[combat] mobile shield

[The Silent Majority]

Doh! I didn't even take into account signal loss.

In general, assuming a battle at long distances (say, 5 light-seconds or so) wouldn't it be more efficient to have a lighter ship that could accelerate faster and have more Delta-V? again, this is assuming delta-v is a factor and that at long ranges, the ship can detect any non-energy based weapon (by this I mean specifically lasers) in time for the computers on board to react, less armor would also allow for more active countermeasures.

I would think that heavily armored ships would only really be of use in a close situation, such as the one described earlier, as there would be little to-no time to react, even with computers and relatively slow missiles/kinetic weapons.

Again, i'm hardly an expert, if I am incorrect somewhere, please let me know.

Edited March 29, 2014 by The Silent Majority

[Seret]

Heavily armoured ships wouldn't happen at any range. Spacecraft are built for minimum weight. Combat spacecraft would be built for survivability through redundancy, maneuverability, spirit sensors and weapons and possibly stealth. Again, look to aircraft for your cues here, as the design constraints are similar.

[The Silent Majority]

Stealth may not really be possible in space, misinformation yes, stealth, no. The spacecraft will always have a thermal signature much greater than the surrounding space.

In terms of weight, I was assuming that they were built in orbit, so launch weight would not be a concern. I agree that aircraft are a much better comparison though. My case for ships that can get hit once without getting destroyed, is in ranges where agility/maneuverability is not a factor.

Also, is the ship that the OP talking about carrying humans (not that a human carrying warship makes sense) or not?

If it carries humans, it would be much more important if the hull were breached and that is where armor, if any is implemented, will be more important.

[Seret]

Stealth may not really be possible in space, misinformation yes, stealth, no. The spacecraft will always have a thermal signature much greater than the surrounding space.

We've already covered this, IR search is only that effective for tracking objects above the horizon. What kind of orbit both yourself and the target are in will determine how much of a clear lookout you get, there is a reasonable chance you'd be engaged by an enemy from within the ground clutter. I definitely wouldn't rule stealth out because of thermal search.

In terms of weight, I was assuming that they were built in orbit, so launch weight would not be a concern.

Ok, but if you're assuming that you're talking centuries into the future, at which point veracity has left through the side door, and anything becomes possible.

[The Silent Majority]

Can I please have link to that discussion? It sounds interesting.

Also, when you say hiding in the ground clutter, do you mean making the spacecraft appear as an object on the surface?

If so, that is what I meant by misinformation (sorry for not making that clear).

If not, please explain, as I currently cannot think of any other definition.

Concerning the time frame, yes I was assuming a significant amount of time in the future, though I don't think that one can just throw out the weapons and tactics described, as physics is probably the best known scientific field. (imo)

Edited March 30, 2014 by The Silent Majority

[Seret]

Can I please have link to that discussion? It sounds interesting.

It keeps coming up again and again, but there's some detail here.

Also, when you say hiding in the ground clutter, do you mean making the spacecraft appear as an object on the surface?

It wouldn't have to engage in mimicry, there's enough thermal variation in that background that identifying anything becomes more difficult. You've also got a fat layer of water vapour across both horizons that an enemy could hide in very effectively. That horizon is quite close in LEO.

Realistically weight and power limitations will mean combat spacecraft are unlikely to carry their own long-range active sensors, they're likely to rely on ground support heavily. GEO sats could help, but their fixed location could make them quite vulnerable if the enemy has weapons with enough smash to reach them.

Concerning the time frame, yes I was assuming a significant amount of time in the future, though I don't think that one can just throw out the weapons and tactics described, as physics is probably the best known scientific field. (imo)

Physics stays the same, but technology changes, and that means changes in tactics. Naploeanic armies fight under the same rules of physics as modern ones, but they do it differently. You wouldn't expect someone in the 19th century to accurately predict something like vertical envelopment or understand the tactics involved. Likewise I don't think we can expect to say anything of any value about weapons and tactics in the far future. We can only talk about technology we know currently, or which is just around the corner.

[Mazon Del]

Stealth in the close range space of orbit above a small planet like Earth is a little unlikely, the most you can really hope for is to pretend to be a satellite or piece of debris. Across much larger distances though, the defender is again favored. It is a variant of the "big sky small bullet" idea. If your ship is rigged for or designed for minimal heat output (just basic operating temperatures, all engine burns to adjust your orbit happened behind planets/moons, your reactors or other 'large' heat sources are placed behind you relative towards your destination, etc) it is quite easy to be lost in the background clutter. This is because while your ship will stand out from the background thermal radiation of the universe, so do many other things in the solar system. While it is not exactly 'cluttered' it isn't exactly 'empty' either. Working for you again is also the distances involved, the enemy would need to have a fairly large interferometer to find you just by heat alone if you are 'quiet' and your ship isn't too large. Once they know where you are though, there isn't much you can do to hide.

[The Silent Majority]

It keeps coming up again and again, but there's some detail here.

It wouldn't have to engage in mimicry, there's enough thermal variation in that background that identifying anything becomes more difficult. You've also got a fat layer of water vapour across both horizons that an enemy could hide in very effectively. That horizon is quite close in LEO.

Realistically weight and power limitations will mean combat spacecraft are unlikely to carry their own long-range active sensors, they're likely to rely on ground support heavily. GEO sats could help, but their fixed location could make them quite vulnerable if the enemy has weapons with enough smash to reach them.

Physics stays the same, but technology changes, and that means changes in tactics. Naploeanic armies fight under the same rules of physics as modern ones, but they do it differently. You wouldn't expect someone in the 19th century to accurately predict something like vertical envelopment or understand the tactics involved. Likewise I don't think we can expect to say anything of any value about weapons and tactics in the far future. We can only talk about technology we know currently, or which is just around the corner.

Thanks for the link, thought I had read that one, must have bookmarked it and forgotten.

In terms of physics and Napoleon (specifically the vertical envelopment), a whole new dimension opened up in the early 1900's, therefore I don't think this analogy is a great one (though it got the point across very well). Unless, of course, a 5th dimension opens up, or we figure out how to manipulate time (I know this sounds like pseudoscience, just purely hypothetical)

Thinking about this a little more, I agree that we cannot predict the technology of 100 or so years too accurately, therefore I concede to your points.

Thank you for enlightening me.

Mazon, I seem to have put stealth to simply, while I implied that finding someone would be easy, (which, with the sensors I was envisioning, would be easy barring any advances in stealth) (then again, we could see the orbiter's engine of the space shuttle from Pluto currently). I do agree that once someone finds you, unless their sensors are shutdown, it will be very difficult to hide again.

FYI I know the thread, but haven't read the part on IR detection yet. (so I may edit this later to coincide with that information).

Edited March 31, 2014 by The Silent Majority

[Mazon Del]

Well, it somewhat depends on the sensors you are imagining are being used in this scenario. Additionally, just because we have the capability to observe the shuttles engines firing out at pluto (Is there any links on that info btw? I'd be very interested in reading it. Thanks!) does not mean we would necessarily notice it. This is another instance of the Big Sky Small Bullet issue in space. There is a LOT of sky to look at, and while you can take a massively precise and sensitive instrument and point it at a known volume to detect a known event quite easily, this technology does not necessarily easily translate into 360 degree total skywatch capability. In general when you convert a sensor from directional to omnidirectional you are sacrificing some combination of sensitivity and range, you CAN just kinda throw money at this to solve that problem, but you effectively end up getting cost increases that are just astronomical (heh). Both of which cause massive degradations in your ability to detect something at interplanetary distances. It is conceivable that someone would build one of these sensors to have total overwatch of the solar system, but they certainly could not fit one of these on every (or most likely any) warships. Really, given the speeds we are likely to be acheiving in the near-term, it makes a little more sense to have a space station that has this capability and it sends out ship detection data to your warships. Once you know 'exactly' where the enemy is relative to your station, coupling this with knowing 'exactly' where your warship is relative to the station means that your warship (with the station data) knows 'exactly' where to look with its own sensors to find the enemy. Just make sure to put some maneuvering rockets on that station to defeat hyper long range kinetic energy strikes.

[The Silent Majority]

Is there any links on that info btw? I'd be very interested in reading it. Thanks!)

Sure, here you go: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain%27t_No_Stealth_In_Space

"The Space Shuttle's much weaker main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle's manoeuvering thrusters could be seen as far as the asteroid belt"

"This is with current off-the-shelf technology"

I will see if I can get some scientific papers on this for a bit more credibility (though this website appears to be trusted by most forum members, then again, this is the internet)

If I don't get these other papers in the next week, i'm sorry, a little stressed now and I barely have time to make these posts.

Seret, nevermind, I read your post as saying below the horizon.

My mistake (and a stupid one too)

Though I still cannot find the discussion within that thread on IR. (I may just be missing it I missed your post)(believe me, normally I am a fairly good reader, that was just stupid of me)

I did skip every other page of the argument with that guy who thought photons have rest mass, so it may be in one of those.

Edited April 2, 2014 by The Silent Majority