Interplanetary WAR!

[TechnicalK3rbal]

"Captain, there's an enemy ship about 85,000 kilometers away. It's coming inbound retrograde!"

"Red Alert! Open a channel."

"Ignored. They're preparing to fire missiles."

"Target that ship and destroy it!"

"Opening fire. Impact in 3... 2... 1..."

"Status?"

"Captain they've got some sort of hyper-polarized quantum energy flux shield. Our attacks did nothing. They're returning fire!"

"WHAT!?"

"Nah I'm just screwing with you. They're all dead. Military satellites shot them down already and destroyed the enemy countries launch sites days ago. War's probably over already. Anyone want tea or something?"

If I could make this shrt enough, it would be in my sig.

[Moon Goddess]

The last 3 lines,

"Captain they've got some sort of hyper-polarized quantum energy flux shield. Our attacks did nothing. They're returning fire!"

"WHAT!?"

"Nah I'm just screwing with you. They're all dead. Military satellites shot them down already and destroyed the enemy countries launch sites days ago. War's probably over already. Anyone want tea or something?"

Pretty much tells the story and is short enough for a sig.

[Deadpangod3]

*ship flies past another at several km/s*

Yup.

[WestAir]

If I could make this shrt enough, it would be in my sig.

That is hilarious

Haha, thanks guys.

[going-to-the-MOON]

Billions of Ball Bearings. In Big Balls.

Launch it on a retrograde orbit from its target and then "carefully" detonate, so that they drift apart yet stay together, if you catch my drift. They would proceed to shred anything in their way.

This would probably be the most plausible method. Cheap payload, but you may have to launch it from the ground, and not from orbit for it to be more efficient (I'm not too familiar with the amount of deltaV to reverse orbit from orbit vs putting it into orbit.)

Edited April 29, 2014 by going-to-the-MOON

[KASASpace]

Why would you have orbital factories?

The raw material is down on the surface of a celestial body, why would you lift all the crude ore and such to orbit, when the refined and finished product is so much lighter?

What if you gathered resources from the moon and used mass drivers to ship it into MEO (Medium Earth Orbit). LEO is too low, and as such atmospheric drag wouldn't be much of a friend.

You wouldn't lift the ore, you would lift the semi-raw materials. The metals after being separated from the ore, the Hydrogen or perhaps even, Helium-3.

I would rather take that to an orbital factory than ship it to Earth. So much cheaper on the Delta-V budget.

[DJEN]

What kind of war? Limited? Total war?- are civilians a target? Is Mars terraformed or not? Are the asteroid inhabitants tied to a specific rock or can they easily move? Your question is far too broad to know the answer to.

The total war scenario is perhaps the easiest to answer though. In a total war, the asteroid inhabitants would have an enormous advantage, so big that Mars would be doomed and it would be insane to start a war, especially if Mars is terraformed and the Martian populace is dependent on a stable environment to survive. The asteroid folks could redirect swarms of rocks into Mars collisions. They only have one target to hit, and it's a big one. The asteroidal inhabitants have a huge supply of heavy elements (read "nuclear weapons") too, as they are living on undifferentiated bodies. Meanwhile, the Martians could not easily retaliate against the asteroidal inhabitants, as there would be too many civilian asteroidal targets, and each one would be completely or mostly self-sustaining. The asteriod inhabitants could possibly not even be tied to specific rocks, making them even harder to wipe out. So in a total war of a planet against a large decentralized group of space settlers, the planet would be completely screwed.

So it's you again. Drifting inside the science forums and attaching yourself to threads that deal with future life and death...

...And go ideo-ranting all over the place.

-And you did not. Apologies to you.-

Edited April 29, 2014 by DJEN

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

Pardon the dramatic title, but it is germane. I am working on a "hard" sci-fi tabletop RPG (pen & paper). The project is actually one of the things that drew me to KSP! The setting is early 22nd century Earth and solar system. There are no lightsabres, little green men, or warp drives. Mankind has moved out to other planets and moons, as well as the asteroid belt. One of the things I was considering including in the setting is some good old-fashioned war between factions. The question becomes this: in a realistic fictional setting, what are the challenges to something like this? Is it even possible? Mankind has always been his most creative when it came to killing other men, can he rise (or sink) to this challenge?

Imagine that –for whatever reasons– people on Mars were fighting with people in the asteroid belt. How would they go about it? The distances and travel times –while faster than current-day technology– are still daunting. What other issues might bloodthirsty off-worlders face? How would you overcome it while still obeying the laws of physics, etc.?

Easy. Like vger said, we could stop automation and the computer age, as heavy elements become increasingly rare. The battleground could be in the planetary systems of Jupiter and Saturn, which has lots of hydrogen in their atmospheres (for fusion reactors, which are possible once you clear the efficiency hurdles). The reason they cant missile the planets in orbit is that the infrastructure ( colonies, hydrogen extraction stations, refueling stops) are still there from colonists, and they want to keep it. Expand the battleground to the moons for more interesting stuff. And you don't have that much troubles with epic space battles because they are in a smaller space, and most of the stuff is on the ground [of the moons] and in LJO anyways.

[KASASpace]

LJO is probably one of the least safe orbits in the solar system.

Want a high dose of radiation?

Really high?

Yes?

Than LJO is perfect for you! (or replace LJO with Laythe......... if you want to make a joke about KSP)

Seriously, though. You would need some large mass of radiation shielding. Unless you were using unmanned vessels. But even then, it's a huge amount of shielding. Many instruments are very sensitive.

LJO is the worst orbit for resource harvesting. As you must spend a long amount of time there.

[kiwi1960]

Will wars in space, between colonies, be possible? Yes, will they actually happen? No.

Back in the 1970's, France announced that it was going to develop the Neutron Bomb... it would kill people, but leave bulding and infrastructure standing. The outcry was swift, the argument was (and its a valid one) that war needs to be utterly and totally incomprehensible, that to leave buildings intact might make more seem like an attractive option to some leaders.

It needs to be dirty... so dirty that only a moron would even consider pushing the button.

Getting into space, surviving there is a challenge, the onyl way it can be done is if everyone worked together.

For one side to kill others in space would be like..... a person on a life support system turning off the life support system of the person in the bed next to him... I mean ..... both those people know they are lucky to be alive, that the machine is keeping them both alive, so they would be very reluctant to harm another person in the same predicament as him...

Maybe, in the future, man will wake up to what life really means in space, and universally decide to settle all wars via a computer game, say, Command and Conquer.... winner in the game wins the war....

Death and destruction in space is too final... everyone will know that to build a community on the asteroids took some real doing, that it might be the only chance they ever get to do it... so killing them in a war would be unthinkable...

if there is ever going to be a war, it will be over quick.... one bomb on a spaceship should do it.... space people will know that life is precious, especially in space, if a war took even one life, the price is too high and they would surrender.

That is my opinion.

[SuperBigD60]

I definitely think that if we get that far along in our progression, there will always be war. It is hard coded that at some level, we develop an us-and-them mentality, which turns into an us-vs-them mentality if the "them" happens to be positioned on some resource that you want/need.

So, ignoring any factors involving the feasibility of the colonization itself, I suspect that Solar politics in the 22nd and even 23rd century will largely be dominated by Earth, just because at some point, growing a political powerhouse from a colony will reach the bottleneck of human reproduction. It took 200ish years after finding the new world for Europeans to build up American colonies politically/economically powerful enough to rival the European nation states themselves, and then another 200 years or so for the US to become a superpower, for example. That 400 year span, I think, is largely due to the fact it takes large populations to amass the economical power to participate politically. That sort of thing is limited by our rate of reproduction.

All that to say, I think interplanetary war will largely take place in the Earth-Moon system, in particular any Space-elevators or important space stations. If naval warfare strategy of the past is anything to go by, and I think it is (maybe not the kinds of ships needed, or what roles are important, but the strategy involved), targets will either be naval staging docks (ie some form of space station; think Pearl harbor of WWII, but in 3D in space) or ports used to transfer resources from orbit to the surface or vice versa, perhaps space elevators(to capture, not destroy; think of railroads or highways in modern warfare). Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most naval battles take place quite near to important targets on land (like islands with military bases or important port cities or something)? I suspect interplanetary warfare would follow the same pattern.

I think those retrograde scattershot devices, perhaps asteroid redirections, maybe those gig/peta-lasers, and God knows what else would become a new level of WMD, and would be treated thusly in politics.

I don't think that any bodies besides Earth would be anywhere near danger from Kessler syndrome by this point, which could lead to tensions if it wasn't the seat of political/economical power for some reason. Perhaps some counter-Kessler procedures would be developed in light of this vulnerability.

tl;dr:

Anyways, Spacial Naval battles might largely be like modern maritime naval battles, with big ships trading blows at rather close range (especially in astronomical terms) fighting near an important target, which strikes me as reminiscent of the opening sequence of Revenge of the Sith minus the starfighters. In fact, because I don't think large scale naval battles feature single operator craft (like a speedboat or something), I can't really see any reason why a small fighter with fewer than 5 pilots would have any real use in a battle.

[Rakaydos]

In fact, because I don't think large scale naval battles feature single operator craft (like a speedboat or something), I can't really see any reason why a small fighter with fewer than 5 pilots would have any real use in a battle.

Ender's Game had a better example of a "space fighter", a disposable remotely controlled drone that is more maneuverable than a capital ship, without the total deltaV of a proper warship but enough to be usable as a parasite weapons platform or as a missile. Make them cheap enough, and you dont even need to reserve delta V to recover them, Just detonate them once their attack runs are complete.

[Red Iron Crown]

Ender's Game had a better example of a "space fighter", a disposable remotely controlled drone that is more maneuverable than a capital ship, without the total deltaV of a proper warship but enough to be usable as a parasite weapons platform or as a missile. Make them cheap enough, and you dont even need to reserve delta V to recover them, Just detonate them once their attack runs are complete.

Do you mean the movie or the book? I don't recall any unmanned craft in the book, that was a bit of a plot point IIRC:

One of the reasons Ender felt so guilty after the final battle in the book was that he sent pilots in fighters on a suicide mission just to give the finger to his instructors.

[SuperBigD60]

Ender's Game had a better example of a "space fighter", a disposable remotely controlled drone that is more maneuverable than a capital ship, without the total deltaV of a proper warship but enough to be usable as a parasite weapons platform or as a missile. Make them cheap enough, and you dont even need to reserve delta V to recover them, Just detonate them once their attack runs are complete.

Do you mean the movie or the book? I don't recall any unmanned craft in the book, that was a bit of a plot point IIRC:

One of the reasons Ender felt so guilty after the final battle in the book was that he sent pilots in fighters on a suicide mission just to give the finger to his instructors.

Either way, I don't see a strategical niche for such a small craft in what would inevitably be a heavyweight fight.

If you could take out a capital ship with a fighter, why bother wasting your resources on the capital ship in the first place? That said, the capital ship would be a fantastically powerful way for a political entity to project their military power and hold/defend/capture a position, in my mind (like how the US navy uses Aircraft carriers kind of like a mobile military-in-a-box sort of thing in order to project power anywhere there is water). So, clearly, if some weakness to smaller, much cheaper craft existed, large ships are important enough strategically that they would somehow find a way to defend against the weakness.

I bet smaller craft might come into the mix in the form of boarding craft that somehow tunnel into the capital ship with the intention of capturing it by force with infantry (sort of like in the first level of halo 2, the covenant have those ships that punch holes in the space station). The only reason I think these might be a thing is because of the sheer cost of building something large and mobile in space would make each and every capital ship important due to rarity.

[Rakaydos]

A NERVA equipped capital ship weighing millions of tons can deploy RM-48s- powered probes without worrying about how it affects their performance. The probes haave a much higher TWR, but not nearly as much endurance, and being teleoperated, have an operating range of a lightsecond at best. Being deployed from a mothership in shoals let them play to their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses.

[Red Iron Crown]

If you could take out a capital ship with a fighter, why bother wasting your resources on the capital ship in the first place?

The big reason is endurance. A capital ship would carry enough energy, life support, propellant and ammunition for a long deployment, while a fighter would only carry enough for a single engagement or patrol. That means that the fighter would have a higher fraction of its mass devoted to combat and maneuver systems.

[Jouni]

Some random thoughts I've had about space combat:

• There are no civilians in space. A ship approaching a space station is a gun pointed at the station. There will be strict regulations on who can go where, and the regulations will be enforced with deadly force.
  
• Humans are fundamentally incompatible with space combat. First there's a lot of waiting, and then it's over before anyone realizes.
  
• Modern submarines are kind of like spaceships.
  
• Nukes are cheap, low-tech, and quite powerful. Everything you fire will have a nuclear warhead, even if you use it only as a kinetic projectile.
  
• Lasers and swarms of unguided projectiles will be devastating at short range. Because of that, most fighting will happen over long distances.
  

[Deadpangod3]

Put a satellite in orbit around the moon,

There's your moon of moon.

Edit:

Uh oh, wrong thread somehow.

[krona14]

just do i the planetary annihilation style, strap some very large rockets to a small moon and slam it into mars, it its big enough there is not much you can do about it

(planetary annihilation is an awesome game that depicts this war quite well)

[Red Iron Crown]

just do i the planetary annihilation style, strap some very large rockets to a small moon and slam it into mars, it its big enough there is not much you can do about it

(planetary annihilation is an awesome game that depicts this war quite well)

Playing KSP, and especially ARM, has made me think this is a very difficult proposition. Even small moons are massive.

[krona14]

look at the rockes in the game, they are huge!

[SuperBigD60]

The big reason is endurance. A capital ship would carry enough energy, life support, propellant and ammunition for a long deployment, while a fighter would only carry enough for a single engagement or patrol. That means that the fighter would have a higher fraction of its mass devoted to combat and maneuver systems.

What I went on to say was that, Since I think capital ships are necessary strategically, fighters would be made obsolete. That is, their sole purpose would be to help one capital ship destroy another (or perhaps hold a position or whatever). The only way this could possibly happen is if there's some magic death star trench which renders capital ships vulnerable to fighters.

Basically, I meant capital ships of various sizes will be both too easily adapted to account for any unforeseen vulnerabilities to fighters and also too important not to exist for wasting time researching and designing a fighter-type craft.

[SargeRho]

Fighters could do something capital ships can't: Evade fire, and possibly strike vulnerable parts of a ship where a missile for instance couldn't get on its own.

[Red Iron Crown]

What I went on to say was that, Since I think capital ships are necessary strategically, fighters would be made obsolete. That is, their sole purpose would be to help one capital ship destroy another (or perhaps hold a position or whatever). The only way this could possibly happen is if there's some magic death star trench which renders capital ships vulnerable to fighters.

Basically, I meant capital ships of various sizes will be both too easily adapted to account for any unforeseen vulnerabilities to fighters and also too important not to exist for wasting time researching and designing a fighter-type craft.

Hard to say, a lot depends on the offensive and defensive technologies involved. If a fighter-sized vessel can pack enough firepower to damage capitals and are better able to evade attack, they might be viable.

[krona14]

What I went on to say was that, Since I think capital ships are necessary strategically, fighters would be made obsolete. That is, their sole purpose would be to help one capital ship destroy another (or perhaps hold a position or whatever). The only way this could possibly happen is if there's some magic death star trench which renders capital ships vulnerable to fighters.

Basically, I meant capital ships of various sizes will be both too easily adapted to account for any unforeseen vulnerabilities to fighters and also too important not to exist for wasting time researching and designing a fighter-type craft.

It seems to me that i would be more likely that these wars would not use massie ships, these kinds of this would be hugely vulnerable to asteroids and explosive device like nukes, it would be more likely to be a fight with missiles and covert ops. another problem with capital ships would be that they would be a ***** to maneuver or speed up/slow down, also you could make lots of tiny small robots to tear at the hull of giant ships. not to mention the resources that it would take to make a ship capable of keeping an entire battle fleet going.