space warfare

[Stilgar2300]

So my question is how would it work? I know it wouldn't be like the movies, but would it even be possible? The defending party would always be at an advantage since the attacker is trying to hit a high speed object fired from another high speed object. This thread isn't about weaponizing ksp, just the theory behind space based combat

[r4pt0r]

having read the first few halo books, they have some great discriptions of space combat, but im not sure if they are realistic. the maneuvering was questionable.

hope this leads to dialogue and isnt locked, maybe this is for the science lab?

[Pecan]

Can you rendezvous with an object in orbit?

Rendezvous with extreme prejudice, it almost certainly can't dodge and is fragile.

[Ralathon]

Read all the sections below "Space War" on this site.

[warmarrer]

I believe in the current state of our technology it wouldn't be the defender with the advantage, but the person with the most advanced object detection/fastest computers. We're actually fairly good at making one object go to another object in space. Whoever gets the math done first fires off a couple high velocity projectiles and with no shielding technology the target is most likely destroyed.

[Soda Popinski]

Check out the thread on Interplanetary War.

Also check out Macey Dean's YouTube Channel.

[Vanamonde]

This is more of a Science Labby kind of question, and so, moved.

[DaveofDefeat]

There have been many discussions on the theory of space warfare, the only thing that was really agreed on is that it would be exceedingly boring. Most other aspects are highly determinate on what kind of technology the waring factions have. Everything else is a big argument on whether lasers would be better than missiles and such.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

I personally really like the series "Lost Fleet" by 'Jack Campbell' (Actually John G. Hemry) - in this series, I think it accurately describes how it takes ages to intercept, and it's over in the blink of an eye at a cumulative velocity of about 0.2 lightspeed... but then, if they were armoured and/or shielded in some way, then both sets of combatants can come round for subsequent passes, during which time they will also check how the first pass went... for both sides...

In these stories, they mainly make use of high-energy beam weapons, missiles and good old fashioned grape-shot - grape-shot in space battles as told in the stories is used in close-range battle to wear down shields and armour more than do much damage on its own - and all seem equally effective in this type of combat at different ranges.

[KvickFlygarn87]

I would think it will be oriented around stealth and speed more than sheer firepower. If you can drop in unexpected, people won't be able to retaliate quite as well.

[Ralathon]

I would think it will be oriented around stealth and speed more than sheer firepower. If you can drop in unexpected, people won't be able to retaliate quite as well.

I thought the same until recently. But it turns out that stealth in space is absolute bogus. You can detect spaceship burns all the way out in the Kuiper belt from earth and even the faint heat signatures of dormant ships can be spotted from several AU's.

[Moon Goddess]

Space warfare is gonna all be about diplomacy.

It's impossible to hide, and fairly impossible to defend yourself.

So basically you sit there, stare at each others with big guns, and let the diplomats talk, when the diplomacy breaks down....

Side A fires big weapon A, Side B, detects big weapon A in route.

Side B fires their big weapon B and attempts to dodge.

Side A detects big weapon B and attempts to dodge.

Big weapon A corrects course, Side B is destroyed

Big weapon B corrects coruse, Side A is destroyed

Diplomats return to the table if they're still alive.

[78stonewobble]

Space warfare is gonna all be about diplomacy.

It's impossible to hide, and fairly impossible to defend yourself.

So basically you sit there, stare at each others with big guns, and let the diplomats talk, when the diplomacy breaks down....

Side A fires big weapon A, Side B, detects big weapon A in route.

Side B fires their big weapon B and attempts to dodge.

Side A detects big weapon B and attempts to dodge.

Big weapon A corrects course, Side B is destroyed

Big weapon B corrects coruse, Side A is destroyed

Diplomats return to the table if they're still alive.

Njyarf... Just because we've had nuclear weapons, doesn't mean people haven't found a way to fight the last 60 years, on pretty big scales even.

Whatever sides there are in the future and even if we can agree on not wiping ourselves out by not using the big weapons... I'll be pessimestic and bet that someone somewhere would want someone else dead for what ever reason or just to self defend.

[Dodgey]

Most discussions on this topic are useless unless we determine what the technological level of the people fighting is.

[Seret]

Read all the sections below "Space War" on this site.

I wouldn't take what's written there as gospel. The section about stealth in particular seems rather flawed due to the fact that it assumes (without any justification) that the vehicles would be manned.

[Dodgey]

Even if it was a drone, you either drift in space for months on end, any engine burn would generate heat which would be detectable until you could radiate the heat.

[warmarrer]

Given the fact that we already possess point defense systems (both ballistic and laser) that can vaporise incoming missiles I'd wager space warfare would return to ballistic weaponry of some kind. The distances involved in most combat would make it difficult to sneak any sort of self propelled device past enemy defenses.

Maybe even some metal storm kind of device that launches dormant projectiles that self activate guidance systems after a programmable time.

Imagine if that weapon fired ballistic shells. Those shells activate at a pre-set distance from the enemy ships (regulated by a timer or transmitted signal). Using very small thrusters they orient themselves to launch an explosive payload on an adjusted ballistic trajectory. These rounds are difficult to detect because for most of their lives they travel inactive, and randomly changing course upon detecting launch doesn't guarantee safety because the explosive payload is deployed on a corrected trajectory at a much closer range, giving you far less response time. That combined with the number of shells may overwhelm any point defense system.

I know it's like a gun shooting another gun that shoots a bullet at the target, but it seems like an example of the creative means you may have to take in space warfare.

Drones could be used in a similar way. Launch them as a projectile and activate at attack range.

[78stonewobble]

I think that, if we talk about going beyond just destroying satelites in LEO, then we will only be fighting over something relatively valuable. Meaning probably valuable enough to have people out there repairing also and those can then get in the way of anyone trying to destroying whatever valuable thingymobob.

So we'll have to think humans into it somewhat.

Personally I think it will be a relatively "slow" (sailing ships vs. jet fighters) and as dangerous as submarine warfare (hostile environment and direct hit will be rather dangerous to the entire ship).

Hmm *ponders* Stealth will still be around in some fashion. Ie. if you use missiles you want them to be hard to acquire on radar and other spectrums until it's too late anyway. Presumably you'd also use the vast amounts of real estate to hide anyway you can, preferably behind something large.

[Seret]

Even if it was a drone, you either drift in space for months on end, any engine burn would generate heat which would be detectable until you could radiate the heat.

Sure, no stealth is foolproof. That's why they call it low-observable technology, not unobservable. Stealthy aircraft become very visible when they open their weapons bays for example, or if they're not very careful about their emissions.

In very low orbits an attacker would only pop up above the horizon at quite close range. Engagement ranges could be a lot shorter and times a lot quicker than some people seem to assume. The long range blue sky engagement is only one of several likely scenarios. There's likely to be scope for a wily attacker to get the bounce on the target.

[Nibb31]

Do we really have to put up with the same threads getting posted every week or two?

OP: please look up the forum before posting new topics. There have been half a dozen topics about space warfare, battle cruisers, space cannons and other such nonsense. Starting with this one:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75141-Interplanetary-WAR!?p=1066000&viewfull=1#post1066000