http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewarintro.php
for all your back of the envelope needs.
What future space combat would really look like
11–20 of 235 posts
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#12I admit to skimming this, but there are a couple of things I see wrong with this. 1. You can see a spaceship from the next solar system for sure. But it would take years for you to see it. 2. I doubt the future of combat will involve humans. I envision giant fleets of spaceships that are too big for humans to control. Thus, I forsee space combat as being driven by complex algorithms.
As to 1: It would take years for the light to get there, it would also take several MORE years for the ship to actually get there. The important take away is distance can't be used to hide, there is no "Oh they won't notice us we're still outside the orbit of Pluto."
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#13On the subject of privateers, why is the author so insistent on the danger of crashing ships into planets? What does the math look like when space craft like he describes hits the upper reaches of our atmosphere? At those speeds, could a space craft really penetrate far enough to cause terrestrial damage?
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#14On the subject of privateers, why is the author so insistent on the danger of crashing ships into planets? What does the math look like when space craft like he describes hits the upper reaches of our atmosphere? At those speeds, could a space craft really penetrate far enough to cause terrestrial damage?
An example: Project Thor / "Rods from God": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#15This essay isn't all that realistic. I found this one [1] to have a far more realistic view of what space war would look like. Tl;dr: it's much cheaper and much more effective to lob comets at your enemy's homeworld than it is to fight with ships. [1] http://www.gwern.net/Colder%20Wars
Ender's game spoiler alert! Hope it doesn't ruin it for anyone else ... (grumble.) Anyway, how the heck does one lob a comet? If throwing one was so easy, why wouldn't they just throw it right back at you?
Do you really need a spoiler alert on a young-adult novel that has been out for 26 years?
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#16This essay isn't all that realistic. I found this one [1] to have a far more realistic view of what space war would look like. Tl;dr: it's much cheaper and much more effective to lob comets at your enemy's homeworld than it is to fight with ships. [1] http://www.gwern.net/Colder%20Wars
Ender's game spoiler alert! Hope it doesn't ruin it for anyone else ... (grumble.) Anyway, how the heck does one lob a comet? If throwing one was so easy, why wouldn't they just throw it right back at you?
Physics. Attacker gets arbitrary mass (reactant, etc) and time to accelerate. Defender needs same mass/time to decelerate... after discovering the attack.
Note that you could literally prep an attack for millennia which would be discovered a matter of hours prior to ending a civilization.
Physics makes for sucky narratives. Good thing it also makes for a vast, dead, boring universe.
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#17On the subject of privateers, why is the author so insistent on the danger of crashing ships into planets? What does the math look like when space craft like he describes hits the upper reaches of our atmosphere? At those speeds, could a space craft really penetrate far enough to cause terrestrial damage?
A relativistic speeds, having airbags is not a free pass. Great, it hit your atmosphere and disintegrated. Now your atmosphere hits you.
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ender's game spoiler alert! Hope it doesn't ruin it for anyone else ... (grumble.) Anyway, how the heck does one lob a comet? If throwing one was so easy, why wouldn't they just throw it right back at you?
Physics. Attacker gets arbitrary mass (reactant, etc) and time to accelerate. Defender needs same mass/time to decelerate... after discovering the attack. Note that you could literally prep an attack for millennia which would be discovered a matter of hours prior to ending a civilization. Physics makes for sucky narratives. Good thing it also makes for a vast, dead, boring universe.
I don't think you would try to slow down approaching meteorites to zero speed, only deflect them a little so that they miss the planet. The further away you catch it, the less energy it takes (I assume, didn't do the maths).
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#19On the subject of privateers, why is the author so insistent on the danger of crashing ships into planets? What does the math look like when space craft like he describes hits the upper reaches of our atmosphere? At those speeds, could a space craft really penetrate far enough to cause terrestrial damage?
An example: Project Thor / "Rods from God": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
The linked article seems to mention re-entry friction as a problem yet-to-be-solved:
The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.
Then there's the question of whether or not heat is truly the most immediate issue. NASA and USAF had to actually fly an airplace near and past the speed of sound to see how the properties of the atmosphere changed when compressed. Is it logical to hypothesize that similar changes may be encountered as speed continues to increase?
Re: What future space combat would really look like
#20This essay isn't all that realistic. I found this one [1] to have a far more realistic view of what space war would look like. Tl;dr: it's much cheaper and much more effective to lob comets at your enemy's homeworld than it is to fight with ships. [1] http://www.gwern.net/Colder%20Wars
I postered a comment on the essay, I'll repost it here:
You assume the interstellar species will be living on a planet. What if they hollowed out their planet of resources long ago and now live in a cloud of asteroids instead? Asteroids are hollowed out as giant fortresses in space, and a bio dome sphere thingy built inside. As they are living in an asteroid cloud, to prevent impact they would have to attach thrusters to each asteroid they live on to dodge other asteroids.
So the asteroid from kuiper belt attack won't work... but what if the asteroid was launched at close to speed of light? 1. That would take a very big amount of energy. 2. They would've had to carry the energy to the kuiper belt. 3. They would've been noticed and a fleet would've sent in to capture it before the asteroid was launched.
What about the nuclear bomb? Well they live deep in the asteroid, it'll protect at least against some nuclear hits. If one asteroid blows up there are still 499 others. Still it would be great to prevent the loss of sentient life... Also what happens if 500 nukes were launched at each asteroid? I've got no answer to that.
I do wonder if there could be a device that would force nuclear explosives to be triggered prematurely, lets say, 2km away. That would be sufficient to protect the asteroid.