Weapons in space

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

I want people to use there imagination for weapons in space. I was thinking positron bomb(anti-electron) Could be used to destroy over 200 targets at once, Creating the power of the sun, Its proven that when a nuclear bomb is exploded in space, It creates a sun for over 1 second, So what is your ideas for weapons in space?

[astropapi1]

LAZORS.

10char

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

Kessler syndrome

[SargeRho]

No, it doesn't create a Sun. It creates a 2 million degrees hot fireball, and a particle shockwave that ionises the atmosphere, when it's close enough to an atmosphere, that creates and electromagnetic pulse. There is no fusion in a typical nuclear weapon, unless you're talking about hydrogen bombs.

If you want to destroy something in space, just smack something against it.

[ouion]

Kinetic kill vehicle or missiles

[Drunkrobot]

Kinectic bombardment. You have a set of large Tungsten rods in orbit around the Earth. If you want to show someone you really don't like them, you de-orbit one of the rods so that it will hit them at hypersonic speeds. Since the rod has a substantial mass, and is traveling at such a speed, the energy released when it hits the target is on par with a tactical nuke, without the fallout. Expect an earthquake when it hits the ground.

[SargeRho]

Zeus from GI Joe illustrates it quite well.

[Tarrow]

Thermonuclear shaped charge torpedo.

Copy the project orion propulsive charges (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Orion_pulse_unit.png), adding a guidance system and propulsion. The bombs weigh less than a tonne and pack a 0.14kt yield. Not a huge amount in itself (though a bit of EMP and nuclear fireball is always a bonus). On that diagram the propellant is tungsten and the velocity of the tungsten plasma when the nuclear charge goes off is about 25 km/s. You really don't want to be in the way of that tungsten

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

Zeus from GI Joe illustrates it quite well.

WTF, Why can't we do that? instead of ruining our world with nuclear bombs, Why not use something that won't hurt our atmosphere.

Actually positrons don't emit off radiation, Making it more viable for a bomb, Since it'll be more powerful that that.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Brody_Peffley

[Kryten]

Actually positrons don't emit off radiation, Making it more viable for a bomb, Since it'll be more powerful that that.

Positron+Electron=Two high-energy gamma rays. That's the entire reason positrons are supposed to be damaging.

[NGTOne]

Personally, I'm of the view that near-future space military operations would be more about boarding actions than anything else, like sailing ships of old - in this case, you want to take your enemy's spacecraft intact, so you can examine any technology/science experiments/whatever else they left behind, without damaging it. Destroying a spacecraft in orbit is counterproductive, as it contributes to Kesslerization (which is as bad for you as it is for your enemy).

[Ironwatsas]

Well, as far as Ship-to-Ship weaponry goes, good old fashioned projectiles would certainly work for close range, considering there's no atmosphere and significantly less gravity to slow a bullet down: Though the problem there is they create a lot of recoil, and possibly torque if they're mounted in a mechanical turret, so your ship would need to compensate via RCS/Thrust. Still, as we all know, the result of anything running into anything in deep space is rather destructive. Another problem being that you need some sophisticated tracking and prediction software to lead your target, and your range would be firmly limited by how far your sensors can resolve a target and compensate for the Speed of Light.

Guided missiles would have to be built a bit differently, using thrust vectoring of some kind instead of winglets to steer, but with some imagination you could certainly make one. I imagine something which is basically a multidirectional RCS launched from a railgun, and accellerating toward the target, hopefully flying into it and causing damage via kinetic energy of impact.

Lasers would probably be the logical choice for most space weapons with our present technology, since they don't need as large a mechanical setup as a gun, and the beam moves at the speed of light. Although, one thought I had is thus: Since a Laser causes damage by heating rather than kinetic energy, would simply using a re-entry heat shield or reflective film stop one? Interesting thought.

For a bit higher tech, we could always invent Particle Beam Weapons. I imagine they'd be rather cumbersome and energy hungry at first, but as far as I know they are theoretically possible, and would pretty much one-hit-kill anything without deflector shields, unless it was something like an asteroid, since it's basically a relativistic molecular cutting beam.

The thing with Nukes is that much of their city-levelling damage comes from the fact that they cause blast overpressure from surrounding Air. In space, since there's no air, there's no overpressure. They'd still cause damage from the initial release of energy on initiation, so your Orion Drive ship would have both a handy propulsion system, as well as a weapon to fight off Space Pirates or Hostile Aliens, but they'd be sort of impractical for mundane space combat.

[stallion x1]

what about some sort of space taser that could cripple a ship by rendering it unoperative? not sure it would be efficent though...

Or a low yield nuclear warhead purely because when a nuclear warhead detonates it emits an EMP pulse which would destroy the elctrical systems on a ship ...... Maybe... im no expert

Edited September 8, 2013 by stallion x1

[Seret]

Personally, I'm of the view that near-future space military operations would be more about boarding actions than anything else, like sailing ships of old

Seems unlikely. What manned target would the military need to take possession of, and for what purpose? The military have no real need for manned spacecraft. Their primary roles for space vehicles are reconnaissance and communications (including navigation). They'd also like to have a strike capability from orbit, but I think we can all see that we're now in an age where that doesn't need to be manned either.

Lasers aren't very practical for space weapons IMO. The amount of kills you get per kilo is lower than conventional weapons like guns or missiles. They require too much power,generate too much heat, and the effect on the target is variable. Far cheaper, easier and more reliable to fire a kinetic kill vehicle/missile powered by normal rockets and just smash the target to bits.

[Dimetime35c]

currently most of the worlds countries have agreed to a treaty that states no country will place or operate a space based weapon system in earth orbit. personally i agree with that treaty. space is NOT a place we need to be using as a weapons platform. yeah space battles are cool in movies. but in real life space is a much better place to be finding answers to problems on earth and advancing science. not using to find new ways to kill each other.

[NGTOne]

Seems unlikely. What manned target would the military need to take possession of, and for what purpose? The military have no real need for manned spacecraft. Their primary roles for space vehicles are reconnaissance and communications (including navigation). They'd also like to have a strike capability from orbit, but I think we can all see that we're now in an age where that doesn't need to be manned either.

Lasers aren't very practical for space weapons IMO. The amount of kills you get per kilo is lower than conventional weapons like guns or missiles. They require too much power,generate too much heat, and the effect on the target is variable. Far cheaper, easier and more reliable to fire a kinetic kill vehicle/missile powered by normal rockets and just smash the target to bits.

I meant it in the terms of an expanded human presence in space - you have a space station, your enemy has a station, you're both building interplanetary spacecraft, that sort of thing. Then you want to take over your enemy's manned assets, to reverse-engineer his tech and maybe put it use.

[lajoswinkler]

WTF, Why can't we do that? instead of ruining our world with nuclear bombs, Why not use something that won't hurt our atmosphere.

Actually positrons don't emit off radiation, Making it more viable for a bomb, Since it'll be more powerful that that.

Yeah, and the world would benefit greatly from tungsten rods smacking the sh*t out of targets.

One of the reasons I love the fact atomic weaponry exists is the MAD doctrine which is probably the best way to ensure military morons don't destroy us all.

The scene in the movie is totally over the top. The mass of the rod would have to be incredible to do that to London. And "we just drop it" is a pathetic Hollywood "science".

Edited September 8, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Ironwatsas]

Militarization of Space treaties won't last forever. At the most, it's only a matter of how long it takes for interplanetary spaceflight to be viable and commercialized. As soon as we end up with self-sufficient space stations, orbital mining and manufacturing, and merchant spacecraft, we'll probably end up with Space Pirates. Such will necessitate some form of law enforcement, and such law enforcement will thus necessitate weapons. That is assuming that down the road, we don't end up fighting over colonization rights or space resources before that point, or we encounter hostile aliens after the point where we have interplanetary spaceflight. But I'm sure that a few centuries down the road once space colonization and industrialization speeds up, we'll probably have space warfare. Between who, over what, or with what sorts of crazy weapons is still up for debate. We simply aren't at the point to reliably answer those questions, but we can make some educated guesses.

[lajoswinkler]

We're just a bunch of apes with smartphones, actually. Our technological development is going forward at an amazing rate, but our social development is still in the gutter.

[Seret]

I meant it in the terms of an expanded human presence in space - you have a space station, your enemy has a station, you're both building interplanetary spacecraft, that sort of thing. Then you want to take over your enemy's manned assets, to reverse-engineer his tech and maybe put it use.

Even at that point, assets in space are unlikely to have any great value in themselves, their value will be in relation to their tactical or strategic value on the ground, in the same way that airspace really only has value because it allows you control over stuff on the ground (or at sea). A space station itself isn't likely to have much tactical or strategic value really, unless it possessed a lot of assets such as fuel that was useful in space. Most stuff in space that had military value wouldn't need to be manned.

[magnemoe]

currently most of the worlds countries have agreed to a treaty that states no country will place or operate a space based weapon system in earth orbit. personally i agree with that treaty. space is NOT a place we need to be using as a weapons platform. yeah space battles are cool in movies. but in real life space is a much better place to be finding answers to problems on earth and advancing science. not using to find new ways to kill each other.

No nukes, more correctly no weapons of mass destruction. Other weapons are legal, as I understand the Russians has weapons at the IIS, or more correctly the soyuz return capsule has an pistol and a flare gun as part of it survival package. It was added after an close encounter with some bears.

For anti satellite weapons, it does not make much sense to have them in orbit you send them up after the target. The US asat weapon is suborbital and has to be launched to intercept.

[Bioman222]

Orbital railgun platforms.

[Seret]

Other weapons are legal, as I understand the Russians has weapons at the IIS, or more correctly the soyuz return capsule has an pistol and a flare gun as part of it survival package. It was added after an close encounter with some bears.

Pfft, small arms. The Russians actually had a space station armed with a 23mm autocannon in the 60s.

[magnemoe]

Pfft, small arms. The Russians actually had a space station armed with a 23mm autocannon in the 60s.

I read it was planned but did not know they actually sent it into orbit. And yes its totally legal the gun would be for self defense, it would be to fuel inefficient to move the station around to shoot up satellites however it would work if somebody tried to bring another satellite with an bomb to close.

[Seret]

I read it was planned but did not know they actually sent it into orbit. And yes its totally legal the gun would be for self defense, it would be to fuel inefficient to move the station around to shoot up satellites however it would work if somebody tried to bring another satellite with an bomb to close.

It was deployed, and successfully test fired (remotely) in orbit. It was indeed defensive. It was a tense time in the space race, and the Russians were concerned about the US trying to knock down (or even capture) an Almaz. The gun was harmonized to the station, which was able to point itself with gyros (which were normally used for photography to prevent motion blur).