Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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.
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
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.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/15 21:46:19
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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).
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
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....
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/15 23:18:29
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
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.)
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.
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.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 00:47:23
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
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 ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 01:09:08
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.
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...
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/07/16 01:29:26
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.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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
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!
18.000 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.000
talk about a troll.
