Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

[Darnok]

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.

How about laser that would disable target elctronics for while (or permanently) and during that short window when target can't manouver, you could send missle that would hit it in 100% accuracy?

[*Aqua*]

@RainDreamer

Why do some many people believe it's easy to hack a computer? Military system are hardened against such attacks. Even with a direct access to the hardware you won't be able to reprogram it because everything is encrypted. And no, you can't hack an encryption in mere seconds like they do in movies.

You can also expect the drones to be EMP-proof. Nobody will point weapons at an enemy which are useless.

There is a counter-measure for everything you mention.

[Nibb31]

Just spray the enemy satellite with black foam or thick gunky paint. That will put the panels, thrusters and antennas out of order and overheat the electronics to cause it malfunction. No need for missiles, lasers or turning the sat into a cloud of debris.

[RainDreamer]

@RainDreamer

Why do some many people believe it's easy to hack a computer? Military system are hardened against such attacks. Even with a direct access to the hardware you won't be able to reprogram it because everything is encrypted. And no, you can't hack an encryption in mere seconds like they do in movies.

You can also expect the drones to be EMP-proof. Nobody will point weapons at an enemy which are useless.

There is a counter-measure for everything you mention.

And for every counter-measure there are ways to disable them. It is a technological arm race. We are not talking about mere space rebel here, are we? We are talking about nation-to-nation, or even planet-to-planet war. There are much more resources behind all this to devise counter-measures and counter-countermeasures.

Just as there are military computer experts to provide security to their system, there are also military computer experts that find ways to break through said defenses. And of course encryptions can't be broken in mere seconds, but we are talking about space here. Travelling from point A to point B in space takes quite a while, and if the threat is detected soon enough, as it should be, it can be cracked and disabled.

There are ways to provide EMP proof shielding, and there are also ways to penetrate through them, smaller drone to intercept and drill through the shielding of the attacking drone, for example.

Of course there too are ways to prevent these counter-countermeasures from being successful, like hidden virus in encryption, or backup hardware in secondary layer of EMP-proof material, or even program that fake the effect of EMP/hacked and only explode a dirty bomb in the drone once it is retrieved in a space station, but that is war. You have to evolve and stay one step ahead of the enemy, creating ever more complex and difficult to defend against methods to win, or it would be a deadlock.

What I am saying in my other post though, is that destroying something outright in space by blowing it up into bits should only be done when other methods proved to be ineffective. We don't want space debris orbiting our home planet and prevent space travel due to kessler effect, nor we want to waste all that resources if we are in deep space and being cut off from all kind of resources and has to be self-sustained.

Just spray the enemy satellite with black foam or thick gunky paint. That will put the panels, thrusters and antennas out of order and overheat the electronics to cause it malfunction. No need for missiles, lasers or turning the sat into a cloud of debris.

That...is pretty smart. Physical capture with something like this might be possible. Although, if the surface is made to be unstickable then it s a bit harder. Might need something like a tractor beam or just...a net of super strong material? Well, this is getting out of hand.

Edited November 27, 2014 by RainDreamer

[cicatrix]

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.

Man, if we talk about space combat, as it's been said already, just sheer amount of space junk produced in the process will render LEO unusable for many years, decades even.

[Frozen_Heart]

Just spray the enemy satellite with black foam or thick gunky paint. That will put the panels, thrusters and antennas out of order and overheat the electronics to cause it malfunction. No need for missiles, lasers or turning the sat into a cloud of debris.

That would involve getting close. A missile satellite could take it out from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

On a larger military spacecraft, would weapons like CIWS and short ranged missiles be effective against ASAT weaponry launched at it? Similar to how Naval ships stop anti ship missiles.

[Nibb31]

That would involve getting close. A missile satellite could take it out from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

I was talking about the offensive payload, not the means to deliver it. Your "missile" needs to get close too.

A "missile" launched by a separate spacecraft makes no sense. There is no need to make it aerodynamic. All it needs is propulsion, guidance, and an offensive payload. As such, it would be more like a small drone satellite that loiters on orbit until needed. You would launch a bunch of them in one go and preposition them to different orbits, or you would launch them on demand to the target orbit.

The only time a missile makes sense if it's suborbital and launched from the atmosphere, like the F-15 ASAT. But again, you can have a missile that sprays black goo, emits an EMP blast, explodes into shrapnel, or just hits the sat with kinetic energy. The method of disabling the enemy satellite is irrelevant to the means of delivery, but you always need to get up close and personal.

On a larger military spacecraft, would weapons like CIWS and short ranged missiles be effective against ASAT weaponry launched at it? Similar to how Naval ships stop anti ship missiles.

There will be no "large military spacecraft" in the foreseeable future. The only military assets in space are coms and intel sats. The only reason for space warfare would be to disable or protect those assets. Don't be influenced by science fiction. Something like Battlestar Galactica is silly. Orbital drones would be much more cost-effective and less vulnerable.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Nibb31

[Bill Phil]

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.

Why not make it reusable? It's a large and expensive piece of hardware. It would serve mighty well as a carrier for payloads, as in a reusable weapons platform.

It probably won't be explosive, since if it squishes plastic explosives against the sides, it will be detected and probably is going slower than most K killers.

[Frozen_Heart]

There will be no "large military spacecraft" in the foreseeable future. The only military assets in space are coms and intel sats. The only reason for space warfare would be to disable or protect those assets. Don't be influenced by science fiction. Something like Battlestar Galactica is silly. Orbital drones would be much more cost-effective and less vulnerable.

I know that in reality there won't be military spacecraft, I was just wondering whether something like CIWS could stop a missile in space similar to how it does in atmosphere.

My personal opinion is what space warfare would actually be is simply ASAT weapons shooting the occasional satellite.

[passinglurker]

Personally I believe the first "space warships" would simply be some common craft for the time repurposed for a military action. the reason being is space is expensive and you can waste a lot of money and resources speculating on how it would all go down. Assuming both sides wouldn't want to invoke kessler syndrome the first military actions would likely manned shuttles being used to board and capture stations and facilities and unmanned craft built for satellite repair or debris management used to capture or incapacitate satellites all while desperately trying to avoid generating space debris that would cost both sides access to space(at least until one side loses any hope of turning tides and winning). Where orbital warfare would evolve from there is anyones guess though I speculate that countermeasures against boarding and capture would push the range of engagement further and further out as craft become more specialized for combat and not just repurposed civilian vehicles.

[khyron42]

This topic might seem to have strayed from the original question, but it really hasn't. To define what a warship would look like, you have to first define what kind of warfare it's for, and what kind of weapons it will be carrying.

Low orbit warfare between the current major nations is pretty unlikely, as others have mentioned it. The US and China and Russia and maybe others have the capability to destroy space targets from the ground if they consider the collateral damage worthwhile, so no orbit-to-orbit warfare is needed.

There will be a period where potential rogue states will have limited access to nuclear weapons, medium-range missiles, but not orbit. They can easily do a larger version of Starfish Prime (That was a nuke test at a few hundred miles up created a temporary new radiation belt; a 1.4 megaton detonation fried 1/3rd of the very limited satellites in orbit at the time. A 10-100 megaton version would probably knock out 95% of current satellites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime) That's the most likely near-term space warfare, if North Korea or Iran or Pakistan rogue elements or some future rogue state decide to kill the world's LEO satellites. It's not really "war in space", though - just infrastructure destruction on a grand scale.

As others have mentioned, interstellar warfare is kind of unlikely too. If you're in slower-than-light ships you already have to have ridiculous amounts of fuel/energy plus damn good resource recycling; any given asteroid belt would have resources to keep you going pretty much forever. If you have any form of FTL you can deliver "first strike" guaranteed kill weapons before anyone knows you're coming. The most likely long term interstellar war outcome is self-sufficient worldships attempting to hunt down each other after the planets that birthed them have been wiped out in the first blows of the war.

That leave the main potential for space warfare as interplanetary; so, let's say we colonize the belt with asteroid mining stations, a few centuries go by, and they declare independence. What warships would get built by each side to protect against attacks by the others? What would interplanetary-space warships look like with current or known possible technology?

[Bill Phil]

Personally I believe the first "space warships" would simply be some common craft for the time repurposed for a military action. the reason being is space is expensive and you can waste a lot of money and resources speculating on how it would all go down. Assuming both sides wouldn't want to invoke kessler syndrome the first military actions would likely manned shuttles being used to board and capture stations and facilities and unmanned craft built for satellite repair or debris management used to capture or incapacitate satellites all while desperately trying to avoid generating space debris that would cost both sides access to space(at least until one side loses any hope of turning tides and winning). Where orbital warfare would evolve from there is anyones guess though I speculate that countermeasures against boarding and capture would push the range of engagement further and further out as craft become more specialized for combat and not just repurposed civilian vehicles.

First off, Kessler Syndrome is not a big threat at all. There's so many different orbital paths that it's not a problem for thousands of years, assuming one launch per day of equal size and mass payloads.

The boarding parties would be intetcepted, so general space combat will always happen, no matter the scenario.

We have very little idea how space warfare will turn out. Aerial warfare started as recon, but evolved into dogfights and bombing missions. No matter the original idea, a new set of ideas on how this arena of combat will pan out is inevitable, so there's no use speculating.

[shynung]

Why not make it reusable? It's a large and expensive piece of hardware. It would serve mighty well as a carrier for payloads, as in a reusable weapons platform.

Cost. Long story short, it's much cheaper to make one-use missiles than reusable ones.

Consider this analogy. You have a 500kg TNT warhead which you intend to send to a target across the Pacific ocean. You have 2 choices: send the warhead via a one-use cruise missile, or via a reusable UAV. The cruise missile will only need enough fuel to get there, an engine powerful enough to lift them, and an airframe sturdy enough to hold them all in one piece while on the trip. With an UAV, you'd need all of the above, plus fuel to get back, plus fuel to carry that fuel (courtesy of the rocket equation), landing gears and other recovery mechanisms, a more powerful engine to lift all that, and a sturdier airframe to hold all that as well. You can probably tell which option is more expensive.

It probably won't be explosive, since if it squishes plastic explosives against the sides, it will be detected and probably is going slower than most K killers.

Even shotgun-style shrapnel kinetic warheads can be detected. What only mattered about the detection is how early.

A typical tank-fired HESH round (the squished plastic explosive) is quite effective against solid armors, especially concrete. Tomorrow's combat spacecraft may not be made out of concrete, but they'd have a very bad day if hit by one of these.

Edited November 28, 2014 by shynung

[cicatrix]

Assuming both sides wouldn't want to invoke kessler syndrome... while desperately trying to avoid generating space debris

While this might be true for the winning party it would be quite the opposite for the losing side. Kessler syndrome might be considered as a last resort option when everything else fails. If I feel that I'm losing the battle for space and I know that I will be vulnerable from space I would try to generate as much debris over my head as possible for protection if nothing else.

[cicatrix]

If you have any form of FTL you can deliver "first strike" guaranteed kill weapons before anyone knows you're coming.

That is quite an exciting thought because if both sides have the access to FTL travel (providing that FTL tech automatically assumes time travel) a war in space turns also to be a war in time. Now that's where things might get really f...d up beyond all repair. One causality paradox over another one, over the third one, an attempt to circumvent enemy plans in the past, a counter attempt, a counter-counter attempt... Well, I'm SOOO glad that time travel is currently considered impossible.

[Frozen_Heart]

That is quite an exciting thought because if both sides have the access to FTL travel (providing that FTL tech automatically assumes time travel) a war in space turns also to be a war in time. Now that's where things might get really f...d up beyond all repair. One causality paradox over another one, over the third one, an attempt to circumvent enemy plans in the past, a counter attempt, a counter-counter attempt... Well, I'm SOOO glad that time travel is currently considered impossible.

If its an Alcubierre Drive then the time travel part doesn't happen. Though the undetectable first strike part still does.

However I really don't want this thread to devolve into an ftl argument...

[andrewas]

Again. All FTL makes time travel possible. Warp to a distant point carrying vital Intel, use conventional engines to accelerate into a different reference frame, warp home, and transmit your Intel back when your side still has a chance to exploit it. It might not be practical depending on how fast your warp drive is, but in principle it can be done. Hopefully we'll have outgrown war before time travel becomes practical, though.

[cicatrix]

I wish they made a blockbuster movie about the war in time... Whole fleets disappearing and got excluded from the reality, some new forces appear out of nowhere, people's fates get constantly rewritten to a point they switch sides in the conflict. In the end, the whole space-time is torn, we see the protagonist and his girlfriend from the far future kissing before the whole world is dissolved into primordial chaos.

[RainDreamer]

I wish they made a blockbuster movie about the war in time... Whole fleets disappearing and got excluded from the reality, some new forces appear out of nowhere, people's fates get constantly rewritten to a point they switch sides in the conflict. In the end, the whole space-time is torn, we see the protagonist and his girlfriend from the far future kissing before the whole world is dissolved into primordial chaos.

There is a little indie RTS game called

which use time travel as a main mechanic. While the graphic is really outdated (game is not that old, but indie graphic engine...), the gameplay is pretty good, and does allow players to do real war in time.

Essentially, war in time would be a race to the past as both sides try to undo mistakes and eliminating the enemies before they can make a move (or even before they are born), or sending outnumbered troop from the future to meet their past selves and essentially doubled the amount of troop for a short time to fight enemies. You will soon learn to make stable time loops through this game or manipulating time paradox to throw enemies off track (it has multiplayer)

Edited November 28, 2014 by RainDreamer

[Raukk]

I apologize that I have not read this whole thread; I’m probably saying what many others have already said.

First, having wars in space is a very bad idea.

Using current(ish) tech:

There are a lot of possible situations for the battle, like being in orbit around a planet, or near an asteroid/L-Point, or in deep space. All of which have different tactics and technologies.

Ultimately it all boils down to the tradeoff of main traits Speed/Armor/Weapons. Chose one major and one minor, ex. Missile is Fast with ok Damage but Battleships are Armor with some Weapons.

In Orbit, a war would require mainly battleships because of the Kessler syndrome that would result from many battles. A battleship would have heavy armor (to ignore the debris) and ok guns but no speed, and it would probably also house fighters/drones/missiles. Any small craft without a dock would eventually be worn down and destroyed by all the debris in orbit after the initial battle or 2.

A fixed point of interest like an L-Point or asteroid would likely have defense stations or battleships on the defending side but not on the attacker side. Because this would be like a siege the attackers would focus on high attack ships with decent maneuverability. The attacker would stay at long range and bombard the defenders that can’t abandon their base/resources.

In deep space it could really be any variety of craft but would likely lean towards the speed and firepower spectrum. Using hit and run tactics against heavy slow targets would be a good way to wear down the enemy.

The equipment used by the ships would be mostly determined by what the other faction is using and what is available.

Heat: in space heat must be radiated away, if not, then you melt. Radiators that get rid of lots of heat are large, unarmored, vital parts of your ship. If you have to little radiators then you can’t do much without melting, but if you have a lot of radiators then you have lots of weak spots.

Weapons/Armor: Very heavy, thick armor would be very expensive for us to launch into space and increase fuel costs of flight and therefore impractical. Lasers are great for space because of the speed of light, but could be blocked by good armor, create tons of heat, and take tons of power, as well as being massive. With these points Lasers are sniping weapons for use at huge distances or for use as point defense. Mass drivers/rail guns fire high velocity shells that can do tons of damage, but even at high speeds they must be very well aimed and will take a long time to hit their target, giving a good chance to dodge. Missiles are much slower and easily shot down but can redirect midflight to follow targets, missiles would likely explode into shrapnel well before the target is reached or carry a nuke. Armor and countermeasures can be designed for all the weapon types proposed, a very fine mist over a large area could refract lasers to negate or reduce their attack, missiles can be intercepted, and debris can be blocked with spaced armor (like the ISS uses). Rail guns would require very good armor to block but very little to dodge (in 100 km scale battles, even at 5km/s it gives 20 seconds to move).

Fighters/Drones: with the cost of keeping someone alive in space I don’t expect that manned fighters will be used ever. Point defense drones are most likely with the possibility of interceptors or bombers.

Ground Attack: Nuking is the most effective, Lasers loose power to the atmosphere, missiles are large and expensive for their damage, bombs specifically designed for this would work ok, and rail guns are good for precise targets.

Actually invading from orbit is laughable given the troop/material/supplies needed to be delivered to the surface you’d be better to just bomb them into the stone-age and then set yourselves up as their gods.

I would expect that most battles would either be over very quickly (minutes) or end in a draw. There is the chance for a real slug fest but it’s unlikely given the physics of orbits and the distances involved.

No matter how this goes, I feel that everyone loses.

[1greywind]

Take a look on this page about military prgoram planned around Russian Buran orbiter and Energia launch vehicle.

"Good" old days of Cold war:

[Technical Ben]

Wait what? That makes no sense what so ever...

[1greywind]

Wait what? That makes no sense what so ever...

Yep - animation is very lame. But Mir-based orbital base with wingless combat modules with multiple BOR style reentry vehicles isn't.

[Nibb31]

Yep - animation is very lame. But Mir-based orbital base with wingless combat modules with multiple BOR style reentry vehicles isn't.

It's absolutely stupid.

[m4rt14n]

Like this..

A Dyson sphere surrounding a white dwarf would have enough energy to move itself and burn entire worlds...