Live data from Hacker News

What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

gizmodo.com

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#11
post #8
post #3

lets hope non-existent.

we already have militarization of space, plenty of satellites up there, are armed to the teeth. The second they find anything important up there, you'll have space shuttles armed to the teeth.

I guess it's not finding something important, but lowering the costs of launches, so that space becomes important.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#12

This analysis is grossly naive. It notes the importance of kinetic kill in space battles but ignores utterly that the nature of the battlefield depends greatly on the nature of technology. As increasingly advanced propulsion technology makes feasible the next higher level of closing velocities (from 10-30km/s with chemical propulsion, to 50km/s with Nuclear Thermal Rockets and such-like, to 100km/s, 1000km/s and beyo…

I'd read your article.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#13
I'd say a bigger problem would be time to target, in one of two ways:

- light speed; being 0.5 seconds away from the enemy moving at orbital speeds means that even the slightest change in direction would put you quite far from where he thinks you are. I'd guess in-combat ships would continuously change direction by minute amounts.

- old fashioned "see the bullet 1000 km away and dodge it".

This leaves one obvious option: autonomous scatter pack missiles. They would get as close to the target as possible, then split into several parts so as to be harder to pick up by laser or kinetic defenses. Payload could be anything, but i'd guess delayed explosives might do a fair amount of damage.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#14
post #4

I stopped reading this article about two paragraphs in because it makes the mistake of thinking that a space battle would necessarily happen in human timescales. A real space battle barring some silly fictional constraint (You can't hyperspace jump too close! The shields are just holding out! Can't fire from cloak! Etc etc) is going to be the perfect embodiment of warfare as we know it now: months of boredom punctuat…

I think a real space battle is likely to be too expensive to make a good narrative: in the status quo, major military powers in the United States avoid naval battles because the ships that matter cost billions, they can only afford to field a dozen of them, and they have a huge likelihood of dying to the first hit by a much cheaper missile. In space, the ships will cost tens or hundreds of billions, no nation state w…

The cost/benefit equation of war has changed drastically since the Romans kept themselves in a perpetual state of conflict in order to fund the republic with its spoils. Especially in this century, the cost of war implements has increased rapidly relative to the possible benefits from engagement.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#15
post #8
post #3

lets hope non-existent.

we already have militarization of space, plenty of satellites up there, are armed to the teeth. The second they find anything important up there, you'll have space shuttles armed to the teeth.

I think the real question is: why would we let them get up there in the first place? I know that I, for one, would want anything that can drop bombs on me from space shot down before it can even get into position, no matter who's trying to put it up there.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#16
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a real space battle is likely to be too expensive to make a good narrative: in the status quo, major military powers in the United States avoid naval battles because the ships that matter cost billions, they can only afford to field a dozen of them, and they have a huge likelihood of dying to the first hit by a much cheaper missile. In space, the ships will cost tens or hundreds of billions, no nation state w…

The cost/benefit equation of war has changed drastically since the Romans kept themselves in a perpetual state of conflict in order to fund the republic with its spoils. Especially in this century, the cost of war implements has increased rapidly relative to the possible benefits from engagement.

The Egyptians were doing that way before the Romans. In general, having enough food to feed a standing army (as the Nile provided) gives a country a big leg up in the sacking & pillaging.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#17
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a real space battle is likely to be too expensive to make a good narrative: in the status quo, major military powers in the United States avoid naval battles because the ships that matter cost billions, they can only afford to field a dozen of them, and they have a huge likelihood of dying to the first hit by a much cheaper missile. In space, the ships will cost tens or hundreds of billions, no nation state w…

The cost/benefit equation of war has changed drastically since the Romans kept themselves in a perpetual state of conflict in order to fund the republic with its spoils. Especially in this century, the cost of war implements has increased rapidly relative to the possible benefits from engagement.

That's largely because the weapons industry has been corrupted by government funding, though. I find it hard to believe that the research, development and manufacturing of the F-22 Raptor would really need US $65B, and $125M per plane, for instance.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#18
post #4

I stopped reading this article about two paragraphs in because it makes the mistake of thinking that a space battle would necessarily happen in human timescales. A real space battle barring some silly fictional constraint (You can't hyperspace jump too close! The shields are just holding out! Can't fire from cloak! Etc etc) is going to be the perfect embodiment of warfare as we know it now: months of boredom punctuat…

I think a real space battle is likely to be too expensive to make a good narrative: in the status quo, major military powers in the United States avoid naval battles because the ships that matter cost billions, they can only afford to field a dozen of them, and they have a huge likelihood of dying to the first hit by a much cheaper missile. In space, the ships will cost tens or hundreds of billions, no nation state w…

Anything that doesn't travel at 299792458 meters per second will not be a viable weapon in space. Two spaceships coming toward each other will be hundreds of thousands of kilometers away when they start firing on each other. The time lag will be over one second for lasers, so if the two ships are maneuvering randomly many laser shots will actually miss. Kinetic weapons will take minutes or hours to get there, making them essentially useless. With missiles (I'll assume missiles are nuclear here), not only are they slow but you can also set up computer controlled lasers to fry their control circuitry. Nukes require very specific detonation conditions and if you fry the explosive material it won't explode like a conventional weapon, it will just fail.

Also, with ships punching a hole in the bottom is enough to sink one - most ships hit by a one-shot-kill missile take a few minute to do down because they're sinking, not exploding. In space, this doesn't exist. You have fuel tanks and engines, but those can be safely put at the back of the ship, and in a battle you'll just rotate your ship so that the front faces the enemy.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#19

I'd say a bigger problem would be time to target, in one of two ways: - light speed; being 0.5 seconds away from the enemy moving at orbital speeds means that even the slightest change in direction would put you quite far from where he thinks you are. I'd guess in-combat ships would continuously change direction by minute amounts. - old fashioned "see the bullet 1000 km away and dodge it". This leaves one obvious opt…

Don't think of changing direction, think of changing velocity. Space is a Newtonian movement system, so accelerating 20 meters per second in some direction is just as easy at 0 km/sec as it is at 10000 km/sec.

As for missiles, I really don't like the idea. If I were tasked with building a 22-nd century warship, I would put a few hundred automated anti-missile lasers everywhere, which would fry the missiles before any of them get close enough to darken the hull.

Re: What Will Future Space Battles Be Like?

#20
Another consideration this article doesn't seem to touch on: Heat.

Particle-beam weapons especially, but also anything carried by a ship that generates significant energy that isn't thrust, is going to generate a lot of waste heat, due to those blasted laws of thermodynamics. Where does all that heat go?

Yes, space is very, very, cold. But vacuum is about as close as you can get to an ideal thermal insulator, so if you want your imaginary warship to be spamming giant lasers like a Gradius boss, you're going to need some way to rapidly dispose of heat before your entire ship cooks like a P4 with no heat sink.

Post reply on HN