"Early space warfare technologies?" Topic
17 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board Back to the Spaceship Gaming Message Board
Areas of InterestModern Science Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Gorgrat | 20 Sep 2021 12:41 p.m. PST |
What will they be like? I understand that present day killer satellites, made to take out enemy communication satellites, are pretty much a guidance system, a small engine, and a chamber stuffed full of explosives and b bs. What else do you really need? Why build a high energy laser or a nuke to do what Uncle Jed's shotgun can accomplish a lot more efficiently at far lesser expense? In a similar vein, will early space warfare (and, yes, I believe it will happen; war is too much fun not to push it to the high frontier) even require anything like manned ships? Again, why build the Defiant to do what some nerd in Southern California can accomplish with a 586 and a joystick from his mom's basement, and when all he wants for it is a lifetime supply of pizza and chips and all the cheat codes to World of Warcraft? Being a little snarky for emphasis' sake, but isn't that essentially the size of it? Now, if we get invaded by the Jem Hadar, or the Arachnids from Klendathu or whoever, maybe all bets are off, but is even that likely to be the case? Here again, the simple weapons are probably the best, with mass drivers in the form of small asteroids mounted with simple engines to knock the enemy homeworld into an ice age, and probably other, maybe smaller and more maneuverable asteroids to divert the big planet killers off course just enough to keep them from doing their job? Could the future of warfare look a lot less like an SPI game than a billiard table? |
Stryderg | 20 Sep 2021 2:27 p.m. PST |
I'm picturing satellites with magnets attached to long cables. Shoot the magnet out, attach to enemy satellite/ship, use a winch to reel the two together, then fire off some rockets. You might even be able to catch a few before gently guiding the lot of them into atmosphere. That's where the reel* fun begins! * See what I did there? None of this is practical, but so what? |
jekinder | 20 Sep 2021 2:50 p.m. PST |
link 23mm gun on the Salyut space lab. |
robert piepenbrink | 20 Sep 2021 3:35 p.m. PST |
Gorgat, you've completely missed the critical point. There are professionals working on "what will near-future space warfare probably be like?" and I suspect they're earning their paychecks. YOUR question should be "what possible version of near-future space warfare would be the most fun to game?" You guys do remember this is a hobby, don't you? |
Gorgrat | 20 Sep 2021 4:18 p.m. PST |
Wow. I thought I was working for Rocky Jones and the Space Ranger Command, battling the evil queen Cleolanta. Don't I feel silly 😊 |
Legion 4 | 20 Sep 2021 4:28 p.m. PST |
My favorite, been around for a while too … I can think of a few places these could be used. If we actually had them (?). But the CD would be major. However, no rads … link |
daveshoe | 20 Sep 2021 5:55 p.m. PST |
I've been looking at the ASAT game on Wargame Vault. It seems to have some interesting ideas in the game. link |
Martin Rapier | 20 Sep 2021 11:40 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't underestimate the vast distances, velocities and mass involved, which makes controlling and hitting things hard, particularly if you are talking about shifting asteroids around. Energy weapons and guided missiles, plus swarms of inert projectiles. The "space combat" in the TV show Space Force was hilarious, and I suspect far more like it will be irl. |
Parzival | 21 Sep 2021 7:11 a.m. PST |
Why not a drone? Answer: Response lag, aka "Light lag". At some point, that "instantaneous" speed-of-light radio signal becomes significantly long. Even a one second delay between command and action is devastating in combat. And the signal has to go both ways— from the drone (carrying what information its radar and cameras see) to the operator, then the command signal back to the drone from the operator. So let's take a fight happening at lunar orbital distance, say at the Moon or at L4 or L5 Lagrange points. The drone's camera's take in a visual (actual visual or infrared, etc., doesn't matter). The drone sends that visual to an Earth-bound operator. That takes 3-4 seconds. The operator reacts, and the command reaction returns to the drone, another 3-4 seconds. So, if the operator's reflexes are themselves instantaneous to what he sees, the drone will still not alter its movement or actions until some 6-8 seconds later. That's how you lose a battle. And that doesn't account for any light lag between the drone and its opponent or target— if there's any significant distance, you're adding seconds in which the target is acting and the drone is not responding. There are only two ways to correct for this— have the operator present for the combat at a distant where no significant command-and-receive delay is present (we're talking milliseconds at the most), or have an autonomous drone— an AI— which can take potentially lethal action without human supervision. In which case, all hail Skynet and our Robot Overlords. (Or as SF/Military author Jack Campbell puts it, when you have an AI capable of independent military action you have an AI capable of questioning its orders and choosing not to comply. And that is NOT a good thing.) |
Thresher01 | 21 Sep 2021 9:20 a.m. PST |
Have you NOT seen Moonraker? |
SBminisguy | 21 Sep 2021 9:21 a.m. PST |
These books by Ken Burnside at Ad Astra games go deep into this subject of near future space combat. Only a few bucks each, well worth it! They also do the "hard" scifi space combat rules Squadron Strike and Attack Vector Tactical.
link |
robert piepenbrink | 21 Sep 2021 9:39 a.m. PST |
Burnside is paying the Godwin estate, isn't he? |
Parzival | 21 Sep 2021 11:36 a.m. PST |
Also visit the Atomic Rockets site link , Winchell Chung's incredible encyclopedia for all things "Hard" sci-fi, which presents the concepts which might work in the real world and the ideas that have less viability than a ice comet trying to pass through the Sun's corona. He has whole sections dealing with weapon concepts, tactics, strategic consideration and more. You can learn a lot form Winchell Chung. Be sure to thank him while there's still time. TMP link |
SBminisguy | 21 Sep 2021 2:49 p.m. PST |
Oh no, love his site and his artwork! |
DyeHard | 22 Sep 2021 10:52 a.m. PST |
A quick thought experiment. If you plan to use asteroids as weapons, consider this: slight physics problem related to the "work" (Energy, force * Time). It takes as much energy to move an asteroid out of its orbit to strike the Earth as it would to take the same mass and lift it from the Earth and put it into that stable orbit. The advantage of starting it space is you can apply a relatively small force over a very long time. So, such a mass weapon is a long time in planning, and once started very hard to alter. Not a reactive strategy. Case study: for Little Boy equivalent (energy of 15 kilotons of TNT (63 TJ)). Using Saturn V engines that generated 7.6 million pounds (34.5 million newtons ) of thrust. So to get the equivalent of the first A-Bomb, you need the thrust output of a Saturn V burning for 1000 miles acting on a mass. The Burn time of the Apollo 11 was 360 seconds, and I believe that was about 58 miles down range. So, you are looking at something like the equivalent of 17 Saturn Vs to dislodge an asteroid from orbit to strike the Earth with the equivalent of an A-Bomb. A much lower thrust acting for a much, much longer time can give you the same end result. |
Parzival | 22 Sep 2021 4:18 p.m. PST |
You can do it with a "gravity tractor," The idea is to send a probe to pass near the asteroid. Gravity will attract the asteroid to the probe (and vice versa), thus altering the asteroid's orbit. Multiple probes over time could be used or a single probe with rocket engines that alter the probe's trajectory, which in turn alters the asteroid's. So no need to attach anything, and "low and slow" is entirely viable. Here's the Atomic Rockets' link: link |
Parzival | 22 Sep 2021 6:45 p.m. PST |
One of my favorite bits from Atomic Rockets is in the discussion of kinetic kill weapons, which establishes that the spaceship mascot could be a source of effective ammunition: link |
|