Real space battles would be more 'Asteroids' than 'Star Wars'

engadget.com ^ | Sep 28 2014 | Jon Fingas

[Utilizer]

You're probably aware that most sci-fi space battles aren't realistic. The original Star Wars' Death Star scene was based on a World War II movie, for example. But have you wondered what it would really be like to duke it out in the void? PBS is more than happy to explain in its latest It's Okay To Be Smart video.

-break-

...even close-up combat might not happen. Given the sheer distances and the limits of the speed of light, it might look more like classic naval warfare...

[zeugma]

B5 did OK as far as dealing straight with physics. If you dig military SF, the Honor Harrington series by David Drake does a really good job of explaining what real battles in space might be like. It’s more martime warfare in space than star wars. Large ships of the wall standing off firing broadsides. Battles are fought at such distances that you don’t actually “see” anything except through sensors.

[gura]

Also if you have to repair a cube in space all you have to carry are flat plates.

[zeugma]

The drones were disposable but effective combat vehicles. Some might be fitted with nukes for surface strikes. The drone itself can also be used as a kinetic energy weapon if it has a long enough run to get enough velocity built up.

You don't need nukes for surface strikes. Kinetic weapons from orbit, or even far outside of an orbital could do just about any damage you could hope for without irradiating the ground (assuming you eventually wanted to occupy the low ground)

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Oddly enough, one of the best depictions of space warfare using energy weapons, was in the otherwise mediocre Sci-Fi comedy movie Galaxina, starring the tragic Playboy model, Dorothy Stratten, and the comedy of Avery Schreiber.

It was explained in the movie that the two ships would park next to each other in stabilized positions, and use their laser weapons against each others shields, ineffectively.

Then, in an hour or three, one of the two ships would have a mechanical breakdown of some kind, so it would lose the fight and surrender to the other. Spacemen were so blase about it that they would just let the two ships duke it out while they took a nap.

[Little Ray]

Or you could put a block of ceramic cubes on the nose of the drone (acts as armor) then, when it gets close enough deploy them explosively to saturate the probable target volume.
A 1 inch cube of hard ceramic at 10 miles per second will make a heck of an impression on the target.

[NorthMountain]

Jack Campbell’s “Lost Fleet” books present credible speculation on what “space warfare” might look like. Also Ian Douglas’ “Marines in Space” books are interesting.

[Pollster1]

http://freeread.com.au/@RGLibrary/EEDocSmith/Lensmen/@Lensmen.html

For those who like old stuff (not as old as Wells, but still a while back), E. E. ‘Doc’ Smith’s Lensman series had some creative weapons. Antimatter asteroids and rogue planets as inertial weapons for crushing enemy planets come to mind.

[HeadOn]

Many, many years ago, I was involved with the “A-Sat” or, anti-satellite rocket engine. It was a relatively small rocket engine which could be mounted to the belly of an F-15 which would climb at a certain angle and launch it.

A bunch of us young engineers were to mount it in a test cell for firing. I asked one of the older guys what kind of warhead would be mounted when it was used. He said “none”. It was simply an inertia weapon! It only had to get in the path of its target and run into it. Made perfect sense. Satellites are pretty fragile...

[P.O.E.]

I was more of a “Centipede” fan.

[chrisser]

Sounds like a fun project to be on!

Have you done similar things since?

[Charles Martel]

That makes me sad as the only job for “Captain Virtue and his Foil Spacesuit” will be Intergalatic Janitor...

Infocom guessed right on that one...

[ealgeone]

Yes. I’ve enjoyed the last ship. Looking forward to next season.

[Oztrich Boy]

If you dig military SF, the Honor Harrington series by David Drake does a really good job of explaining what real battles in space might be like. It’s more martime warfare in space than star wars. Large ships of the wall standing off firing broadsides. Battles are fought at such distances that you don’t actually “see” anything except through sensors.

Weber not Drake.

And even manouvering at 500 G acceleration, it takes hours (or days) to get into range. Space is big.

[zeugma]

You’re right. Weber. In my defence, they do seem to write similar stuff. :-)

[Utilizer]

Glad you agree. :)

[Utilizer]

Weber not Drake.

You caught that one too, eh? Drake writes a lot of material. You might want to look up the Baen Free Library, and related issued/produced Free Library CDs. I think there were 24 CDs released in total (that I have been able to find to date) for a great mound of free reading material.

[Utilizer]

Of course, David Weber writes quite a lot as well, some very interesting indeed.

[Utilizer]

Of course, David Weber writes quite a lot as well, some very interesting indeed.

[Utilizer]

Ooops. Don’t know how the double-post occurred.

[JamesP81]

You don't need nukes for surface strikes. Kinetic weapons from orbit, or even far outside of an orbital could do just about any damage you could hope for without irradiating the ground (assuming you eventually wanted to occupy the low ground)

A good point, and what this shows is that space combat's nature will also be strongly shaped by the available tech. You only need nukes if you lack the weapons tech to quickly reach the high velocities needed for kinetic energy weapons while also lacking the power generation and heat disspation for energy weapons (lasers).

Tech is less of an issue for planetary bombardment because you can use the target planet's gravity well against it.

In a lower tech paradigm where weapons tech doesn't allow you to fire projectiles at very high velocity, and power generation and/or heat dissipation makes lasers difficult, nukes can be viable as long as they can reliably delivered.

But in a paradigm where power generation, heat dissipation, and weapons tech do allow those things, nukes are kind of worthless. Lasers give you better accuracy and alleviate the need to carry ammunition, and kinetic energy weapons give you nuclear level firepower while keeping ammunition costs very low.

It's all dependent on the technology, as warfare always has been.