy hardware lets you reverse-engineer and defeat it, after all. There will be no mirrors, cloaking, anything of that sort.

I don't think space warfare will involve nuclear weaponry - it's too indiscriminate, and you'd have to be halfway around your orbit for it not to EMP your ship as well as theirs. Boarding action is an interesting hypothesis, though - I can actually imagine space warfare being little more than boarding actions, like in the olden days of sailing ships.

[Diche Bach]

Go about half way down on this page and start reading. Then clear your schedule as you spend the rest of your week reading the rest of that great site.

Oh wow. I've been meaning to ask a question along the lines of "What will the first true 'space warfare / weapon's systems' look like" and I see that this page pretty much answers any such questions. thanks!

[DaveofDefeat]

Nukes don't make emp in space.

[Kodiak42]

A precipitate that could be dispersed in the air that is capable of absorbing/refracting the laser, a whole lot of smoke, but no mirrors. No mirror is perfect enough to reflect any laser you throw at it without eventually being burned through, but the precipitate that is burned through would be continually replaced by the device emitting it.

In other words, a military grade fog machine.

As for space warfare, I'm guessing we'll be using mass drivers (close range or long range on unsuspecting enemies), lasers (this could be used just about everywhere), and missiles (very rarely, likely used against targets with very low mobility, as in your typical space station)

Edited September 1, 2013 by Kodiak42
Wanted to talk about space warfare

[Morrigi]

Smoke would work on the ground, though blinding light in the visible spectrum would likely be an issue.

In space, ablative armor, chaff, or a bigger laser would probably be your best bet.

On the subject of nukes, they have a minimal shockwave in space and the EMP effects outside altitudes equivalent to low earth orbit are unknown. That said, they do cause EMPs and create areas contaminated by radiation at those altitudes.

Sub-orbital nuclear testing by both the U.S. and Russia during the Cold War has been documented to cause general mayhem with electronics, frying sensitive equipment including satellites. The most famous test with these effects is probably Starfish Prime

Edited September 1, 2013 by Morrigi

[InfinityArch]

^^ On the contrary, you would see little else besides lasers and missiles, either pure kinetic kill or nuclear, given that no non-nuclear explosive is going to add significantly more power to a weapon. Unguided weapons besides lasers move far to slow to be of any use on the offensive.

Furthermore, except in the case of false flag operations (a war crime) or defection, there is no such thing as an unsuspecting enemy in space; the heat emissions from something as simple as the space shuttles maneuvering thrusters could be seen from the orbit of Pluto, to use an example from projectrho.