Switch Theme:

The War in Space Discussion  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh if it effects electronics it fries them good. Its just such shielding would basically be mandatory for all space craft because of solar radiation to begin with. Making it a little stronger to survive a nuke would be very easy.


Yea some reading mostly shows it can be a threat but it's an expensive and easily preventable threat.
   
Made in us
Master Tormentor





St. Louis

 Talizvar wrote:
Hmm, next item for research is "EMP pulse" wonder what shielding needed, electronics die, life gets really hard.
Would have to see the different flavors of nukes.
Ground zero of a nuke would disperse scary fast.
Probably debris free a fraction of a second after.
Designed like a grenade, the energy with debris would hole a ship easily.
Infra-red output would be scary.

A nuke's EMP is caused by interactions with the upper atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, no EMP.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





The US actually did test some nukes in space (or what you might call space), I found a video of it (though what you see is largely interactions with the upper atmosphere).



To me, it looks like there is an expanding layer of plasma/debris, that you might (perhaps inaccurately) refer to as a "shockwave". And there is no doubt in my mind that any ship near the centre is having a very bad day. The question is at what distance would the explosion stop being dangerous?

While we're on the subject of weapons, I feel like an antimatter weapon is going to be superior to a nuke for damaging spaceships. It really solves that whole hull penetration problem in the most killy way.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

The Fishbowl series of tests were all conducted at the edge of the atmosphere, so there would be *some* sort of a shockeave. Most of the visible activity from the tests, however, was the result of ionospheric/magnetospheric activity resulting from the radiation bursts.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Winged Kroot Vulture






This gentleman, Dr. John Schilling, describes the possible effects a nuclear weapon would have on a ship. According to the site, space ships are not going to be anything fancy like the Enterprise, a Viper (BSG), or an X-Wing. They will actually look much like what space station look like now, satellites. No small little fighter ships because those are not realistic, just massive satellite looking ships that do battle like galleons. So some of what he is referencing is the affects it would have on a large ship that looks like a satellite.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#emp

"First off, the weapon itself. A nuclear explosion in space, will look pretty much like a Very Very Bright flashbulb going off. The effects are instantaneous or nearly so. There is no fireball. The gaseous remains of the weapon may be incandescent, but they are also expanding at about a thousand kilometers per second, so one frame after detonation they will have dissipated to the point of invisibility. Just a flash.

The effects on the ship itself, those are a bit more visible. If you're getting impulsive shock damage, you will by definition see hot gas boiling off from the surface. Again, the effect is instantaneous, but this time the vapor will expand at maybe one kilometer per second, so depending on the scale you might be able to see some of this action. But don't blink; it will be quick.

Next is spallation - shocks will bounce back and forth through the skin of the target, probably tearing chunks off both sides. Some of these may come off at mere hundreds of meters per second. And they will be hot, red- or maybe even white-hot depending on the material.

To envision the appearance of this part, a thought experiment. Or, heck, go ahead and actually perform it. Start with a big piece of sheet metal, covered in a fine layer of flour and glitter. Shine a spotlight on it, in an otherwise-dark room. Then whack the thing with a sledgehammer, hard enough for the recoil to knock the flour and glitter into the air.

The haze of brightly-lit flour is your vaporized hull material, and the bits of glitter are the spallation. Scale up the velocities as needed, and ignore the bit where air resistance and gravity brings everything to a halt.

Next, the exposed hull is going to be quite hot, probably close to the melting point. So, dull red even for aluminum, brilliant white for steel or titanium or most ceramics or composites. The seriously hot layer will only be a millimeter or so thick, so it can cool fairly quickly - a second or two for a thick metallic hull that can cool by internal conduction, possibly as long as a minute for something thin and/or insulating that has to cool by radiation.

After this, if the shock is strong enough, the hull is going to be materially deformed. For this, take the sledgehammer from your last thought experiment and give a whack to some tin cans. Depending on how hard you hit them, and whether they are full or empty, you can get effects ranging from mild denting at weak points, crushing and tearing, all the way to complete obliteration with bits of tin-can remnant and tin-can contents splattered across the landscape.

Again, this will be much faster in reality than in the thought experiment. And note that a spacecraft will have many weak points to be dented, fragile bits to be torn off, and they all get hit at once. If the hull is of isogrid construction, which is pretty common, you might see an intact triangular lattice with shallow dents in between. Bits of antenna and whatnot, tumbling away.

Finally, secondary effects. Part of your ship is likely to be pressurized, either habitat space or propellant tank. Coolant and drinking water and whatnot, as well. With serious damage, that stuff is going to vent to space. You can probably see this happening (air and water and some propellants will freeze into snow as they escape, BTW). You'll also see the reaction force try to tumble the spacecraft, and if the spacecraft's attitude control systems are working you'll see them try to fight back.

You might see fires, if reactive materials are escaping. But not convection flames, of course. Diffuse jets of flame, or possibly surface reactions. Maybe secondary explosions if concentrations of reactive gasses are building up in enclosed (more or less) spaces."


A little bit on Dr. John Schilling, his resume:
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/JohnSchillingResume.pdf

I'm back! 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






However it actually effects things

those tests are beautiful.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in jp
Fixture of Dakka





Japan

Only a direct hit with a nuke would be lethal, the further away the nuke explodes the less effective it becomes, now encase a nuke completely with ball bearings and the high speed projectiles would quickly overwhelm any anti missile defenses.

Squidbot;
"That sound? That's the sound of me drinking all my paint and stabbing myself in the eyes with my brushes. "
My Doombringer Space Marine Army
Hello Kitty Space Marines project
Buddhist Space marine Project
Other Projects
Imageshack deleted all my Images Thank you! 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Only a direct hit with a nuke would be lethal, the further away the nuke explodes the less effective it becomes, now encase a nuke completely with ball bearings and the high speed projectiles would quickly overwhelm any anti missile defenses.


Would it not be better to fire clusters of missiles or rockets and then have them poof into clusters of ball bearings? I think this increases your chance to hit considerably and does not require nuclear weaponry.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

Encasing a nuke with ball bearing would just result in the ball bearings flashing to plasma, which (as stated previously) despite what scifi writers would have you believe, isn't quite as deadly or as lethal as it sounds. More conventional explosives encased in ball bearings on the other hand... Although it also matters on relative velocity (i.e., whether your target is moving towards or away from you).

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

chaos0xomega wrote:
Encasing a nuke with ball bearing would just result in the ball bearings flashing to plasma, which (as stated previously) despite what scifi writers would have you believe, isn't quite as deadly or as lethal as it sounds. More conventional explosives encased in ball bearings on the other hand... Although it also matters on relative velocity (i.e., whether your target is moving towards or away from you).


I think the majority of weapons would rely on a target coming head on or hitting from the side really.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

I would probably agree, although damaging a ship moving away from you isn't necessarily out of the question unless they are moving very rapidly.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Master Tormentor





St. Louis

 Swastakowey wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Encasing a nuke with ball bearing would just result in the ball bearings flashing to plasma, which (as stated previously) despite what scifi writers would have you believe, isn't quite as deadly or as lethal as it sounds. More conventional explosives encased in ball bearings on the other hand... Although it also matters on relative velocity (i.e., whether your target is moving towards or away from you).


I think the majority of weapons would rely on a target coming head on or hitting from the side really.

Yet another reason lasers win (especially the bomb-pumped variety).
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would probably agree, although damaging a ship moving away from you isn't necessarily out of the question unless they are moving very rapidly.


Yea but you potentially get less bang for buck. I would then change what I say to ideally targets will be engaged while they are head on or moving to the side of your facing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Laughing Man wrote:
 Swastakowey wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Encasing a nuke with ball bearing would just result in the ball bearings flashing to plasma, which (as stated previously) despite what scifi writers would have you believe, isn't quite as deadly or as lethal as it sounds. More conventional explosives encased in ball bearings on the other hand... Although it also matters on relative velocity (i.e., whether your target is moving towards or away from you).


I think the majority of weapons would rely on a target coming head on or hitting from the side really.

Yet another reason lasers win (especially the bomb-pumped variety).


Will lasers be a weapon of the future though? Right now they are good for burning exposed bits and pieces but against a space ship there is going to be very little exposed areas to hit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:09:35


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Thats not necessarily true. Thrusters and engines will pretty much always be exposed, unless you have armored flaps that can cover them when not in use so you can turtle up.

Plus lasers can double as missile defenses.

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.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats not necessarily true. Thrusters and engines will pretty much always be exposed, unless you have armored flaps that can cover them when not in use so you can turtle up.

Plus lasers can double as missile defenses.


Yes I think the only viable use for lasers is defensive. Otherwise you by using lasers you are relying on hitting the small areas of a ship rather than just trying the shred the thing into bits.

   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






You also only have to heat up an area soo much to fail.

especially if its pressurized.

not to mention any window apertures and camera and sensor systems that have to be on the outside.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Depends on how defensive the enemy ship is. They have to expose their weapons to shoot them for example. Sensors and such will also have to be exposed.

A ship could go fully encased in plating, but that means less sensors or weapons that are actively shooting.

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.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how defensive the enemy ship is. They have to expose their weapons to shoot them for example. Sensors and such will also have to be exposed.

A ship could go fully encased in plating, but that means less sensors or weapons that are actively shooting.


Well no, chances are they will just open little ports to quickly launch their rockets or guided munitions then close them up again. Given the time difference likely between targets and so on you would have to know when the enemy is going to fire and be at the correct able to fire into the enemy gun racks. If anything, having a laser is giving yourself a weapon to shoot at.

Why do sensors have to be exposed? With less weight limit and less aerodynamic issues to deal with these can be far better protected than the sensors we see today. Even if they are exposed they now have to try hit the small targets on a ship incredibly far away. Would it not be better to simply shower them with ball bearings at high speeds than try use a laser at a reduced set of targets?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Desubot wrote:
You also only have to heat up an area soo much to fail.

especially if its pressurized.

not to mention any window apertures and camera and sensor systems that have to be on the outside.


Yes but you have to actually hit these things assuming they are exposed. Why not just shower it with solid things at high speed instead?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:47:48


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Both types of weapons will probably get used.

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.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Well lasers are probably not just being fired by dudes. more than likely its targeted by advanced systems. hitting a womp rat wouldnt be that hard.


edit to the edit: Depending on laser technology in the future and the cooling system you could proably keep a high power laser spot locked onto a "weaker" part of a ship till it fails.

It would probably be targeted using computers instead of a human eye trying to keep it on target.

If anything why not both.

Flakk missiles and lasers would probably work well together.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:52:15


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

 Grey Templar wrote:
Both types of weapons will probably get used.


I predict lasers at best will be used to try and eliminate oncoming weapons. That is simply my prediction. Even then it's probably better to move unpredictably and avoid hits in the first place.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Desubot wrote:
Well lasers are probably not just being fired by dudes. more than likely its targeted by advanced systems. hitting a womp rat wouldnt be that hard.



The enemy is likely moving unpredictably, at huge distances and you are too. Id wager even computer equivalents of the future will struggle with that.

Flak missiles can be guided and only need to get close to the enemy to pose a threat.

Lasers must be pinpointed ahead of time and must hit specific areas of the ship in order to be effective.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:55:14


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






You think it would be that unpredictable?

You move in 3D space. you have momentum and move in a specific way.

Computers are capable of making those corrections.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Master Tormentor





St. Louis

 Swastakowey wrote:
Will lasers be a weapon of the future though? Right now they are good for burning exposed bits and pieces but against a space ship there is going to be very little exposed areas to hit.

You don't need to burn off anything (although with a pulse laser you'll be causing portions of their hull to explode as it flashes from solid to gas). There's no way to lose heat in space without very large (and very, very exposed) radiators, which dissipate heat rather slowly. If you dump enough energy into the target, components fail and crew boil in their own juices. You can minimize the latter by depressurizing the ship during combat (also prevents explosive decompression and fires, which is handy) but that causes a couple of other problems, namely that you've lowered the overall mass that the laser needs to heat before components fail, and that your atmosphere is now stored in pressurized tanks just begging to explode when heated a bit. There's a solution to all of that, of course, which is not to put meat on your space ships anyway (a sensible choice, given that meat has always caused more problems than it's solved).
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 Laughing Man wrote:
(a sensible choice, given that meat has always caused more problems than it's solved).


You take that back!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Course correction will actually be tougher in space than in atmosphere because once you are moving in one direction you will keep moving in that direction unless you apply more force to change your direction.

So you're not going to be zig-zagging. At best you'll be doing a bunch of arcs that are only semi-unpredictable.

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.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

 Desubot wrote:
You think it would be that unpredictable?

You move in 3D space. you have momentum and move in a specific way.

Computers are capable of making those corrections.


Yes, ever tried hitting a small fish under water? They can dart in any direction. Now in space it's a bit different as darting requires a lot more effort however given the distances involved the time it takes for even a beam to reach it's target means the computer will have to be pinpoint accurate and incredibly fast and trying to stay on a target. Remember your ship will be evading enemy weaponry too which is even more unpredictability.

If you are in space, the last thing you want is to be hit. How do you avoid this? By moving. How do you counter humans picking up patterns or computers using math? Moving unpredictably.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






I think you are underestimating just how maneuverable things will be in space.

as well as just how far off everyone will be.

and how fast light moves so you can actually detect changes and make adjustments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 22:06:39


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Master Tormentor





St. Louis

 Swastakowey wrote:


The enemy is likely moving unpredictably, at huge distances and you are too. Id wager even computer equivalents of the future will struggle with that.

Flak missiles can be guided and only need to get close to the enemy to pose a threat.

Lasers must be pinpointed ahead of time and must hit specific areas of the ship in order to be effective.

You're seriously underestimating two things: How large space is, and how fast light moves.

Let's go ahead and do a bit of math: Say you're engaging at half a light-second. Your missile uses a NSWR engine, because it's unmanned and you aren't really concerned about environmental impact or instantly killing your crew by radiation exposure. Also it conveniently doubles as a warhead. Say you're using weapons grade fuel, and the engine is 20% of the mass of your missile. Doing some very quick and dirty math based on googling the specific impulse of this sort of engine (and praying that 80% mass is enough propellant to make this work), your missile has a delta-V of 939,041 m/s. This is ludicrously fast (assuming it accelerates in a straight line), but still comes in at .003c. At the half-second engagement range, your missile would take 160 seconds to reach its target assuming instantaneous acceleration (which is stupid, but I'm sleep deprived and don't feel like doing constant acceleration math). The missile is observable this entire time, due to moving at lower than c-frac velocities and glowing brighter than the sun, and will likely be intercepted or destroyed by point defenses.

Meanwhile, the laser takes .5 seconds to reach its target. It cannot be observed and cannot be intercepted, only dodged by blindly random-walking and praying that, during the one second between your light leaving and the laser's light arriving you've random-walked somewhere where the enemy DIDN'T aim a laser. And given that (assuming meat, which again is dumb) you can accelerate at a maximum of about 9G before your crew passes out, you can move about 100 meters from your expected position during that time. This is not hard to account for.

EDIT: Before anyone comments, yes, I made all sorts of silly assumptions for the rocket's velocity. However, these generally point to it moving a hell of a lot FASTER than it should. The speed of light, however, is easy to figure out, and distance travelled during the laser's travel time is a simple falling body equation and should be correct.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 22:23:25


 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

Im still not convinced of:

The lasers power

The ability to hit enemy ships in pinpoint locations at long distances

The lack of armour on these ships

The ability to evade would be my main focus in building a war ship. How this would be done is up to people with the no how, but if the ship cannot change course easily in space then it better make up for it because it's likely going to take hits. Space has no cover so the next best thing is to not get hit, this would be the focus of warships.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Even with armor, while the laser might not do instant damage its going to begin heating up the surface of your ship. And heat is a big problem in space because, unlike an atmosphere, the only way to lose heat is either through natural radiation heat OR by dumping the heat into some matter which you can jettison. If a laser is constantly heating you up you are going to quickly lose your ability to deal with it. It doesn't even have to cause any direct damage. Simply hitting your hull is enough.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 22:26:37


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.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: