Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/13 23:51:34


Post by: Ouze


Splitting off from the US politics thread:

What might near-future space combat look like? What would combat in space look like? Are laser weapons where it's at?

Please do not discuss the political aspects, motivations of, or President Trump in this thread. Those discussions belong in the US politics thread.


 Xenomancers wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:

Ball bearings. I'm not kidding.


Too slow probably. I think lasers will be the weapon of choice. Can't beat the speed of light with our technology.

IDK about slow. In space their is no friction and projectiles maintain their muzzle velocity. They can also be arched around a horizon where a laser needs direct LOS.

IMO lasers are just a fantasy in space combat. They are just too easy to counter. I know it's not as simple as this - but lasers can be deflected by refective surfaces and need to stay on target for a while in order to do damage. So essentially things like (spinning your ship)(throwing bebris/mirors/ in front of your ship would render lasers useless.) I think high ROF projectile weapons and smart bombs in space (a missle that you launch into an area without rockets and it activates it's rocket motor when it finds a target) will be the prefered weapons.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 00:31:29


Post by: Iron_Captain


Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.

In the near future, space warfare will mostly be about anti-satellite warfare, with countries using missiles, ECM and hacking to take out the other country's satellites. This is a vital part of modern warfare, since a modern military becomes virtually useless without satellites. You could cripple your opponent's entire military and end the war just by taking out their satellites.
Another thing I could see happening is the use of satellites for kinetic bombardment. Even relatively small slugs fired from orbit can strike a city with a power comparable to that of a small nuclear bomb. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, but something like a device that can fire off tungsten rods isn't normally considered a weapon of mass destruction. So I could see that happening. I also think FOBS missiles will become important again now that Russia has again developed and deployed missiles with such capabilities.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 00:37:40


Post by: LordofHats


It might not be the most accurate answer, but it is the coolest.

Giant robots


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 03:30:23


Post by: BaronIveagh


There's that nasty 'Space Treaty' that puts a lot of this firmly in 'war crimes' territory.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 04:38:06


Post by: Skaorn


There is also the problem that increasing the debris floating around in orbit is not the best idea for anyone.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 05:07:58


Post by: Drey


Skaorn wrote:
There is also the problem that increasing the debris floating around in orbit is not the best idea for anyone.


Yeah, but that's for future humans to worry about, not us. /sarcasm

Off topic, but I feel somewhat bummed that I won't live to see large scale galactic colonization, if it's even possible. Maybe Mars, if I'm lucky, and provided we don't nuke ourselves back to the stone age.

More on-topic, satellites equipped with lasers for orbital bombardment or some other such thing might be more useful then any handheld/truck-mounted laser gun. Though, never effective as rearranging the tectonic plates with bombs, tungsten, or depleted uranium. Nothing like watching a mountain range rearrange from the safety of your command bunker, or what have you.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 05:17:59


Post by: John Prins


Basically, missiles. The target is capable of maneuver, so your projectile must be capable of it as well, and ranges are large - bullets just aren't fast enough. Lasers might be good for messing with sensors, however. I'd expect attacks to only happen on close orbital passes where reaction times are minimized, but those are predictable, because ground based stations can track literally everything in orbit.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 05:39:32


Post by: Kilkrazy


I imagine near future space war would be done with explosive missiles, drones with the equivalent of big shotguns, and tactical nuclear weapons if you want to get really nasty.

I also think it's a really stupid idea.

There is already so much space junk in orbit that adding any more endangers the use of space for satellites we are very dependant on for earth observation, communications, navigation and other useful purposes.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 06:20:42


Post by: Peregrine


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.


Kinetic weapons can also be intercepted by lasers. The downside of cheap ballistic-trajectory weapons is that radar (remember, no ground clutter to hide in when you're in space) can plot exactly which shots are on an impact trajectory, aim a laser, and vaporize some of the material to push the kinetic shot off course.

In the near future, space warfare will mostly be about anti-satellite warfare, with countries using missiles, ECM and hacking to take out the other country's satellites. This is a vital part of modern warfare, since a modern military becomes virtually useless without satellites. You could cripple your opponent's entire military and end the war just by taking out their satellites.


The problem is that killing satellites very quickly turns into MAD because of space debris. The more likely outcome is that, as with nuclear weapons, everyone agrees not to fire the first shot and anti-satellite weapons effectively do not exist.

Another thing I could see happening is the use of satellites for kinetic bombardment. Even relatively small slugs fired from orbit can strike a city with a power comparable to that of a small nuclear bomb. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, but something like a device that can fire off tungsten rods isn't normally considered a weapon of mass destruction. So I could see that happening. I also think FOBS missiles will become important again now that Russia has again developed and deployed missiles with such capabilities.


This is highly unlikely. Getting sufficient accuracy to be useful is an extremely difficult problem to solve, and requires an expensive guided weapon that slows to pretty underwhelming velocity as it enters the atmosphere. And, while a tungsten rod may be cheap, the payload capacity to put it into orbit is not. So you end up with an extremely expensive and awkward weapon that suffers from the same MAD problems as nuclear weapons, except with even more difficult engineering problems to solve and a lot more cost. There's a reason nobody has taken the concept seriously so far and tried to build one.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 14:19:18


Post by: Gitzbitah


Skaorn wrote:
There is also the problem that increasing the debris floating around in orbit is not the best idea for anyone.


That's how you're going to see lasers get into space. Some enterprising nation will put one of the debris clearing lasers into space in high orbit, and start clearing the lanes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936114001010

Then perhaps one is made that will work on larger debris- and then that technology becomes weaponized. Heck, maybe they just don't clear the lanes of nations they don't like, or that don't pay them clearance fees. Perhaps they'll even start forgetting satellites are in the way of their cleaning operations. But it will still be way more vulnerable to conventional attack. Orbits are known, and it's the easiest thing in the world to put a cloud of shrapnel in a satellite's path, if you have a space program.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 15:04:01


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Peregrine wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.


Kinetic weapons can also be intercepted by lasers. The downside of cheap ballistic-trajectory weapons is that radar (remember, no ground clutter to hide in when you're in space) can plot exactly which shots are on an impact trajectory, aim a laser, and vaporize some of the material to push the kinetic shot off course.

Actually, the big advantage of both this and FOBS missiles is that it would be virtually impossible for radar to determine the trajectory. Tungsten rods would be especially hard to detect considering the fact they have almost no radar signature and travel at extremely high velocity, leaving little time for someone to react, calculate the trajectory, and aim a really powerful (and therefore ridiculously expensive) laser which needs to be exactly in the right spot to be able to intercept the falling rod. Such a defense is not very practical. Especially since the actual launch, and the weapon before launch, would be undetectable. A weaponised satellite could easily be put into orbit under the guise of being a military navigation or spy satellite or something equally secretive, and it won't be detected until after it launches its payload.

 Peregrine wrote:
In the near future, space warfare will mostly be about anti-satellite warfare, with countries using missiles, ECM and hacking to take out the other country's satellites. This is a vital part of modern warfare, since a modern military becomes virtually useless without satellites. You could cripple your opponent's entire military and end the war just by taking out their satellites.


The problem is that killing satellites very quickly turns into MAD because of space debris. The more likely outcome is that, as with nuclear weapons, everyone agrees not to fire the first shot and anti-satellite weapons effectively do not exist.
No, it is not MAD, because there is no possibility for a second strike. EMP and hacking produce no debris, and satellite destruction by missile can be planned in such a way that the resulting debris won't hit your own satellites, at least not within a relevant timeframe. The orbit around Earth is kinda a big place, and debris would not result into a threat on the timescale that a conflict on Earth would be playing out (which is going to last not much more than a few weeks once one side's satellite network is taken out).

 Peregrine wrote:
Another thing I could see happening is the use of satellites for kinetic bombardment. Even relatively small slugs fired from orbit can strike a city with a power comparable to that of a small nuclear bomb. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, but something like a device that can fire off tungsten rods isn't normally considered a weapon of mass destruction. So I could see that happening. I also think FOBS missiles will become important again now that Russia has again developed and deployed missiles with such capabilities.


This is highly unlikely. Getting sufficient accuracy to be useful is an extremely difficult problem to solve, and requires an expensive guided weapon that slows to pretty underwhelming velocity as it enters the atmosphere. And, while a tungsten rod may be cheap, the payload capacity to put it into orbit is not. So you end up with an extremely expensive and awkward weapon that suffers from the same MAD problems as nuclear weapons, except with even more difficult engineering problems to solve and a lot more cost. There's a reason nobody has taken the concept seriously so far and tried to build one.
It is not cheap. But it is cheap compared to the big military benefit it brings. Again, the velocity of the rod when hitting the ground may be only a fraction of its initial velocity before entering the atmosphere, but it will still carry enough kinetic energy to strike with the power of a small nuke. The difference between it and an actual nuke is that it would be almost impossible to detect and intercept in time. It is not like countries such as Russia or the US aren't already putting loads of satellites into orbit, so the costs aren't the reason this isn't done yet. Nor are engineering problems, since this is already well within the capabilities of the US and Russia, and probably China as well. Accuracy is an issue, but far from an unsolvable one, and not at all an issue when your goal is only to hit massive, static targets such as cities rather than a smaller, moving target such as a tank. The real reason this isn't being done is a general reluctance against the weaponising of space and the fear that once one country starts designing such weapons, other countries will do the same. Then it might turn into MAD. Which is why such weapons probably won't become real.

To elaborate further, I think that any kind of combat in space in the near and even relatively distant future is highly unlikely, precisely because of concerns regarding MAD. Anti-satellite weapons are already a reality and might see use in a hypothetical future conflict between superpowers, but things like bombardment satellites? Probably not. Don't want other countries to build such things as well. Same reason we won't see armed spacecraft (apart from the fact that an armed spacecraft would be laughably ineffective compared to planet-based missiles) anytime in the near or distant future. No, it is all going to be about satellites and missiles and trying to get rid of MAD by removing another country's second strike capabilities through eliminating satellites and ways to counter that.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 17:17:52


Post by: BaronIveagh


I started pointing out which posts were war crimes, and found myself quoting all of them.

Let me remind you all, of the Space Treaty.

Achem: no celestial body may be used for testing, bases, fortifications, maneuvers, housing or in any way by any military anywhere. WMDs of any type other than kinetic penetraitors are prohibited from Earth orbit. These are effectively WAR CRIMES. So the proposed Space Farce is just that. Under both US and International law, they can't take military actions beyond espionage and reconnaissance.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 17:21:55


Post by: Dreadclaw69


I don't see lasers in space for quite some time, or at least until there is a better power source for them. I can see more kinetic weapons being used in any early conflicts, perhaps akin to the gyrojet firearms (low tech bolters) or perhaps humans will invent the shuriken catapult.

If we go for a more traditional bullet I could see caseless ammunition being used because it eliminates debris hanging in the vicinity of the combatants, or clogging up vital equipment.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 17:28:03


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
I started pointing out which posts were war crimes, and found myself quoting all of them.

Let me remind you all, of the Space Treaty.

Achem: no celestial body may be used for testing, bases, fortifications, maneuvers, housing or in any way by any military anywhere. WMDs of any type other than kinetic penetraitors are prohibited from Earth orbit. These are effectively WAR CRIMES. So the proposed Space Farce is just that. Under both US and International law, they can't take military actions beyond espionage and reconnaissance.

The Outer Space Treaty only forbids "weapons of mass destruction", and it only prohibits them from being "stationed" in orbit. In other words, the Space Treaty has so many loopholes is like a sieve. Take FOBS missiles for example, which are nuclear missiles in orbit except that they are not technically in orbit because they do not complete a full cycle, and therefore are allowed under the Space Treaty.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't see lasers in space for quite some time, or at least until there is a better power source for them. I can see more kinetic weapons being used in any early conflicts, perhaps akin to the gyrojet firearms (low tech bolters) or perhaps humans will invent the shuriken catapult.

If we go for a more traditional bullet I could see caseless ammunition being used because it eliminates debris hanging in the vicinity of the combatants, or clogging up vital equipment.

Why would be bother inventing shuriken catapults or using gyrojets (or any kind of firearm at all) when we can just destroy everything much more effectively with missiles? Why invent a firearm to shoot at an astronaut when you can just take out his space station or spacecraft?


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 17:41:39


Post by: Skaorn


I think if we do see satellite weapon platforms it would probably have to be UN controlled and for the specific purpose of hopefully preventing a massive impact from a space object. Otherwise you'd be tipping off an event that would probably be worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The problem with a rods from god weapon is that we live on the same exact planet. You have no idea what triggering a geological event in one area of the world will have on other areas, including where you live. It has the potential to be a blunder on the scale of Chairman Mao's 4 Pest campaign that nearly wiped out sparrows in China and let locusts devestate crops.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 19:26:19


Post by: Peregrine


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Actually, the big advantage of both this and FOBS missiles is that it would be virtually impossible for radar to determine the trajectory. Tungsten rods would be especially hard to detect considering the fact they have almost no radar signature and travel at extremely high velocity, leaving little time for someone to react, calculate the trajectory, and aim a really powerful (and therefore ridiculously expensive) laser which needs to be exactly in the right spot to be able to intercept the falling rod. Such a defense is not very practical. Especially since the actual launch, and the weapon before launch, would be undetectable. A weaponised satellite could easily be put into orbit under the guise of being a military navigation or spy satellite or something equally secretive, and it won't be detected until after it launches its payload.


You're confusing two things here. Lasers deflecting kinetic shots is about space vs. space warfare. IOW, what's the best way to shoot down an enemy spacecraft with your own. In the context of tungsten rods you wouldn't even need radar because the heat signature (unavoidable when you're entering the atmosphere at orbital velocity) is immense. And I don't know why you're talking about time for someone to react when all of this will be done by a computer in a fraction of a second.

No, it is not MAD, because there is no possibility for a second strike. EMP and hacking produce no debris, and satellite destruction by missile can be planned in such a way that the resulting debris won't hit your own satellites, at least not within a relevant timeframe. The orbit around Earth is kinda a big place, and debris would not result into a threat on the timescale that a conflict on Earth would be playing out (which is going to last not much more than a few weeks once one side's satellite network is taken out).


First of all, yes, of course there is a possibility of a second strike. Destruction is not instant and a few microseconds after the initial shots are launched they will be confirmed to be on collision courses with their targets and the enemy's anti-satellite weapons will fire. And ground-based anti-satellite weapons can always fire even if all of the space-based ones are wiped out in the initial attack. The resulting debris will chain reaction into mass satellite destruction and effective destruction of the ability to use space at all.

The difference between it and an actual nuke is that it would be almost impossible to detect and intercept in time.


Nonsense. The heat signature alone makes it easy to detect, and reentry time is more than sufficient to launch a retaliation strike and end the world. At that point who cares if you can intercept it in time, we can't intercept a Russian ICBM attack anyway. Both sides launch, MAD occurs. Congratulations, you've just made a really expensive ICBM which can never be used unless you're willing to commit nuclear suicide.

It is not like countries such as Russia or the US aren't already putting loads of satellites into orbit, so the costs aren't the reason this isn't done yet.


Of course cost is the reason. The US and Russia put useful satellites into orbit. Nobody wants to spend obscene amounts of money putting a useless paperweight into orbit just because some fanboys on the internet think it would be really cool.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 23:29:52


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty only forbids "weapons of mass destruction", and it only prohibits them from being "stationed" in orbit.


Might want to re-read it.

Article IV wrote:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited.


'installations' is a pretty broad category. So is 'any other kinds' of WMD.

Legal Definition of a WMD:

Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;
Any weapons that is designed or intend to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
Any weapon involving a disease organism; and
Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/14 23:41:44


Post by: warhead01


When I think of something like the roll of the future "Space Force" . I think a few things. I figure they will start as an entity doing satellite missions from the ground to be used to coordinate activities. I see it as an early use of them as a ranch and is't something they can build from for the future. I also think their game will become controlling the spectrum, so in space they may have a means of shutting down satellites and ships, stations that kind of thing. I am not sure I like the idea of them directly attacking the ground, but I would expect something like a precision strike with a tungsten rod hitting a ground target.
More realistically I see it as a cooperative unit more for search and rescue/recovery as space travel and tours pick up as an industry.
I guess boarding actions as a means of battle is probably also within their scope as well.
Who knows.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 00:49:33


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty only forbids "weapons of mass destruction", and it only prohibits them from being "stationed" in orbit.


Might want to re-read it.

Article IV wrote:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited.


'installations' is a pretty broad category. So is 'any other kinds' of WMD.

Legal Definition of a WMD:

Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;
Any weapons that is designed or intend to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
Any weapon involving a disease organism; and
Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.


Incorrect. The ‘legal’ definition you posted is the definition for criminal law. It is not the definition used for international treaties.

The treaty is pretty explicitly limited to only nukes and biological weapons. Kinetic and laser weapons are 100% allowed.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 01:01:05


Post by: Ouze


 Grey Templar wrote:
Incorrect. The ‘legal’ definition you posted is the definition for criminal law. It is not the definition used for international treaties.


Wait, you're saying every soldier with a hand grenade hasn't committed a war crime?


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 02:01:04


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Grey Templar wrote:


Incorrect. The ‘legal’ definition you posted is the definition for criminal law. It is not the definition used for international treaties.

The treaty is pretty explicitly limited to only nukes and biological weapons. Kinetic and laser weapons are 100% allowed.



Criminal law is the only one to get specific. 'weapon of mass destruction' gets bandied about a lot, but since it's inception it's been used to mean in treaty everything from conventional chemical explosive 'dumb' bombs to MIRV. the Space Treaty does not define this term, so we have to look to other treaties for context, and then it gets really wide.

It's 'crimes against peace' wide, for some idea of just how broad this could be argued to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
Wait, you're saying every soldier with a hand grenade hasn't committed a war crime?


It's all context. he chucks it through the door of a room full of civvies, he has. He throws it on the Moon, he has. He tosses it into a bunker full of hostiles on earth, he hasn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:

The treaty is pretty explicitly limited to only nukes and biological weapons. Kinetic and laser weapons are 100% allowed.


No it isn't. What i posted is what it says. That's not explicit anything. Read it. (and I'm going through here and you'd have to point me to where it mentions biological at all, and we get into things like voluntary inspections and abandoned space property)


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 04:57:17


Post by: dekinrie


The space treaty only comes into effect if it's enforced and who's going to enforce it ,if say the USA decided to place a nuke armed satellite in orbit what could the UN do go to war , place sanctions
so many U.N. edicts have been ignored by now it's toothless their would be a scramble by the big countries to do the same it's like the nuclear club everybody wants in


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 05:02:14


Post by: ZergSmasher


 Peregrine wrote:
The difference between it and an actual nuke is that it would be almost impossible to detect and intercept in time.


Nonsense. The heat signature alone makes it easy to detect, and reentry time is more than sufficient to launch a retaliation strike and end the world. At that point who cares if you can intercept it in time, we can't intercept a Russian ICBM attack anyway. Both sides launch, MAD occurs. Congratulations, you've just made a really expensive ICBM which can never be used unless you're willing to commit nuclear suicide.

I've heard it said that we'd realistically have next to no time to react to a natural space catastrophe like a major asteroid strike, because it would likely be undetected until it entered our atmosphere. And those come from a lot further out and are bigger (and theoretically easier to detect) than one of the Rods from God. I think the kinetic weapons would be pretty hard to stop or detect fast enough. They are basically a small man-made asteroid. As long as the location of the orbiting launcher were unknown, it would be impossible to predict where such an attack would come from, and they would enter the atmosphere and strike the ground pretty quickly. Unless you had a pretty good detection system in place and lots of assets to intercept one of these earthshakers, it would make it all the way down and make a pretty nice little crater where the target used to be.

Also, on the orbiting debris thing: have any of you seen the movie Gravity? This exact scenario is what plays out in that movie, and it is pretty catastrophic. No one wants to do that, because it would render space travel and exploration impossible for all of humanity, possibly for hundreds of years if not longer. Really they need to already be designing something to clean up our orbitals from all the junk like dropped tools, dead satellites, etc. that is already up there creating hazards.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 08:06:53


Post by: Peregrine


 ZergSmasher wrote:
I've heard it said that we'd realistically have next to no time to react to a natural space catastrophe like a major asteroid strike, because it would likely be undetected until it entered our atmosphere. And those come from a lot further out and are bigger (and theoretically easier to detect) than one of the Rods from God.


Two factors make the asteroid problem much harder:

1) There's a larger region of space to search. That's the main problem we have now, we have the ability to detect an asteroid large enough to threaten us pretty far out but we don't have enough search capacity to scan the entire volume of space fast enough to ensure that a threat can't slip through between cycles through its region. With kinetic bombardment satellites they're going to be in fairly predictable orbits (for a given purpose of satellite there's usually a limited range of orbits you can put it in that will be useful) and every military is going to know about all of the satellites and be tracking them in case they decide to fire.

2) The deflection problem is more difficult. Making a tungsten rod miss is fairly easy, one good hit and aerodynamic forces will tear it apart or at least cause it to tumble randomly and miss its target. An asteroid is much larger, has to be deflected far enough to miss the planet entirely instead of just far enough to miss a specific ground target, and has to be stopped long before it hits the atmosphere.

They are basically a small man-made asteroid.


Except not at all. Asteroids are moving much faster and have much higher mass. Orbital velocity is ~5-10km/s, an asteroid's relative velocity can be 50+km/s. And realistically the kinetic shot won't convert all of that orbital velocity into ground-level energy, it's going to lose a lot as it reenters the atmosphere.

As long as the location of the orbiting launcher were unknown, it would be impossible to predict where such an attack would come from, and they would enter the atmosphere and strike the ground pretty quickly.


It's probably not going to be that fast. Remember, orbit changes (including changing from a stable orbit to a reentry trajectory) require burning fuel, and the faster you want to make the change the more you need to burn. For example, the space shuttle took about 30 minutes from initial reentry burn to reach the atmosphere, and then another ~30 minutes to reach the ground. You can save some of that time through the atmosphere if you're not braking, but that's still plenty of time to identify and track the shot. The first ICBMs will be in flight long before the kinetic shot reaches its target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the effects of kinetic weapons are being severely overstated. To equal a single 300 kiloton warhead (out of 12) carried by a US Minuteman ICBM you'd need a 50,000,000 kg mass moving at 7km/s (roughly terminal velocity for an ICBM). To put this number into context the low earth orbit payload capacity of a Saturn V rocket was 118,000kg. IOW, you would need 424 Saturn V launches just to put your ridiculous tungsten rod into orbit, and that's not even counting the fuel mass required for the de-orbit burn and guidance (and you do want to de-orbit this thing in less than a decade after giving the order to fire, right?). Or you could fill those Saturn Vs with nuclear warheads and deliver ~200,000 of them, approximately 30 times the entire US nuclear arsenal, anywhere in the world on depressed trajectories that would leave minimal warning time.

And I've actually been extremely generous in this analysis, assuming that the kinetic shot will deliver a meaningful percentage of its total energy across a wide area (as you'd need to destroy a city) instead of massively overkilling whatever point target it hits and spending most of its energy digging a really deep hole. To equal the destructive power of a 300 kiloton airburst you'd likely need considerably more kinetic energy, taking the comparison so far past the point of lunacy that it's not even worth trying to do the math on it.

TL;DR: orbital kinetic weapons are not a strategic threat. They are potentially capable of killing point targets like enemy bunkers, but then you're back to needing a guidance system and heat shielding and such, vastly increasing the complexity of the system.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 08:55:24


Post by: Jadenim


Satellites have to exist in a very harsh environment, with high temperature extremes and intense solar radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves and high energy particles. I suspect this already makes them fairly resistant to lasers and EMP, so I think kinetic kill shots are probably much more effective, but with the downside of risking a cascade.

So weirdly I come back round to the idea of lasers, not for destruction of the entire satellite, but for blinding sensors and frying communications antennas. If you can get the accuracy (which would be a bitch, to be clear), it could form a very good “soft-kill” capability against satellites, that mitigates the cascade risk.

As for space-to-surface kinetic weapons, I think Peregrine is right; it’s far cheaper, easier and less trouble to just build ICBMs. Hell, you don’t even necessarily need to fit them with nuclear warheads; the Nazis made a hell of a mess with a few tonnes of high explosive on the V2s. Also, even if you could build a high-energy kinetic weapon cheaply and easily, it would automatically become a WMD, by dint of being a weapon that causes massive destruction!. Too many people assume WMD=nuclear, it doesn’t. That’s why the treaties were written that way, to prevent a loophole where some future technology suddenly allowed you to sidestep nuclear technology.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 14:51:29


Post by: warhead01


I'm sure they will develop some kind of weapons for space but in space combat I think taking racecourses or deny resources is more important than killing or destroying. If I take your Oxygen you will surrender to live or die in the vacuum of space. No one wants that. Boarding, recovery and attacking other ship, station or satellites electrical systems, communications and life support will be key early on. If your ships just start going dark and no one can say why, that could be interesting. I think though ground retaliation would be inevitable, as a means of safe guarding space assets.
For boarding I expect gas attacks to neutralize crews as well as brutal hand to hand to put down any resistance in confined spaces. Zero G hand to hand.

Ship to shop could be as easy and a targeted projectile to disable an engine, or blow out an airlock. But I would expect that to happen at close range for fast recovery. Ships will be taken to the other side for parts and refitting. Or later used as a decoy or kamikaze mission.

If we're just controlling the spectrum, deploying unmanned satellites to jam out activities is a good start. Why not win with out firing a shot.

Deciding on goals and plans of action will be crucial as the costs will be enormous. Racecourses from space will be a large motivations well as global dominance. I think it will be a global effort but will split into two or three factions along with the shifting global politics. Then it becomes do we squabble over the home world or brake off into zones.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 15:37:11


Post by: BaronIveagh


dekinrie wrote:The space treaty only comes into effect if it's enforced and who's going to enforce it ,if say the USA decided to place a nuke armed satellite in orbit what could the UN do go to war , place sanctions
so many U.N. edicts have been ignored by now it's toothless their would be a scramble by the big countries to do the same it's like the nuclear club everybody wants in


No, they'd shoot it down. Oops, terrible accident, space debris. What's the US gonna do, go to nuclear war with, say, Russia over what might have been a accident? Remember, it allows the other signatories to enforce it, not just the UN.

ZergSmasher wrote:
Unless you had a pretty good detection system in place and lots of assets to intercept one of these earthshakers, it would make it all the way down and make a pretty nice little crater where the target used to be.


'Little' being the operative word there. The actual explosive yield on a 'rod from God' is actually less than it's equivalent mass of chemical explosives. A 11 ton Tungsten Rod would only have the equivalent explosive force of 9 tons of TNT, and cost a hell of a lot more. That's why the 'crowbars from God' idea never took off. They tried to get around the logistics issues with trying to put 20 ton Tungsten rods in space by opting for dozens of smaller rods. The problem is that each rod had less impact than the average artillery shell, with comparable penetration, at least, once the math was run.

So, tactically, it's useless. There are already weapons that can do as good or better jobs, cheaper by orders of magnitude.

The reason asteroids are dangerous is they both have titanic mass, and are traveling at velocities far faster than orbital speeds. To produce the 10 megaton yield that created Barringer Crater, for example, took an object 150 feet across that weighed in at 300,000 tons traveling at something like 20km/ps.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 17:03:44


Post by: Skaorn


 dekinrie wrote:
The space treaty only comes into effect if it's enforced and who's going to enforce it ,if say the USA decided to place a nuke armed satellite in orbit what could the UN do go to war , place sanctions
so many U.N. edicts have been ignored by now it's toothless their would be a scramble by the big countries to do the same it's like the nuclear club everybody wants in


I'd recommend reading up on the Cuban Missile Crisis for figuring out a likely response to this scenario.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 18:32:51


Post by: Xenomancers


I think we are vastly overestimating the ability of a laser to intercept high velocity projectiles. Especially if we are talking about a rapid fire weapon shooting something like 600 rpm of marble sized DU or whatever they decide to make projectiles out of in space. Then of course there are railguns - which are bound to improve a lot. Right now the big ones can launch a good sized projectile around 5000 mph. Eventually we are going to be firing projectiles at 50,000. They have both huge defensive and offensive capabilities with those speeds.
Really though to get the kinds of materials into space we'd need to build warships - we would really need to develope an infatructer for getting things into space cheaply.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 18:40:05


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Xenomancers wrote:
I think we are vastly overestimating the ability of a laser to intercept high velocity projectiles. Especially if we are talking about a rapid fire weapon shooting something like 600 rpm of marble sized DU or whatever they decide to make projectiles out of in space. Then of course there are railguns - which are bound to improve a lot. Right now the big ones can launch a good sized projectile around 5000 mph. Eventually we are going to be firing projectiles at 50,000. They have both huge defensive and offensive capabilities with those speeds.
Really though to get the kinds of materials into space we'd need to build warships - we would really need to develope an infatructer for getting things into space cheaply.


Railguns suffer from one of the same weaknesses as a weaponised laser, power supply. A load of superconducting magnets, each with extremely high energy requirements as well as needing to be supercooled using liquid helium is not a reliable weapon in any combat scenario where you will be susceptible to return fire. Temperature control is difficult enough in space without needing to take heat of your liquid helium to keep your weapon working.

The weapons used will be good old fashioned propellant-accelerated projectiles and missiles.

In space, the most important thing is ruggedness and reliability.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 19:48:28


Post by: Xenomancers


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I think we are vastly overestimating the ability of a laser to intercept high velocity projectiles. Especially if we are talking about a rapid fire weapon shooting something like 600 rpm of marble sized DU or whatever they decide to make projectiles out of in space. Then of course there are railguns - which are bound to improve a lot. Right now the big ones can launch a good sized projectile around 5000 mph. Eventually we are going to be firing projectiles at 50,000. They have both huge defensive and offensive capabilities with those speeds.
Really though to get the kinds of materials into space we'd need to build warships - we would really need to develope an infatructer for getting things into space cheaply.


Railguns suffer from one of the same weaknesses as a weaponised laser, power supply. A load of superconducting magnets, each with extremely high energy requirements as well as needing to be supercooled using liquid helium is not a reliable weapon in any combat scenario where you will be susceptible to return fire. Temperature control is difficult enough in space without needing to take heat of your liquid helium to keep your weapon working.

The weapons used will be good old fashioned propellant-accelerated projectiles and missiles.

In space, the most important thing is ruggedness and reliability.
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 20:01:23


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Xenomancers wrote:
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


And your rail gun is dozens meters across due to the surface area of it's solar panels and can be taken out by putting a handfull of ball bearings in it's orbital path.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 20:02:48


Post by: simonr1978


 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume.


That's quite some assumption to make there.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 20:37:56


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


And your rail gun is dozens meters across due to the surface area of it's solar panels and can be taken out by putting a handfull of ball bearings in it's orbital path.


Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 20:44:56


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


And your rail gun is dozens meters across due to the surface area of it's solar panels and can be taken out by putting a handfull of ball bearings in it's orbital path.


Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.


You cannot retract your solar panels if they are powering your railgun as you do not turn off superconductor electromagnets.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 20:50:45


Post by: Kilkrazy


Very large marshmallows, or some similar kind of light foam object, would make effective ablative armour.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 20:53:27


Post by: Grey Templar


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


And your rail gun is dozens meters across due to the surface area of it's solar panels and can be taken out by putting a handfull of ball bearings in it's orbital path.


Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.


You cannot retract your solar panels if they are powering your railgun as you do not turn off superconductor electromagnets.


Batteries man. You have solar panels with greater power generation than the magnets need so you can charge your batteries, so you can run on batteries if you need to hide your panels.

Or you just say screw solar panels and go with a nuclear reactor.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 20:58:20


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Spaceships are paper thin. Why use a laser when conventional arms would be as devastating? The equivalent of a shotgun blast would shred a spaceship.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 21:00:36


Post by: Kilkrazy


That's why giant marshmallows are needed for armour.

They are very light and sticky. They will slow conventional ammunition.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 21:11:40


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


And your rail gun is dozens meters across due to the surface area of it's solar panels and can be taken out by putting a handfull of ball bearings in it's orbital path.


Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.

The costs and logistics of such an idea (especially manned spacecraft, really?) mean that you are always better off with ICBMs. A nuclear submarine does everything your idea does for a fraction of the cost and with less vulnerability. Yes, an ICBM may be more easily intercepted than a railgun, but it has the advantage of being more destructive and the fact that you could build and maintain a massive arsenal of ICBMs for the cost of a single orbital railgun. And FOBS and course-correcting MIRV ICBMs are almost as difficult to intercept as an orbital railgun would be, negating the only advantage as well.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 21:32:13


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Grey Templar wrote:

Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.


And it won't need to, since the round will burn up before it hits. Remember, a railgun slug has to be at least partially ferrous metal, otherwise it does not work. Those metals have relatively low vaporization temps. That's why Tungsten is the preferred projectile, as it has the highest melting point of the metals. With iron again you have to have 300,000 tons of it traveling at significantly higher than orbital velocities to produce a nuke equivalent.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 21:37:38


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:

Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.


And it won't need to, since the round will burn up before it hits. Remember, a railgun slug has to be at least partially ferrous metal, otherwise it does not work. Those metals have relatively low vaporization temps. That's why Tungsten is the preferred projectile, as it has the highest melting point of the metals. With iron again you have to have 300,000 tons of it traveling at significantly higher than orbital velocities to produce a nuke equivalent.


Well the goal with this isn't to have a nuke equivalent. Its to have orbital artillery that can hit anywhere in the world.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 21:43:53


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Grey Templar wrote:

Well the goal with this isn't to have a nuke equivalent. Its to have orbital artillery that can hit anywhere in the world.


What part of it not even reaching the ground did you miss? Even if you coated the ferrous metal with tungsten, the round would explode before reaching the ground, as the iron boils inside it. Worse, accuracy will be terrible, as the shell couldn't have any means of guidance, since it would just burn off as soon as you hit the atmosphere.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 22:34:45


Post by: Xenomancers


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:

Well the goal with this isn't to have a nuke equivalent. Its to have orbital artillery that can hit anywhere in the world.


What part of it not even reaching the ground did you miss? Even if you coated the ferrous metal with tungsten, the round would explode before reaching the ground, as the iron boils inside it. Worse, accuracy will be terrible, as the shell couldn't have any means of guidance, since it would just burn off as soon as you hit the atmosphere.


It will reach the ground. It might take some time to figure out the right configurations for the projectile. It's going to be aerodynamic - it's going to have to be resistant to heat (a railgun slug experiences insane temperatures in it's launch process already so this part will be easy).


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 22:47:42


Post by: warhead01


But why use these weapons against the ground. If we're drawing raw power from the sun why not add HARP technology to our space borne craft/station/satellites. The just make it storm in a target area. Creating terror through weather changes might be just as good as destroying a target. At any rate you could ground the enemies fleet of aircraft if you can set the conditions to suck hard enough.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 22:51:57


Post by: Steelmage99


 warhead01 wrote:
But why use these weapons against the ground. If we're drawing raw power from the sun why not add HARP technology to our space borne craft/station/satellites.


Or how about witchcraft? Then we don't even need the sun....




Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 23:16:08


Post by: Xenomancers


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


And your rail gun is dozens meters across due to the surface area of it's solar panels and can be taken out by putting a handfull of ball bearings in it's orbital path.


Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.

The costs and logistics of such an idea (especially manned spacecraft, really?) mean that you are always better off with ICBMs. A nuclear submarine does everything your idea does for a fraction of the cost and with less vulnerability. Yes, an ICBM may be more easily intercepted than a railgun, but it has the advantage of being more destructive and the fact that you could build and maintain a massive arsenal of ICBMs for the cost of a single orbital railgun. And FOBS and course-correcting MIRV ICBMs are almost as difficult to intercept as an orbital railgun would be, negating the only advantage as well.
ICBM really aren't cheap. Maintaining Nuclear weapons is not cheap ether and they don't last forever. All I am suggesting is a satellite capable of making orbital corrections with an advanced railgun designed into it. Yeah - it's probably going to cost 100 billion dollars to develop and maintain a fleet of these things but it would also be a very effective weapon for both defense and offensive duties. Plus this all depends on how much better our railguns keep getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 warhead01 wrote:
But why use these weapons against the ground. If we're drawing raw power from the sun why not add HARP technology to our space borne craft/station/satellites. The just make it storm in a target area. Creating terror through weather changes might be just as good as destroying a target. At any rate you could ground the enemies fleet of aircraft if you can set the conditions to suck hard enough.

If you can manipulate the weather - so can the enemy. End result? No storms.



Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 23:22:41


Post by: Gitzbitah


Steelmage99 wrote:
 warhead01 wrote:
But why use these weapons against the ground. If we're drawing raw power from the sun why not add HARP technology to our space borne craft/station/satellites.


Or how about witchcraft? Then we don't even need the sun....




Eh, that's not reliable- witches tend to suffer from karma- anything they unleash comes back on them three times as bad. Plus, when they start selling spells they don't tend to work as intended. Most witches are also bound by Moon phases and the calendar year- they aren't ideal for military operations.

As long as combat is confined to Earth orbit there really is no need for any weapons in space- if something needs blown up do it from down here. Until there's an extraterrestrial (and I simply mean here a group not based on Terra) threat, we don't need anything in space to knock down satellites or bombard targets on Earth.

For large scale KEW, we have ICBMs. For small scale, a Predator drone, or whatever the current equivalent is, would be way cheaper. And if you really need to kill something 1,000 miles from an airbase, you can always use a standoff stealth cruise missile.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/us-f-15-fighters-can-now-fire-new-stealthy-standoff-cruise-missile/



Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 23:34:33


Post by: Vulcan


Out of curiosity, how would you defend against a mass launch of ballistic weapons? I know America was looking at 'theory' applications back in the 1980s (Reagan's Star Wars defense program), and I'm quite sure they didn't just throw all the data away when the Soviets collapsed.

So given today's (or near future) technology, what's the best answer?

(Incidentally, megawatt-throughput lasers that you'd use in space don't kill by burning. The impact is more like a lightning bolt in energy delivered than the polite little kilowatt cutting lasers you see in factories.)


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/15 23:35:11


Post by: warhead01


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 warhead01 wrote:
But why use these weapons against the ground. If we're drawing raw power from the sun why not add HARP technology to our space borne craft/station/satellites. The just make it storm in a target area. Creating terror through weather changes might be just as good as destroying a target. At any rate you could ground the enemies fleet of aircraft if you can set the conditions to suck hard enough.

If you can manipulate the weather - so can the enemy. End result? No storms.


That's a fair point. I guess it would be useful in the short term. I've heard it take a lot of power to make it work, granted I don't think they have been able to do much of note with it. So really if one side gets it up and in space first they can use it to cancel the opposing sides launch windows. talk about a troll.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steelmage99 wrote:

Or how about witchcraft? Then we don't even need the sun....


I thought I just said that. lol.

This whole topic is sify to me so HARP seemed reasonable.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 00:13:11


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Xenomancers wrote:

It will reach the ground. It might take some time to figure out the right configurations for the projectile. It's going to be aerodynamic - it's going to have to be resistant to heat (a railgun slug experiences insane temperatures in it's launch process already so this part will be easy).


Ok, trying this one more time:

One: rail guns are NOT recoilless. This means that thrusters have to hold the entire platform steady while it shoots. Otherwise your shot goes wide, particularly as the recoil is not one massive jolt, but a series of them as each magnet activates in turn. Two: the current designs in coilguns and their munitions suffer from severe heat issues. This is bad enough on the ground that it's only good for a few shots, but in space would melt the weapon on the first shot, with no way for heat to dissipate quickly, other than bulky heat sinks. Three: going back to munitions again, while a ferrous sabot might work to propel a tungsten core, similar to an APDS round, it's going to carry that mass until it hits the atmosphere, again making the shot possibly go wide again, as friction separates the sabot from the rest of the projectile.

Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 00:23:49


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Vulcan wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you defend against a mass launch of ballistic weapons? I know America was looking at 'theory' applications back in the 1980s (Reagan's Star Wars defense program), and I'm quite sure they didn't just throw all the data away when the Soviets collapsed.

So given today's (or near future) technology, what's the best answer?

(Incidentally, megawatt-throughput lasers that you'd use in space don't kill by burning. The impact is more like a lightning bolt in energy delivered than the polite little kilowatt cutting lasers you see in factories.)

Well, MIRV missiles kinda killed off the idea of a full missile defense. You'd need multiple defense missiles to kill a single attack missile, meaning the enemy can just overwhelm your defenses by the sheer numbers of their nuclear warheads.
And given the relatively recent introduction of 'intelligent', course-correcting missiles that automatically change their trajectory when they detect an incoming defense missile, missile defense just became completely useless against ICBMs.
In the near future, I can imagine a laser missile defense that works by detonating a missile by hitting it with a powerful laser beam. However, such a system would suffer from the weaknesses inherent to lasers, in that it would be very easy to counter. So such a system would only be useful for a relatively short period of time until missiles designed with countermeasures are put into production and are widely introduced.
Another thing I could imagine is a railgun-based missile defense system. Same concept as the laser or missile-based defense systems but a railgun does not suffer from the inherent weaknesses of lasers or the relatively slow speed of a missile. A possible drawback I see is short range. Maybe someone with more knowledge of railguns can explain whether a railgun-based defense system could be effective against the newest generation of ICBMs?


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 00:45:29


Post by: AegisGrimm


I'm not sure where all the pessimism comes from. Railguns would be great in space against other ships/satellites, as the projectiles need nowhere near the velocity they do againt targets on Earth as the projectiles do not need to fight air resistance, gravity, or extreme armor thickness that cannot be attained on a spacecraft. So they would need much less power to work.

Whereas standard ballistic rounds with chemical propellant are dangerous to store, and half their weight stays on the firing ship unless they are some form of caseless ammo.

Simple kinetic rounds can also be manufactured "in the field" if we are envisioning a decently far-off future where the owners of the ships might have the technology to farm asteroids for metals rather than have chemical propellant shipped from a planet.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 01:08:57


Post by: godardc


Spoiler:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you defend against a mass launch of ballistic weapons? I know America was looking at 'theory' applications back in the 1980s (Reagan's Star Wars defense program), and I'm quite sure they didn't just throw all the data away when the Soviets collapsed.

So given today's (or near future) technology, what's the best answer?

(Incidentally, megawatt-throughput lasers that you'd use in space don't kill by burning. The impact is more like a lightning bolt in energy delivered than the polite little kilowatt cutting lasers you see in factories.)

Well, MIRV missiles kinda killed off the idea of a full missile defense. You'd need multiple defense missiles to kill a single attack missile, meaning the enemy can just overwhelm your defenses by the sheer numbers of their nuclear warheads.
And given the relatively recent introduction of 'intelligent', course-correcting missiles that automatically change their trajectory when they detect an incoming defense missile, missile defense just became completely useless against ICBMs.
In the near future, I can imagine a laser missile defense that works by detonating a missile by hitting it with a powerful laser beam. However, such a system would suffer from the weaknesses inherent to lasers, in that it would be very easy to counter. So such a system would only be useful for a relatively short period of time until missiles designed with countermeasures are put into production and are widely introduced.
Another thing I could imagine is a railgun-based missile defense system. Same concept as the laser or missile-based defense systems but a railgun does not suffer from the inherent weaknesses of lasers or the relatively slow speed of a missile. A possible drawback I see is short range. Maybe someone with more knowledge of railguns can explain whether a railgun-based defense system could be effective against the newest generation of ICBMs?
Detonating ? Like, making the missile explode ? But if it has a nuclear warhead, wouldn't it be a bad idea anyway, even if above the oceans / others countries ? Especialy if you detonate several missiles ?


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 01:16:01


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
These are obstacles that can be overcome. In space you have access to unfiltered sunlight - power is essentially unlimmited. Ofc you need massive capacitors to store the energy but overall the weight of a cannon+ammo or missle stores would be roughly similar I assume. Since temperature management is already an issue for a space craft - cooling systems are already going to be part of an overall space craft design anyways - they will just need to be modified to cool the weapon and systems. The key advantage of a railgun is going to be control of launch velocity - meaning hitting any target in orbit or on land will be possible. Ofc a missle can do all of that too and even change course - missles are very expensive and vunerable to being intercepted. Missles will undoubtably be utilized a lot. For land bombardment - I think Railguns will play a crucial role.


And your rail gun is dozens meters across due to the surface area of it's solar panels and can be taken out by putting a handfull of ball bearings in it's orbital path.


Solar Panels can be retracted, and nothing says that these attack satellites have to be stationary.

A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.

A ship/station 100,000km out, with a large railgun of some kind, could easily be undetected simply because its such a huge area of space to search. Likewise, they could fire on ground targets and both it and the projectile could be totally undetected.

A shot from a railgun 100,000km away from Earth might take several hours to reach its target, but the target won't be able to detect anything till its too late to take action.

The costs and logistics of such an idea (especially manned spacecraft, really?) mean that you are always better off with ICBMs. A nuclear submarine does everything your idea does for a fraction of the cost and with less vulnerability. Yes, an ICBM may be more easily intercepted than a railgun, but it has the advantage of being more destructive and the fact that you could build and maintain a massive arsenal of ICBMs for the cost of a single orbital railgun. And FOBS and course-correcting MIRV ICBMs are almost as difficult to intercept as an orbital railgun would be, negating the only advantage as well.
ICBM really aren't cheap. Maintaining Nuclear weapons is not cheap ether and they don't last forever. All I am suggesting is a satellite capable of making orbital corrections with an advanced railgun designed into it. Yeah - it's probably going to cost 100 billion dollars to develop and maintain a fleet of these things but it would also be a very effective weapon for both defense and offensive duties. Plus this all depends on how much better our railguns keep getting.

No. an ICBM is not cheap. Except that it is compared to a railgun satellite. I think you are vastly underestimating the costs of designing, deploying and maintaining such a weapon. Even if we assume the costs are only going to be 100 billion dollars, you can build and maintain an entire fleet of ICBMs for that, which will also be a lot more deadly, reliable and less vulnerable to just being shot down by enemy missiles, kill satellites or random space debris.

For numbers, the price of a single spy satellite is estimated to average around 390 million dollars. Launching it into space costs anywhere from 10 to 400 million dollars, depending on the size and weight of the satellite (hint: a railgun satellite would be very, very big and heavy). And that is just counting just the satellite and the price of hitching a ride on a rocket, not the price of the rocket itself, base, personnel, support infrastructure, design process etc. etc. nor taking into account that a railgun satellite would be a lot more expensive than a spy satellite or that it would be so big and heavy that it would need a specially designed very big and heavy rocket to carry it which would need to burn ridiculous amounts of fuel to get into space. So without taking all that into account we get to an estimate of about 800 million dollars.
Meanwhile, an ICBM costs around 7 million dollars for an old Minuteman missile, and about 70 million for a more advanced Peacekeeper missile. I expect you could double that cost for a more modern missile with capabilities like the RT2PM2 or RS-28. Again, this is not taking into account base, optional launch vehicle, personnel, support infrastructure etc. etc. just plain unit (missile and warhead) cost.
Nuclear warheads and ICBMs don't last forever, but neither do satellites. Both would need regular replacement, and go figure what is more expensive. Replacing a missile or replacing an entire satellite?
The costs of replacing the antiquated US ICBM arsenal with modern missiles and maintaining that program for 30 years is expected to exceed 1 trillion dollars. So that is with a per-unit cost that is significantly lower than that what a railgun satellite would be. The only advantage that a railgun satellite would have over ICBMs is that it would not have to be replaced after firing. But how many times do you actually fire such a weapon of mass destruction? Exactly. You don't. Only for testing. Neither ICBM nor railgun satellite would be likely to ever see practical use in a conflict, meaning this advantage is a limited one.
 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm not sure where all the pessimism comes from. Railguns would be great in space against other ships/satellites, as the projectiles need nowhere near the velocity they do againt targets on Earth as the projectiles do not need to fight air resistance, gravity, or extreme armor thickness that cannot be attained on a spacecraft. So they would need much less power to work.

Whereas standard ballistic rounds with chemical propellant are dangerous to store, and half their weight stays on the firing ship unless they are some form of caseless ammo.

Simple kinetic rounds can also be manufactured "in the field" if we are envisioning a decently far-off future where the owners of the ships might have the technology to farm asteroids for metals rather than have chemical propellant shipped from a planet.

The problem is more the cost of putting a railgun in space, not to mention the question of how practical it is. I mean, what are you going to shoot it at? There is nothing in space except for satellites, and those and Earth-based targets both can already be engaged highly effectively with our existing missiles. Even if we ever get to a point where there are spacecraft mining asteroids, why would you bother with shooting at a craft that is simply transporting ores? In space? If you really feel the need to destroy such a craft, why not just wait until it gets back to earth and shoot it down with a missile?
Spacecraft armed with railguns sounds really cool, but it is not practical. Missiles may be boring, but they are definitely practical. I am pretty sure they will remain the weapon of choice for engaging space-based targets in the near future as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 godardc wrote:
Spoiler:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you defend against a mass launch of ballistic weapons? I know America was looking at 'theory' applications back in the 1980s (Reagan's Star Wars defense program), and I'm quite sure they didn't just throw all the data away when the Soviets collapsed.

So given today's (or near future) technology, what's the best answer?

(Incidentally, megawatt-throughput lasers that you'd use in space don't kill by burning. The impact is more like a lightning bolt in energy delivered than the polite little kilowatt cutting lasers you see in factories.)

Well, MIRV missiles kinda killed off the idea of a full missile defense. You'd need multiple defense missiles to kill a single attack missile, meaning the enemy can just overwhelm your defenses by the sheer numbers of their nuclear warheads.
And given the relatively recent introduction of 'intelligent', course-correcting missiles that automatically change their trajectory when they detect an incoming defense missile, missile defense just became completely useless against ICBMs.
In the near future, I can imagine a laser missile defense that works by detonating a missile by hitting it with a powerful laser beam. However, such a system would suffer from the weaknesses inherent to lasers, in that it would be very easy to counter. So such a system would only be useful for a relatively short period of time until missiles designed with countermeasures are put into production and are widely introduced.
Another thing I could imagine is a railgun-based missile defense system. Same concept as the laser or missile-based defense systems but a railgun does not suffer from the inherent weaknesses of lasers or the relatively slow speed of a missile. A possible drawback I see is short range. Maybe someone with more knowledge of railguns can explain whether a railgun-based defense system could be effective against the newest generation of ICBMs?
Detonating ? Like, making the missile explode ? But if it has a nuclear warhead, wouldn't it be a bad idea anyway, even if above the oceans / others countries ? Especialy if you detonate several missiles ?

It is better than having it detonate in the middle of your city...


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 01:23:38


Post by: godardc


Ahah of course, but I would have hoped that there were ...an other way of handling this


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 02:15:13


Post by: BaronIveagh


 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm not sure where all the pessimism comes from. Railguns would be great in space against other ships/satellites, as the projectiles need nowhere near the velocity they do againt targets on Earth as the projectiles do not need to fight air resistance, gravity, or extreme armor thickness that cannot be attained on a spacecraft. So they would need much less power to work.

Whereas standard ballistic rounds with chemical propellant are dangerous to store, and half their weight stays on the firing ship unless they are some form of caseless ammo.

Simple kinetic rounds can also be manufactured "in the field" if we are envisioning a decently far-off future where the owners of the ships might have the technology to farm asteroids for metals rather than have chemical propellant shipped from a planet.


Because ways to do this already exist, both better and cheaper. And they really would be horrible weapons in space, for all the reasons pointed out earlier. And you make an assumption there: space craft armor could be frankly absurdly thick, depending on if it were built on the ground or in orbit.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 02:36:43


Post by: RiTides


Just wanted to say I've greatly enjoyed the discussion in this thread - us nerds love space and a lot of you have clearly thought about this and have some great viewpoints


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 05:47:25


Post by: Cheesecat


Can we just not fight in space? Seems like it would cause more problems than not.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 05:55:16


Post by: Dreadwinter


 Cheesecat wrote:
Can we just not fight in space? Seems like it would cause more problems than not.


Nah. New Rule, if Humanity can get there, they will wage war there. (Probably not a new rule)

Lets revisit this giant mech thing. Probably viable in low orbit, right? I mean, chainswords cannot be that hard to make. Wheres Elon at? Somebody hit the Musk Signal!


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 06:39:07


Post by: Jadenim


 godardc wrote:
Ahah of course, but I would have hoped that there were ...an other way of handling this


Nuclear weapons require very precise sequencing of their explosives to actually detonate (I.e. get the big white flash). If you hit with a laser, missile, or anything else that causes it to explode prematurely, it’ll just be the conventional explosives that go up, not a nuclear detonation. Now, admittedly you’ve just set off a form of dirty bomb, but a) that’s a lot better than a 500kt explosion, b) the nuclear materials in a weapon aren’t that dirty, compared to the nasty waste materials that are normally suggested for a dirty bomb and c) given the intercontinental nature of a likely nuclear exchange, it’s probably happened over the sea. Or maybe Canada(!)


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 07:43:49


Post by: Peregrine


 Grey Templar wrote:
A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.


Uh, no. Nothing at all about this idea is simple. First of all, that huge change of orbit isn't free. It's easy to say "just change orbits", but then you look at the delta-V requirements and how much fuel you have to burn (plus more fuel to haul the extra fuel, more fuel to get it into orbit in the first place, etc) and things get ugly fast. Even just getting to geostationary orbit has a high delta-V cost, and you want to go well beyond it and back again multiple times. Oh, and better add even more fuel to the budget to cover recoil compensation for every shot you fire. There's no law of physics preventing it, but it's a massive engineering problem and certainly way more complicated than tossing a conventional weapon at the target.

Second, there is no stealth in space. At 100,000km you will be just as visible as you would be at 36,000km or at 1km. And because the initial launch, plus any crew/fuel deliveries you make, is extremely visible it's going to be tracked the whole way out to its "stealth" position. There is no "huge volume" to search because it can never break contact to make its position ambiguous. If the railgun fires this will also be extremely obvious to ground observers, and the shell will be tracked the whole way in. That means plenty of time to intercept it, and plenty of time to arrange a retaliation strike using conventional weapons.

In short: congratulations, you just spent obscene amounts of money on a weapon that seems to exist for the sole purpose of being as inefficient as possible.

 Vulcan wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you defend against a mass launch of ballistic weapons?


"Lol, thanks for bankrupting your country to build a weapon comparable to a single B-52 full of 500lb bombs."

There just isn't any plausible scenario where kinetic weapons are a meaningful threat. Anything they can do can already be done better by much cheaper alternatives, and nobody is going to be dumb enough to invest in building them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, MIRV missiles kinda killed off the idea of a full missile defense. You'd need multiple defense missiles to kill a single attack missile, meaning the enemy can just overwhelm your defenses by the sheer numbers of their nuclear warheads.


Not entirely true. Anything that hits before MIRV separation can take out the whole bus at once, and point defense missiles can be smaller (and therefore cheaper) than an ICBM so you can buy multiple interceptors for the cost of each ICBM.

And given the relatively recent introduction of 'intelligent', course-correcting missiles that automatically change their trajectory when they detect an incoming defense missile, missile defense just became completely useless against ICBMs.


And this is not true at all. For an incoming missile to dodge it has to spend four times the fuel as the interceptor (dodge, reduce velocity to zero, accelerate to return to its original course, reduce velocity to zero), while the interceptor only has to match the initial dodge. If the missile fails to burn that extra fuel and return to its original course than the interceptor has done its job even if it doesn't hit. This overwhelmingly favors the interceptor, quickly creating a situation where the additional fuel payload is too much to be practical.

However, such a system would suffer from the weaknesses inherent to lasers, in that it would be very easy to counter. So such a system would only be useful for a relatively short period of time until missiles designed with countermeasures are put into production and are widely introduced.


Again, not true at all. Countermeasures are much more difficult than saying "I counter this". For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't. Armor costs too much payload capacity to be practical. The only possible response is to build and launch so many ICBMs that the laser can't keep up.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 18:23:23


Post by: Kilkrazy


I've never understood why laser guns wouldn't be countered by putting a mirror finish on the target, underneath a layer of camo paint.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 18:35:59


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.


Yes, of course...



Might as well kill this project then. I mean, it would be ludicrous to think we could develop something like the U2 spy plane of even think about going into space at all when we are still trying to get off the ground with bi-planes.

Technology advancing? lol come on.

Oh wait, we did move on from bi-planes? How did that happen???

Just amazed what I read on dakka sometimes.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 19:01:22


Post by: Grey Templar


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never understood why laser guns wouldn't be countered by putting a mirror finish on the target, underneath a layer of camo paint.


That works to a point. The mirror will begun to heat up and eventually take damage.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 19:36:42


Post by: Iron_Captain


 KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.


Yes, of course...



Might as well kill this project then. I mean, it would be ludicrous to think we could develop something like the U2 spy plane of even think about going into space at all when we are still trying to get off the ground with bi-planes.

Technology advancing? lol come on.

Oh wait, we did move on from bi-planes? How did that happen???

Just amazed what I read on dakka sometimes.

Just because the US decides to test a laser point defense weapon (it isn't actually really a weapon, it is a defense system) does not mean it is a good idea or works better than conventional point defense weapons. If you read a bit more into it, you will see that the US military itself acknowledges the weaknesses of a laser weapon and states that it therefore is meant to supplement, nor replace conventional systems.
While lasers are significantly cheaper and have virtually unlimited magazines, their beams can be disrupted by atmospheric and weather conditions (especially when operating at the ocean's surface) and are restricted to line-of-sight firing to continuously keep the beam on target.
The reason they are looking into this technology is because shooting a laser is cheaper than shooting a missile but has longer range than CIWS. Basically, it fills in a niche. But that niche will disappear should laser technology become common enough to develop countermeasures against, which with laser is much easier than with kinetic weapons. That laser can for example detonate an incoming RPG round. But if a mirror coating had been applied to said RPG round, or simply if it is a misty day, the laser would need to be far more powerful to be able to detonate the grenade, making the laser useless again. In other words, just because a weapon technology can currently fill a certain niche, doesn't mean it will see widespread use.

 Grey Templar wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never understood why laser guns wouldn't be countered by putting a mirror finish on the target, underneath a layer of camo paint.


That works to a point. The mirror will begun to heat up and eventually take damage.

Yes. Mirrors are an effective laser countermeasure, but they indeed do not make something impervious to a laser. A mirror deflects only a portion of the light it receives, meaning a portion still gets through and transfers heat to the mirror. In other words, a mirror increases the length of time a laser needs to destroy its targets (the exact length of time depending on the power of the laser), but it does not offer full protection.
Basically, anything that defocuses a beam or dissipates heat wreaks havoc with a laser. While theoretically, a sufficient powerful laser would still be able to get through if focused on a target long enough, the problem in warfare is the time you need it to be focused on the target. More than a few seconds, and it becomes pretty useless except in niche situations.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 19:45:54


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Just because the US decides to test a laser point defense weapon (it isn't actually really a weapon, it is a defense system) does not mean it is a good idea or works better than conventional point defense weapons. If you read a bit more into it, you will see that the US military itself acknowledges the weaknesses of a laser weapon and states that it therefore is meant to supplement, nor replace conventional systems.


As of right now. We're still in the infancy.

But, maybe you are right, maybe we should just box the whole thing up.

What a shame, since the last laser they were testing took up a whole 747. Looks like they were making progress... but I guess if you can't go right from thought to implementation without proof of concept, development, testing and further development and all that, you should just not pursue it.



Its amazing technology advances at all.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 19:56:44


Post by: Xenomancers


 KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Just because the US decides to test a laser point defense weapon (it isn't actually really a weapon, it is a defense system) does not mean it is a good idea or works better than conventional point defense weapons. If you read a bit more into it, you will see that the US military itself acknowledges the weaknesses of a laser weapon and states that it therefore is meant to supplement, nor replace conventional systems.


As of right now. We're still in the infancy.

But, maybe you are right, maybe we should just box the whole thing up.

What a shame, since the last laser they were testing took up a whole 747. Looks like they were making progress... but I guess if you can't go right from thought to implementation without proof of concept, development, testing and further development and all that, you should just not pursue it.



Its amazing technology advances at all.

Lasers are always going to come with these weaknesses - which are not weaknesses that are worth their development beyond a defensive countermeasure.
-Requires Direct LOS.
-Range/effectiveness limited based atmospheric conditions.
-Very easy to counter as an offensive weapon should they every become prevalent.



Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 20:02:52


Post by: KTG17


There are countermeasures against bullets too, you don't see those going anywhere anytime soon.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 20:17:23


Post by: AndrewGPaul


 godardc wrote:
Detonating ? Like, making the missile explode ? But if it has a nuclear warhead, wouldn't it be a bad idea anyway, even if above the oceans / others countries ? Especialy if you detonate several missiles ?


IIRC, "detonate", in the context of setting off a nuclear weapon, refers to setting off the initial conventional explosive charge which brings the two sub-critical uranium masses together (gun-type bomb) or causes the implosion of the uranium, which then results in the critical mass of Uranium creating a runaway fission reaction. "initiation", is, I think, the term for the aactual nuclear explosion.

Anyway, if you blow up the nuclear weapon by hitting it with another missile before it has a chance to go off properly, you won't get a nuclear explosion; you'll just get a conventional explosion and scatter the nuclear material - much less destructive than a nuclear explosion. If it happens at s sufficiently high altitude, the fissile material will burn up and be scattered. Not ideal, but I would think that any given area will have a negligible increase in radiation as a result.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 20:23:15


Post by: JohnHwangDD


All this talk about lasers, when all you need is gravity...






Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 20:40:43


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
 godardc wrote:
Detonating ? Like, making the missile explode ? But if it has a nuclear warhead, wouldn't it be a bad idea anyway, even if above the oceans / others countries ? Especialy if you detonate several missiles ?


IIRC, "detonate", in the context of setting off a nuclear weapon, refers to setting off the initial conventional explosive charge which brings the two sub-critical uranium masses together (gun-type bomb) or causes the implosion of the uranium, which then results in the critical mass of Uranium creating a runaway fission reaction. "initiation", is, I think, the term for the aactual nuclear explosion.

Anyway, if you blow up the nuclear weapon by hitting it with another missile before it has a chance to go off properly, you won't get a nuclear explosion; you'll just get a conventional explosion and scatter the nuclear material - much less destructive than a nuclear explosion. If it happens at s sufficiently high altitude, the fissile material will burn up and be scattered. Not ideal, but I would think that any given area will have a negligible increase in radiation as a result.


This. Nuclear weapons work by creating a scenario where there is enough fissile material to go critical, meaning you have enough fissile material in a volume that it can commence a self sustaining fission reaction. There are multiple ways of going about this. You could just dump a pile of Uranium on the floor. Get enough there and you're going to reach critical mass. In a weapon you want a bit more control over this, and there are two main ways of accomplishing this.

The first is called a gun type fission weapon. This is where you have two sub-critical masses of your nuclear material and you rapidly bring them together, typically by firing (through the use of a shaped conventional explosive) a bullet of the material into the centre of a larger mass of that same material. Little Boy was a gun-type fission weapon using uranium-235 as the fissile material.

The second is called an implosion type fission weapon. This is where you have a sphere of your fission material. Shaped charges surrounding the sphere go off simultaneously and the resulting pressure collapses the sphere, increasing the density and therefore reaching critical mass. Fat Man was an implosion type weapon, with plutonium-239.

Thermonuclear weapons use a conventional fission nuclear weapon to generate the energy required to initiate the fusion process, and so will use one of these methods for their initial phase.

If the explosive forces of either type of weapon are not exact (such as some of the implosion type charges not firing at the same time, or the firing of the bullet not having enough force in a gun type weapon), then instead of causing the whole mass to undergo fission, some of the material may undergo fission and the resulting reaction will push the other material away, massively reducing your total energy yield. This is why you can intercept a nuclear weapon with a conventional missile without needing to worry about causing an atomic explosion, without the exact environment initiating and containing the nuclear reaction, the material will just push itself apart before releasing all of the energy you intended to.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 22:08:43


Post by: BaronIveagh


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
All this talk about lasers, when all you need is gravity...






And an object over 100,000 tons.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/16 23:39:18


Post by: Vulcan


 Peregrine wrote:
For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.


Right conclusion, wrong reason.

A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.

The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 00:10:40


Post by: Xenomancers


 Vulcan wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.


Right conclusion, wrong reason.

A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.

The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 00:14:15


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Xenomancers wrote:

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 00:26:11


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.


Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 00:50:01


Post by: Peregrine


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.


Right conclusion, wrong reason.

A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.

The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.



The weight penalty on an ICBM makes this impossible. And if my laser forces you to replace your ICBM arsenal with a handful of Saturn V clones, each lifting a single warhead and the ridiculous cooling system, well, I just removed 99% of your nuclear threat without firing a shot.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 15:51:28


Post by: Xenomancers


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.

There is no reason to assume that reflective alloys are going to have a significant weight difference compared to aluminium or whatever they use in ICBM construction.
The cooling systems (if they are even needed) Could be as simple as a heat sinks on important sections of the hull. Who knows?
Plus - there are other ways of getting a payload into orbit than building a giant rocket. You can build 2/3 stage rockets. Launch assist with space catapults. There are lots of ways to overcome adding some weight to a missile.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.


Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.

ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 16:10:57


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.


Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.

ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.

Not if they are the course-correcting kind. They can just slightly shift their course to evade the incoming missile. Or if they are MIRVed. Then you need lots of missiles to stop a single ICBM. Of course, course-correcting ICBMs would also be highly effective against a laser, considering a laser needs to be able to focus on a single point. An ICBM with a reflective coating that spins as it flies would be very hard to stop with a laser, considering the heat will be largely reflected with the remainder spread out over a large surface.
I really think railguns are more promising as ICBM defense systems. You'd need a pretty good targeting computer though.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 17:33:15


Post by: Xenomancers


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.


Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.

ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.

Not if they are the course-correcting kind. They can just slightly shift their course to evade the incoming missile. Or if they are MIRVed. Then you need lots of missiles to stop a single ICBM. Of course, course-correcting ICBMs would also be highly effective against a laser, considering a laser needs to be able to focus on a single point. An ICBM with a reflective coating that spins as it flies would be very hard to stop with a laser, considering the heat will be largely reflected with the remainder spread out over a large surface.
I really think railguns are more promising as ICBM defense systems. You'd need a pretty good targeting computer though.

Course correction is much more effective against a railgun than a missle. A missle can change course to follow the ICBM. I guess the main advantage of a rail-gun is (granted the velocity is high enough to effectively shoot one) is it might be harder to detect and incoming slug than a missile. The ICBM might not know to dodge.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 18:55:15


Post by: Grey Templar


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.


Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.

ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.

Not if they are the course-correcting kind. They can just slightly shift their course to evade the incoming missile. Or if they are MIRVed. Then you need lots of missiles to stop a single ICBM. Of course, course-correcting ICBMs would also be highly effective against a laser, considering a laser needs to be able to focus on a single point. An ICBM with a reflective coating that spins as it flies would be very hard to stop with a laser, considering the heat will be largely reflected with the remainder spread out over a large surface.
I really think railguns are more promising as ICBM defense systems. You'd need a pretty good targeting computer though.

Course correction is much more effective against a railgun than a missle. A missle can change course to follow the ICBM. I guess the main advantage of a rail-gun is (granted the velocity is high enough to effectively shoot one) is it might be harder to detect and incoming slug than a missile. The ICBM might not know to dodge.


Exactly. Plus the Railgun can fire multiple rounds to improve the chance of a hit, and the ammunition will cost a tiny fraction of the cost of a missile. Thats really the advantage of railguns. They will be far cheaper to operate than a missile, with comparable damage output and even accuracy vs a stationary target. While also being basically impossible to shoot down, and very difficult to detect.

Railgun slugs could be made with course correction fins and such as well. Just like smart artillery shells do today. Much more expensive than a dumb slug of course, but still cheaper than your typical SAM.

A series of railguns could easily blanket the path of an incoming ICBM with shells making it impossible to dodge. ICBMs can course correct, but only to a point. If they turn too sharp they'll either miss their target or rip themselves apart, so there is a finite amount of evasive space they can use.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 22:24:14


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Grey Templar wrote:

Railgun slugs could be made with course correction fins and such as well. Just like smart artillery shells do today. Much more expensive than a dumb slug of course, but still cheaper than your typical SAM.


The navy had that fantasy too, they found out that your course correction anything burns off before the projectile leaves the coils. Oh, and they make it tumble, too.

Also, the fins would not work in space, because fins work by effecting drag. There's no drag in a vacuum.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 23:20:04


Post by: Vulcan


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.


Right conclusion, wrong reason.

A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.

The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.

Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.


So tell me. How does one deflect and cool the same magnitude of energy delivered in a bolt of lightning?


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 23:34:41


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:

Railgun slugs could be made with course correction fins and such as well. Just like smart artillery shells do today. Much more expensive than a dumb slug of course, but still cheaper than your typical SAM.


The navy had that fantasy too, they found out that your course correction anything burns off before the projectile leaves the coils. Oh, and they make it tumble, too.

Also, the fins would not work in space, because fins work by effecting drag. There's no drag in a vacuum.


In this specific case we were talking about shooting an ICBM while it is in the atmosphere.

And Railguns are in their infancy. They'll most likely develop course correction that doesn't burn off when its fired. Just like they'll eventually make barrels that last more than a few shots.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 23:51:31


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Grey Templar wrote:
They'll most likely develop course correction that doesn't burn off when its fired. Just like they'll eventually make barrels that last more than a few shots.


I expect Warp Drive before that. Due to the velocities and level of friction involved, the computer managing course correction would have to be able to transmit instructions at superluminal speeds in order to calculate the course correction and then implement it before either missing entirely or or hitting something other than the target. You'd also need a mechanism to adjust the fins at similar speeds that also won't tear off from the stresses involved.

Effectively, for the foreseeable future the railgun is a line of sight dumb weapon, like any other bullet.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/17 23:55:12


Post by: Grey Templar


Thats probably a bit excessively pessimistic, but yeah it probably is a ways away.

And being a dumb weapon isn't necessarily a problem. Its one of the strengths that makes it difficult to defend against.

And its not actually a LOS weapon, thats lasers. A railgun can fire over the horizon because it follows a ballistic arc.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/18 00:17:55


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Grey Templar wrote:

And its not actually a LOS weapon, thats lasers. A railgun can fire over the horizon because it follows a ballistic arc.


That's another thing the Navy thought that it turns out it really doesn't. Not and have the sort of impact they wanted anyway. See, due to it's super flat trajectory, the horizon creates a sort of blind spot it can't hit without firing a high arch into space. Meaning that it's limited by terminal velocity coming back down. You'll do more damage with a regular explosive shell. And that's assuming you got the math right and the shell comes back down at all.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/18 00:18:09


Post by: ZergSmasher


What about using a railgun to fire what is basically like birdshot at an approaching missile? Like, the shell is fired by the railgun, travels a ways, then explodes and hits the missile with a cloud of shrapnel. Then the round doesn't have to be as precisely aimed, and the missile still won't be able to easily course correct around it due to a large cloud of little metal projectiles filling the air. And a missile with armor thick enough to withstand the fast moving projectiles won't be able to launch unless it's on a really big rocket.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/18 01:44:59


Post by: BaronIveagh


 ZergSmasher wrote:
What about using a railgun to fire what is basically like birdshot at an approaching missile? Like, the shell is fired by the railgun, travels a ways, then explodes and hits the missile with a cloud of shrapnel. Then the round doesn't have to be as precisely aimed, and the missile still won't be able to easily course correct around it due to a large cloud of little metal projectiles filling the air. And a missile with armor thick enough to withstand the fast moving projectiles won't be able to launch unless it's on a really big rocket.


What you're describing is known as a beehive round, and it was discovered those don't work back in WW2.

Also, again, you run into the issue of the projectile. These would have a very high tendency to explode before clearing the barrel. As the round travels down the coil, the metal it's composed of is boiling off as a gas. Needless to say, putting an explosive in that is probably a bad idea.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/18 08:16:17


Post by: Peregrine


 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no reason to assume that reflective alloys are going to have a significant weight difference compared to aluminium or whatever they use in ICBM construction.


Sure there is. ICBMs (and rockets in general) are designed with obsessive concern for weight. Pretty much any design change that adds features is going to add weight, because the design is already at the minimum possible weight. If mirrors could do the job without adding weight then every ICBM would already be made out of mirrors simply for the weight reduction.

The cooling systems (if they are even needed) Could be as simple as a heat sinks on important sections of the hull. Who knows?


You know what heat sinks require? Mass. It's kind of in the definition of a heat sink. So just by having a laser exist at all I've reduced your ICBM threat as you have to replace warhead mass with heat sinks. And the heat sinks are unlikely to do anything useful. The threat with lasers is not slowly melting a hole in something, it's the explosive effect of a small area being rapidly heated and expanding. It's unlikely that a heat sink, especially one optimized for weight rather than heat transfer performance, would be able to spread out the heat before the laser blows a hole in the material.

Also, there is no such thing as "important sections of the hull". The entire missile is a critical section, because even relatively minor damage can result in aerodynamic forces tearing the missile apart. And every part of the missile is essential to its function, otherwise it wouldn't be present. For a cooling/mirror system to be effective you have to cover the entire missile with it.

Plus - there are other ways of getting a payload into orbit than building a giant rocket. You can build 2/3 stage rockets. Launch assist with space catapults. There are lots of ways to overcome adding some weight to a missile.


Those "ways" are currently wishful thinking. Weight is not a trivial problem, it's one of the most difficult engineering challenges in rocket design. You can't simply handwave it away and assume that someone will magically find a solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ZergSmasher wrote:
What about using a railgun to fire what is basically like birdshot at an approaching missile? Like, the shell is fired by the railgun, travels a ways, then explodes and hits the missile with a cloud of shrapnel. Then the round doesn't have to be as precisely aimed, and the missile still won't be able to easily course correct around it due to a large cloud of little metal projectiles filling the air. And a missile with armor thick enough to withstand the fast moving projectiles won't be able to launch unless it's on a really big rocket.


This would be effective in the very last fractions of a second of the intercept, allowing a very close proximity kill with the explosion instead of requiring a direct hit. It's risky (the shrapnel scatters at random and may not hit, which is why current interceptors use a direct contact kill) but having the ability could be useful if you're not confident in your ability to score a direct hit. But forget about putting a large cloud in the target's path, the sheer volume of space you'd have to cover to prevent evasive maneuvers would spread your shrapnel out at way too low a density to guarantee a hit. The most likely outcome of your idea is the incoming warhead passing right through the cloud of debris without hitting anything. You still need extremely precise guidance to get the interceptor shot very close to the target.

Of course the real answer here is matching nukes with nukes. The ideal interceptor missile is carrying a nuclear warhead of its own, ensuring a kill if the interceptor gets anywhere near its target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for railguns in general, forget all the nonsense about OMG DAMAGE SO FAST. The advantage of railguns is not firepower, it's safe ammunition storage. Replacing explosive shells and extremely explosive powder charges with an inert metal spike is a significant improvement in damage resistance as you no longer have to worry about magazine hits destroying your ship/tank/whatever. The rest is mostly marketing hype.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/18 17:08:18


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Peregrine wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no reason to assume that reflective alloys are going to have a significant weight difference compared to aluminium or whatever they use in ICBM construction.


Sure there is. ICBMs (and rockets in general) are designed with obsessive concern for weight. Pretty much any design change that adds features is going to add weight, because the design is already at the minimum possible weight. If mirrors could do the job without adding weight then every ICBM would already be made out of mirrors simply for the weight reduction.

Modern ICBMs are already a lot heavier than they need to be, just so they can cram in more or bigger warheads if the need arises. And if all else fails they can go back to using liquid rather than solid fuel.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/18 22:42:12


Post by: Vulcan


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no reason to assume that reflective alloys are going to have a significant weight difference compared to aluminium or whatever they use in ICBM construction.


Sure there is. ICBMs (and rockets in general) are designed with obsessive concern for weight. Pretty much any design change that adds features is going to add weight, because the design is already at the minimum possible weight. If mirrors could do the job without adding weight then every ICBM would already be made out of mirrors simply for the weight reduction.

Modern ICBMs are already a lot heavier than they need to be, just so they can cram in more or bigger warheads if the need arises. And if all else fails they can go back to using liquid rather than solid fuel.


They are NO heavier than they need to be to carry their designated number of warheads. So adding anything for defense requires removing warheads... which is a net gain for the defender who now has fewer terminal-phase targets.

And liquid-fueled missiles are even more delicate than solid fuel ones. Any damage to the body releases liquid fuel or oxidizer all over... and that stuff is corrosive like you would not believe.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/19 00:56:54


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Vulcan wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no reason to assume that reflective alloys are going to have a significant weight difference compared to aluminium or whatever they use in ICBM construction.


Sure there is. ICBMs (and rockets in general) are designed with obsessive concern for weight. Pretty much any design change that adds features is going to add weight, because the design is already at the minimum possible weight. If mirrors could do the job without adding weight then every ICBM would already be made out of mirrors simply for the weight reduction.

Modern ICBMs are already a lot heavier than they need to be, just so they can cram in more or bigger warheads if the need arises. And if all else fails they can go back to using liquid rather than solid fuel.


They are NO heavier than they need to be to carry their designated number of warheads. So adding anything for defense requires removing warheads... which is a net gain for the defender who now has fewer terminal-phase targets.

And liquid-fueled missiles are even more delicate than solid fuel ones. Any damage to the body releases liquid fuel or oxidizer all over... and that stuff is corrosive like you would not believe.

Not necessarily. I don't know about American missiles, but Russian missiles are designed for variable load-outs. The amount and weight of warheads, as well as countermeasure systems, can all be adjusted depending on the target the missile is meant to go after. If a certain enemy target is heavily defended, you just use lighter warheads, or fewer heavier warheads and use more countermeasures. It is not a net gain for the defender, since that missile full of countermeasures is highly likely to destroy its target despite its lower potential destructiveness. A missile with more warheads but less countermeasures would have been more destructive in theory, but in practice it would have been shot down so it is actually less destructive than the lighter warheads of the countermeasure missile. So yes, missile defenses may force a reduction in the number of warheads a missile will carry, they do not actually reduce the dangerousness of the missiles.
And yeah, you are definitely right that liquid fuel has significant drawbacks. It decreases the reliability of a missile. That is why Russia switched to using solid fuel when the Soviets had always used liquid, as liquid fuel allowed them to stuff more warheads into their missiles than the US, giving them a strategic advantage.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/19 20:41:29


Post by: Xenomancers


 Vulcan wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no reason to assume that reflective alloys are going to have a significant weight difference compared to aluminium or whatever they use in ICBM construction.


Sure there is. ICBMs (and rockets in general) are designed with obsessive concern for weight. Pretty much any design change that adds features is going to add weight, because the design is already at the minimum possible weight. If mirrors could do the job without adding weight then every ICBM would already be made out of mirrors simply for the weight reduction.

Modern ICBMs are already a lot heavier than they need to be, just so they can cram in more or bigger warheads if the need arises. And if all else fails they can go back to using liquid rather than solid fuel.


They are NO heavier than they need to be to carry their designated number of warheads. So adding anything for defense requires removing warheads... which is a net gain for the defender who now has fewer terminal-phase targets.

And liquid-fueled missiles are even more delicate than solid fuel ones. Any damage to the body releases liquid fuel or oxidizer all over... and that stuff is corrosive like you would not believe.

Weight is probably not even the primary concern in ICBM deisgn in regards to hull materials - price/integrity/weight ratio is all part of an equation for your deisred goal. If the enemy can blow all your missles out of the sky with a death ray and all you gotta do is build out of a different material - that is where you start. It's not even a consideration to not build out of an anti laser material at that point. Also - the reflective surface could be something as simple as a coating which would ad negligible mass.

My point about heatsinks was - they could be placed in particularly vulnerable areas - you might not need a huge liquid pump.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/19 21:51:51


Post by: Jadenim


Weight is the primary concern of everything that flies. Every. Single. Thing.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/19 22:00:37


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Jadenim wrote:
Weight is the primary concern of everything that flies. Every. Single. Thing.

In other news: grass is green.
Weight is not the only concern though. Designing a missile, or an aircraft for that matter, is always a process of balancing out different concerns. Absolute weight, lifting power, throw-weight, accuracy, speed, size etc.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/20 15:46:32


Post by: Xenomancers


 Jadenim wrote:
Weight is the primary concern of everything that flies. Every. Single. Thing.

It does not matter to the extent is being emphasized. If it provided an advantaged to build missiles with reflective hulls or coatings. It could be accomplished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
Weight is the primary concern of everything that flies. Every. Single. Thing.

In other news: grass is green.
Weight is not the only concern though. Designing a missile, or an aircraft for that matter, is always a process of balancing out different concerns. Absolute weight, lifting power, throw-weight, accuracy, speed, size etc.
Which is what I was saying. The end goal is create a weapon that has the highest chance of completing it's goal.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/20 22:13:51


Post by: Peregrine


 Xenomancers wrote:
It does not matter to the extent is being emphasized. If it provided an advantaged to build missiles with reflective hulls or coatings. It could be accomplished.


Sure, it could be accomplished, but at immense cost in complexity and payload capacity. And if building an anti-ICBM laser results in you losing 90% of your total throw weight, well, I've just crippled your force before I fire a single shot. And the laser is still probably going to shoot down some of the missiles you do manage to build. Then my kinetic interceptors are going to have a much easier time, since there are so many fewer incoming threats to intercept. It's quite possible that the situation even gets to the point where your deterrent is no longer effective and I can (and do) launch a preemptive first strike to permanently remove you as a threat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Also - the reflective surface could be something as simple as a coating which would ad negligible mass.


There is no such thing as negligible mass in rocket design.

My point about heatsinks was - they could be placed in particularly vulnerable areas - you might not need a huge liquid pump.


Again, there is no such thing as "particularly vulnerable areas" on an ICBM. Every single component of the missile is vulnerable, because if it wasn't essential to the successful operation of the missile it wouldn't be included. And even relatively minor damage to any part of the exterior of the missile is likely to be a kill as aerodynamic forces tear it apart, so the entire exterior surface of the missile would have to be coated in reflective material and backed by heat sinks.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/20 22:30:37


Post by: Vulcan


Two things to remember about ballistic missiles.

1) The vast majority of the missile is fuel tanks, something like 90%. Most of the rest is the warheads and the engines. The electronics are vanishingly tiny in that big missile.

2) Having the equivalent of a stick of dynamite go off on the skin over the 90% that is fuel tanks will either rupture the tank, causing the fuel to detonate, or cause the solid fuel to shatter, causing it to detonate.

A megawatt laser will deliver that stick of dynamite through any conceivable mirror that can be mounted on a ballistic missile and still leave a useable payload, and will survive the trip out of the atmosphere.

Sure, it's possible that something new will come along and change that... just as right now we don't have any megawatt lasers in space that can deliver their throughput at a realistic distance. But the laws of physics say it doesn't look good.


Near-future space combat @ 2018/07/26 19:00:12


Post by: ProtoClone


Ignore the obnoxious nature of the video because there is some useful info.
Also, check out http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/ for a lot of useful info.