gchapyzh wrote:PLASMA ACCELERATORS

Take ANY matter (rock, atmosphere, wreckage) super-heat it, and chuck it at great speeds from a giant magnetic cannon at you'r proponent. Easy to find ammunition for, so if you are going to distant galaxies without rearming shipyards, this is you'r top pick.

Do you realize that if you chuck anything at great speeds... whether or not it is superheated or not becomes pretty moot? Speed is the kill factor, not the heat. In fact heat is actually liable to make said object do less damage not more as the process of melting something reduces the solidity of the mass and thus potentially causes losses in mass. It may sound really good in a sci-fi sense, but in reality it means almost nothing. With enough speed to cause damage, heating is pointless. Luckily though Josh isn't working off a realism basis lol. "Real" space combat would actually be pretty boring without sci-fi technology.

TGS wrote:Do you realize that if you chuck anything at great speeds... whether or not it is superheated or not becomes pretty moot? Speed is the kill factor, not the heat. In fact heat is actually liable to make said object do less damage not more as the process of melting something reduces the solidity of the mass and thus potentially causes losses in mass. It may sound really good in a sci-fi sense, but in reality it means almost nothing. With enough speed to cause damage, heating is pointless. Luckily though Josh isn't working off a realism basis lol. "Real" space combat would actually be pretty boring without sci-fi technology.

Yeah, real space combat will be artillery duels, fought over distances of thousands of kilometers, and occasionally the weapons will have thrusters built in to make adjustments as they go.

We have no defence for a steel rod hitting anything at >10000 m/s relative.
And computers are getting to the point that the calculations for that intercept are quick and easy.

Fire a steel rod, and use a few maneuvering thrusters to keep it on target, and have it's end explode into tiny shards before impact.

Silverware wrote:Fire a steel rod, and use a few maneuvering thrusters to keep it on target, and have it's end explode into tiny shards before impact.

Pretty much. lol.

TGS wrote:It may sound really good in a sci-fi sense, but in reality it means almost nothing.

...And that's all that matters! Damn the science, full cool ahead!

TGS wrote:Do you realize that if you chuck anything at great speeds... whether or not it is superheated or not becomes pretty moot? Speed is the kill factor, not the heat.

Heat does work, if it's as extreme as the speed you're talking about. Lasers can punch a hole in steel if they're powerful and focussed enough. Plus they can pass through most (all?) defences without getting deflected like ammo, and there's zero recoil which you would have to deal with otherwise.

And - and this is the ultimate argument that I can't see anyone topping - you can put them *on Sharks*.

Silverware wrote:

TGS wrote:Do you realize that if you chuck anything at great speeds... whether or not it is superheated or not becomes pretty moot? Speed is the kill factor, not the heat. In fact heat is actually liable to make said object do less damage not more as the process of melting something reduces the solidity of the mass and thus potentially causes losses in mass. It may sound really good in a sci-fi sense, but in reality it means almost nothing. With enough speed to cause damage, heating is pointless. Luckily though Josh isn't working off a realism basis lol. "Real" space combat would actually be pretty boring without sci-fi technology.

Yeah, real space combat will be artillery duels, fought over distances of thousands of kilometers, and occasionally the weapons will have thrusters built in to make adjustments as they go.

We have no defence for a steel rod hitting anything at >10000 m/s relative.
And computers are getting to the point that the calculations for that intercept are quick and easy.

Fire a steel rod, and use a few maneuvering thrusters to keep it on target, and have it's end explode into tiny shards before impact.

Beg to differ.

Real space combat will be "whoever sees the other first wins". It's unlikely each ship will see the other at the same time, so whoever sees and identifies the other first will be able to get the first shot off - and it'll likely hit. "Defense" against this will be "find them faster than they can find us".

Ringu wrote: And - and this is the ultimate argument that I can't see anyone topping - you can put them *on Sharks*.

All my yes.

Talvieno wrote: Real space combat will be "whoever sees the other first wins". It's unlikely each ship will see the other at the same time, so whoever sees and identifies the other first will be able to get the first shot off - and it'll likely hit. "Defense" against this will be "find them faster than they can find us".

Even using modern equipment, any spaceship operating will be lit up like a freaking christmas tree, from the thermal emissions required to just keep the thing powered and not melting.

Seeing each other is moot, but seeing the incoming projectile in time is key.
That's exactly what RADAR and LADAR are for though, even dumb rounds of a centimeter in size could be detected fairly rapidly.
Then you just need to move out of their way.

At the absolutely stupid distances at which we could detect an attacker, we have more than enough time to dodge even the fastest of shots from any modern technology.

And assuming humanity keeps every technology roughly on par with other technologies as the currently stand, then all we will do is increase distances and speeds. Which will result in approximately the same allowable reaction times.


Space combat is a situation of Mutually assured destruction. We see each other at roughly the same time, and both can fire plenty of rounds before we are both destroyed. Ensuring the death of us both.

Basically space weapons are like having nukes. You don't shit on each other in-case they decide to shit on you right back. And in space everyone can see the shit stains.

Unless we have lasers. in which case getting out of the way is useless.

getting out of the way is always good, regardless of lightspeed delay

And silver i beg to differ that its easy to see cm sized projectiles over thousands of kilometres, angular resolution is a limited value, and anything that can be called radar would probably need dishes hundreds if not thousands of metres across to detect so small projectiles.
Thats ignoring the fact that you cant really resolve subwavelenght-sized objects.
Then it gets harder

Though I'd chip in here with some ideas...

For the space game I'm working on making, I had to consider all the problems mentioned above. I though of workarounds for some of them which, if not scientifically accurate, at least sound like they are, and work great for gameplay.
Lasers: Spacecraft hulls have an active electromagnetic charge which can weaken lasers, and the hulls are a superconductant, spreading the laser's heat around and acting as a heat-sink to radiate it back to space.
Solid Projectiles: The EM charge wouldn't work on those, but a hull with good enough tensile strength and maybe a little springiness could stop even railgun rounds.
Plasma projectiles: Sort of a combination of the above two types, and in the gameplay, usually the most effective. The main disadvantage is that the dissipate rapidly, limiting range severely.

This is just hulls. I thought up some special shields:
Directional EM: May not be possible in real life, but I'm not sure. Basically a special projector manages to create an EM field a considerable distance away (10-100 meters) which acts as a cushion on incoming threats. Think about it: any projectile would be propelled from the gun with electromagnets, yes? Use the same to stop it. I don't think they'd stop lasers though, unless the EM refracts the laser beam away.
Direction grav: same as above, but uses gravitational fields instead of EM. Much more effective versus lasers.
Spatial warp: Essentially a spot of space rippling in every direction. An incoming projectile would be torn to pieces in every direction, and the shield would use the same amount of power no matter the shot size, since it is distorting space and is therefore irrespective of mass. I got this idea from thinking of what would happen if someone could weaponize an Alcubierre drive.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head...

--IronDuke

Cornflakes_91 wrote:getting out of the way is always good, regardless of lightspeed delay

And silver i beg to differ that its easy to see cm sized projectiles over thousands of kilometres, angular resolution is a limited value, and anything that can be called radar would probably need dishes hundreds if not thousands of metres across to detect so small projectiles.
Thats ignoring the fact that you cant really resolve subwavelenght-sized objects.
Then it gets harder

That's what LADAR is for, using Light wavelengths instead of radio.
Send a burst out on one wavelength, anything that returns in under a particular time is obviously close, and evasive maneuvers should be taken. :V

Netzbummler wrote:The completely unnecessary stepping up the tensions by the US might soon enough lead to the next Cuban Crisis - and with loose cannons like the Poles, the Baltics or the Bulgarians you never know who has a twitchy trigger finger.

Do the Poles, the Baltics and the Bulgarians have unclear missiles or plan an invasion I didn't hear of? It's really up to the higher world powers, like USA, China or Russia, not some minor European states.

Except that the whole NATO has to step in if one of those "minor european countries" decides to shoot other countries.

Either to protect them (many are part of the NATO) or simply to protect itself from loose guns at its borders.

The NATO cant and wont tolerate any conflict in europe.

And even without that, the US couldnt allow any threatening of the not that unimportant european market, so they'd have to step into any war thats emerging in or around the EU

Cornflakes_91 wrote:The NATO cant and wont tolerate any conflict in europe.

And even without that, the US couldnt allow any threatening of the not that unimportant european market, so they'd have to step into any war thats emerging in or around the EU

First of all - technically NATO is a defensive pact and is supposed to act only when its members are attacked.

Secondly - If NATO will be "not tolerating any conflict in europe" and "stepping into any war thats emerging in or around the EU" then what about Ukraine? It's directly on the border of the European Union and NATO still didn't make its move. To make it even more interesting the combined Baltic states were so concerned with the whole situation that their combined military leaders asked together directly why NATO (America) isn't reinforcing their borders.

Safe-r wrote: First of all - technically NATO is a defensive pact and is supposed to act only when its members are attacked.

Yeah, fine, and now ignite some war in poland and see what happens in germany.
It will be anything, but definitely not nothing.
Germany would be reinforced, from there on a single misshap could start a wildfire

Safe-r wrote: Secondly - If NATO will be "not tolerating any conflict in europe" and "stepping into any war thats emerging in or around the EU" then what about Ukraine? It's directly on the border of the European Union and NATO still didn't make its move. To make it even more interesting the combined Baltic states were so concerned with the whole situation that their combined military leaders asked together directly why NATO (America) isn't reinforcing their borders.

Because they dont want to start a war with russia.

The ukraine was in talks about joining NATO, a military organisation that was founded as an alliance against russia
The whole war in the ukraine is russias way of saying "this is close enough".