Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

[Jouni]

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/16/164003/pdf/0953-4075_46_16_164003.pdf

The pulse energy was between 2 to 6 Megajoules, which if it was over the length of a second, would be 2-6 megawatts of output... but it was over the length of 5-500 femto seconds, which means the power output in watts for the short length of the pulse... was .... quite high.

Millijoules, not megajoules. Besides, the paper is describing a system with the average power output in hundreds of watts.

[Nibb31]

If you can just as effectively use a moving sat, why use GEO at all?

An evading GEO sat would be put out of service temporarily, not permanently. Depending on the purpose of the attack, that might be enough, but eventually it can return to its original longitude (or a new longitude) and resume service.

[KerikBalm]

Millijoules, not megajoules. Besides, the paper is describing a system with the average power output in hundreds of watts.

Whooops... well... my mistake. That takes the power output for during the pulse down from exa-watts down to terawatts....

I thought something was wrong, because I thought the most powerful lasers made only had peak power outputs just into the peta-watts.

Still...

We're talking the future, but of course, within the limits of reality.

Its not like I said gamma ray lasers, or even hard X-ray lasers

[Godot]

Well, one thing is for sure ... the spacecrafts bridge would be secure in the innards of the space ship ... and not rather exposed at some point near the outer hull, like depicted in Star Wars or Star Trek

[cicatrix]

Well, one thing is for sure ... the spacecrafts bridge would be secure in the innards of the space ship ... and not rather exposed at some point near the outer hull, like depicted in Star Wars or Star Trek

I still think there would be no bridges. It would be machines versus machines.

[Frozen_Heart]

I still think there would be no bridges. It would be machines versus machines.

tbh it would probably just be ASAT missiles shooting down satellites. There wouldn't be much in the way of space warfare at all.

[cicatrix]

tbh it would probably just be ASAT missiles shooting down satellites. There wouldn't be much in the way of space warfare at all.

Well, that depends of how smart the satellites would be. If they could detect incoming missiles and make evasive maneuvers/drop decoys things might not be this simple. Afaik an ASAT missile is not all that overpowered, it can barely reach LEO height and it has only so much dV to intercept a satellite.

[RainDreamer]

I think a manned war spacecraft would probably like a death star, but much smaller. Spherical design with thruster all around allow better maneuverability in 3D space, the same with sensors and weapon placement. The pilot/crew would just be inside a shielded core, viewing space all around through sensors and can fire from any angle. But I think the most important aspect of these spacecraft would be in the information hardware and software to protect against hacking and disrupting sensors that prevent detection of incoming threat. Information warfare will become much more advanced in space combat, I would imagine.

Edited November 26, 2014 by RainDreamer

[Steambirds]

My theory is that space missiles would probably come in two classes: Basic explosive missiles fired with normal propulsion against manned and unmanned vehicles, and explosive/non-explosive space missiles with nuclear engines (that makes the whole darn thing a payload) used primarily on manned vessels, or unmanned vessels that frequently will be visited by humans.

[Bill Phil]

Armor will be designed according to what the spacecraft is supposed to endure, and the rest of the spacecraft will be built around it. Both maximum acceleration, delta-V, and armaments will be considered for the final design, just like today's military jets.

Also, any physical missile fired at a spacecraft doesn't have to be invisible to be problematic. It only needs to chase you around like an attack dog. The purpose of high acceleration capability is to avoid these.

If the spacecraft is supposed to endure typical micrometeors and more, than it can survive a long time. Then you have missiles that easily be tracked, and easily avoided at a long distance. Now, the acceleration is not a big consideration due to the small change further out equals big change closer in law. Or whatever it's called.

Chances are a missile won't have as much deltav as a full-fledged spacecraft, so the target can easily change it's velocity and get a completely different orbit. The missile most likely doesn't have the deltav to intercept.

Although, if the missile is S-IVB sized....

[Frozen_Heart]

Armor will be designed according to what the spacecraft is supposed to endure

If larger spacecraft did come about I see their armour as mainly a defence against shrapnel which would be generated in combat. The amount you'd need to stop a missile strike would be so thick that the dV would be pretty much non existent.

[Tankbuster32]

IIRC, most of the damage done by an explosive is caused by the shockwave that's generated, and without an atmosphere there's no shockwave, making the thing a bit useless. In space you would want to have the same kind of projectile that ASAT missiles use, a so-called Kinetic Kill Vehicle. Basically you throw a big slug of metal really fast and use that to destroy the enemy satellite. Alternatively a nuclear weapon frying the enemy electronics with an EMP.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Tankbuster32

[cicatrix]

IIRC, most of the damage done by an explosive is caused by the shockwave that's generated, and without an atmosphere there's no shockwave, making the thing a bit useless. In space you would want to have the same kind of projectile that ASAT missiles use, a so-called Kinetic Kill Vehicle. Basically you throw a big slug of metal really fast and use that to destroy the enemy satellite. Alternatively a nuclear weapon frying the enemy electronics with an EMP.

In space, just like in any other AA missile, you'll need something like this:

Strange as it may sound, but you can even make a low budget version - fill a tin bucket with nails or other tiny metal scrap and put a hand grenade in its center.

[Bill Phil]

In space, just like in any other AA missile, you'll need something like this:

http://www.operatorchan.org/stem/src/139076594156.jpg

Strange as it may sound, but you can even make a low budget version - fill a tin bucket with nails or other tiny metal scrap and put a hand grenade in its center.

http://4innovative.com/img/item1201499260_gvozdi_raznye_2_kg_1.jpg

So, in lay men's terms: a space shotgun.

[RainDreamer]

-post-

The problem is that, in space, those fragments and debris would not just simply fall back to the ground. It would travel forever, and may one day hitting unintended targets like civilian.

If we have energy weapons that can simply vaporize stuff, that would be a good thing to use in space.

[zekes]

I think, in the future, these makeshift craft won't do... I think that once we mine smaller planets and comets for components autonomous ships will mine, refine, and construct ships with this ore, and then armor would become easy to add to ships. Comets and asteroids would be refueling and repair bases, and combat would be more long-range guided missile combat, or in ww1- style battleship formations.

[shynung]

If the spacecraft is supposed to endure typical micrometeors and more, than it can survive a long time. Then you have missiles that easily be tracked, and easily avoided at a long distance. Now, the acceleration is not a big consideration due to the small change further out equals big change closer in law. Or whatever it's called.

Chances are a missile won't have as much deltav as a full-fledged spacecraft, so the target can easily change it's velocity and get a completely different orbit. The missile most likely doesn't have the deltav to intercept.

Although, if the missile is S-IVB sized....

First, let's talk about the missile. It probably won't be the size of an S-IVB, but it won't be as small as an AIM-9 Sidewinder either. It would be configured to be used in spacecraft-to-spacecraft combat in close combat ('close' meaning orbiting the same planet; attacking from another planet would necessitate using a laser or particle beam). It would probably be armed with a shrapnel warhead or a kinetic slug, mounted on a separate booster (or gun barrel mechanism) inside the missile (EMP warheads are possible, but do not require a booster). The missile would merely get close to the target, chasing it around as it goes, and release the payload (shrapnel/slug and booster, or EMP blast) at a predetermined distance, which then destroys the target. The missile, then, would be fueled according to the designer's assumptions on how much delta-V the missile has to expend in order to make these maneuvers.

As I see it, there will be some sort of dogfighting, but not similar to a typical contemporary fighter jets. It would be similar to a rendezvous maneuver, only one side actively tries to avoid rendezvous-ing with the other. Here, a craft that can do a higher acceleration will excel, since it can maneuver for a given delta-v in a shorter amount of time, thus being able to close (or open) the distance faster than the other craft can compensate. Especially at very close ranges (less than 50 kilometers), and fast relative velocities, the question of whether the missile hits or misses comes to whether the missile has a higher acceleration than the target, and how much.

Regarding the armor, combat spacecrafts would probably be armored as much as a typical fighter jet - as in, almost nothing. Most of the time, they'll have Whipple shields to protect them from micrometeoroids or space debris, as these are lightweight. They'll try to avoid collisions with bigger objects such as killer asteroids (which are likely in planetary warfare situations), and will attempt to outmaneuver any inbound missiles. Or, if they're too slow, use some sort of CIWS system (radar-guided gatling gun turrets) to try and stop inbound missiles by shooting at them.

Edited November 27, 2014 by shynung

[andrew123]

I think, in the future, these makeshift craft won't do... I think that once we mine smaller planets and comets for components autonomous ships will mine, refine, and construct ships with this ore, and then armor would become easy to add to ships. Comets and asteroids would be refueling and repair bases, and combat would be more long-range guided missile combat, or in ww1- style battleship formations.

At least until we discover the secrets to antigravity/make a working cannae/ftl drive. I believe space warfare will evolve in a similar manner to both modern day submarines and surface warfare assets. Better technology will lead to better tactics.

[Bill Phil]

First, let's talk about the missile. It probably won't be the size of an S-IVB, but it won't be as small as an AIM-9 Sidewinder either. It would be configured to be used in spacecraft-to-spacecraft combat in close combat ('close' meaning orbiting the same planet; attacking from another planet would necessitate using a laser or particle beam). It would probably be armed with a shrapnel warhead or a kinetic slug, mounted on a separate booster (or gun barrel mechanism) inside the missile (EMP warheads are possible, but do not require a booster). The missile would merely get close to the target, chasing it around as it goes, and release the payload (shrapnel/slug and booster, or EMP blast) at a predetermined distance, which then destroys the target. The missile, then, would be fueled according to the designer's assumptions on how much delta-V the missile has to expend in order to make these maneuvers.

As I see it, there will be some sort of dogfighting, but not similar to a typical contemporary fighter jets. It would be similar to a rendezvous maneuver, only one side actively tries to avoid rendezvous-ing with the other. Here, a craft that can do a higher acceleration will excel, since it can maneuver for a given delta-v in a shorter amount of time, thus being able to close (or open) the distance faster than the other craft can compensate. Especially at very close ranges (less than 50 kilometers), and fast relative velocities, the question of whether the missile hits or misses comes to whether the missile has a higher acceleration than the target, and how much.

Regarding the armor, combat spacecrafts would probably be armored as much as a typical fighter jet - as in, almost nothing. Most of the time, they'll have Whipple shields to protect them from micrometeoroids or space debris, as these are lightweight. They'll try to avoid collisions with bigger objects such as killer asteroids (which are likely in planetary warfare situations), and will attempt to outmaneuver any inbound missiles. Or, if they're too slow, use some sort of CIWS system (radar-guided gatling gun turrets) to try and stop inbound missiles by shooting at them.

That's not a missile. It's a weapons platform. And if it carries a large payload mass, it could be the size of an S-IVB.

Although, I was referring to a large slug that's S-IVB sized with enormous velocity traveling towards a space target such as a station...

Basically goodbye station.

Although, your space dogfighting scenario would probably apply to all craft sizes, from enormous to Apollo-sized.

The large ones would probably have an active anti-missile system similar to the already used systems on-board naval ships. The only advantage that has is changing the missile's velocity vector, and splitting it apart, lowering each individual piece's energy.

Although, the acceleration would be limited if humans are crewed, so manned "fighters" are unlikely.

[RainDreamer]

Now that I think about it...maybe futuristic spacecraft weapons will be anti-biological in nature. Killing/incapacitate the inhabitant of a craft/space station and claim it would be much better in the long term rather than just blowing the damn thing up. Radiation, microwave weapons, EMP(shutdown life support), etc. Those would help sustaining a war in space without shutting down space travel for good comparing to conventional methods.

[Bill Phil]

Now that I think about it...maybe futuristic spacecraft weapons will be anti-biological in nature. Killing/incapacitate the inhabitant of a craft/space station and claim it would be much better in the long term rather than just blowing the damn thing up. Radiation, microwave weapons, EMP(shutdown life support), etc. Those would help sustaining a war in space without shutting down space travel for good comparing to conventional methods.

But those spacecraft would be automated, and you would want to stop them.

[shynung]

That's not a missile. It's a weapons platform. And if it carries a large payload mass, it could be the size of an S-IVB.

Although, I was referring to a large slug that's S-IVB sized with enormous velocity traveling towards a space target such as a station...

Basically goodbye station.

Although, your space dogfighting scenario would probably apply to all craft sizes, from enormous to Apollo-sized.

The large ones would probably have an active anti-missile system similar to the already used systems on-board naval ships. The only advantage that has is changing the missile's velocity vector, and splitting it apart, lowering each individual piece's energy.

Although, the acceleration would be limited if humans are crewed, so manned "fighters" are unlikely.

By your definition, all of today's guided missiles can be considered a weapons platform.

Take, for example, an AIM-9 Sidewinder I mentioned earlier. It is comprised of a propulsion system (a solid rocket motor), a guidance system (IR sensor, sets of winglets), and a payload (an annular-blast fragmentation explosive). All it does is try to close the distance to the target, and deploy the payload (detonating the fragmentation explosive, which sends a directional blast of shrapnel towards the target).

It doesn't have to be very large, either; if the payload is a miniature nuclear fragmentation bomb (or something else on that scale), it can be much smaller, while still packing plenty of delta-V. If the target is largely immobile, a missile is not necessary at all; an asteroid pushed into an impact trajectory is a much cheaper option, while still being very effective.

Edited November 27, 2014 by shynung

[Bill Phil]

By your definition, all of today's guided missiles can be considered a weapons platform.

Take, for example, an AIM-9 Sidewinder I mentioned earlier. It is comprised of a propulsion system (a solid rocket motor), a guidance system (IR sensor, sets of winglets), and a payload (an annular-blast fragmentation explosive). All it does is try to close the distance to the target, and deploy the payload (detonating the fragmentation explosive, which sends a directional blast of shrapnel towards the target).

It doesn't have to be very large, either; if the payload is a miniature nuclear fragmentation bomb (or something else on that scale), it can be much smaller, while still packing plenty of delta-V. If the target is largely immobile, a missile is not necessary at all; an asteroid pushed into an impact trajectory is a much cheaper option, while still being very effective.

You clearly stated that it's a vehicle that fires a payload ( which can't be explosive in nature) at a target. It's a weapons platform.

An AIM-9 has to reach a certain distance, usually right on the surface of the target. It's a weapons platform, too. It's not a reusable one, though.

[shynung]

So is the vehicle I mentioned. After firing the payload, it's nothing but a piece of space junk. What other use is there that can be wrung out of a discarded booster stage? After all, take away the payload, and that's what a missile essentially is.

Also, a space-deployed missile payload does not have to be non-explosive. It can, say, penetrate into the target spacecraft, and then explode. It could also be a sort of plastic explosive that is squished flat against the surface of the target and blow up microseconds later, delivering a shockwave through the target's own structural elements.

Edited November 27, 2014 by shynung

[RainDreamer]

But those spacecraft would be automated, and you would want to stop them.

You can hack them, you can shut down their electrical component with emp, you can misdirect them and let them waste all their fuel, you can cut connection between them and the control room, and there are more ways to counter those automated spacecraft before finally shoot it down with kinetic kill vehicles as a last resort. We don't want high speed space trash that might damage our equipment and waste more material than needed, especially in limited resource environment like space.

It really reminds me of siege combat in the past, where the occupant of a fortress would use cannonballs the enemies fired at them and fire back. In space age, we try to capture drones and dismantle them/send those back at enemies for minimal cost.