I imagine that a new type of warship will emerge wich makes all matter-based attacks useless. It would be little more than a giant reactor, engines, and hundreds of beams weapons on turrets, allowing it to destroy any incoming fighters or missiles with ease. It could even block railgun shots by seeing the aim of the gun and calculating where the shot will go. But these beams would probably not be very powerful and of shirt range, so a normal warship would destroy it easily. But it would act as a seperate PD ship, much like the Lancer frigates in Star Wars.

Admiral Benden, on Sep 16 2005, 04:22 PM, said:

The fuel sources that look viable for space travel are not ones that you can just casually throw onto a fighter. They generally involve initiating chemical reactions behind your ship and riding a wave of nuclear fusion.
View Post

You just mixed chemical and nuclear reactions, they're pretty independant. Chemical reactions just don't produce enough energy density to trigger any nuclear reactions.

rmx256, on Sep 18 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

I think that the TIE and X wing, in fact all small craft in SW were repulsor powered in gravity- aerodynamic surfaces thier wings certainly were not! In the SW world you can probably have vast flying cubes that would perform as well as any TIE or X wing.
View Post

The X-Wings did have some aerodynamic abilities, though not much. But the TIEs, those things were terrible in atmosphere, any attepto to turn to either side could rip off the solar panels, and then you lose power. The X-Wings wings are also used for maneuvering.

Klepsacovic, on Oct 5 2005, 04:16 PM, said:

Chemical reactions just don't produce enough energy density to trigger any nuclear reactions.
View Post

Perhaps you were napping and missed the last, oh, I don't know, six decades? To date, chemical reactions are the only reliable method we have of starting nuclear chain reactions at all.

Qaanol, on Oct 5 2005, 01:54 PM, said:

Perhaps you were napping and missed the last, oh, I don't know, six decades? To date, chemical reactions are the only reliable method we have of starting nuclear chain reactions at all.
View Post

Bullet method used in the hiroshima bomb isn't exactly chemical. It uses a chemical explosion to propel a "bullet" of uranium to impact a larger chunk to cause fission. Technically yes it's chemical, but you could also use a really large spring.

Fat boy wrapped the nuke in conventional explosives to reach the requisite density.

Anyway. I wanna fly a fighter through an asteroid field. Lets get some blueprints people, pronto. I have $500 I could spare. Anybody care to match my contribution a billion to one?

Admiral Benden, on Sep 10 2005, 01:06 PM, said:

Source
View Post

I was going to post that link! Anyway, good stuff, I'd suggest everyone interested go and spend a few hours reading through each section.

I have to say that in terms of science fiction, I am quite impressed by Schlock Mercenary (gravitics, AI, and point defense) and Andromeda (AI, point defense, figters that can blow away whole battlecruisers) in the ways they've done space warfare.

Anyway, my thoughts are as follows:

A planet is basically a big fort. Big walls, but a jet fighter can drop a bomb through a window from 10,000 feet in the air and kill your leader before you know what happened. Essentially, a planet is vulnerable to the extreme to modern (future) technology. It can be observed, and it can be destroyed. Defense is not really an option when your enemy knows everything about you and has but to spend a little time and effort planning the perfect attack. If you know they have bases here, here, and there, you target them in the first nanoseconds of battle. So planetary-scale attacks would be quick and deadly. Virtually any goal can be accomplished, be it resource acquisition (slag the planet from space to wipe out the native population), or submission (hit the capital city and military to eliminate organized opposition, threaten the planet with complete annihilation if the population refuses to cooperate with their new rulers). In essence, if you seek to own a planet, you are immobilized and relatively helpless. Your only choices for defense are to make an attack too costly (in this case, quantity is better than quality), or maintain a proper retaliatory force off-planet and mobile. The former is never a sure thing (in a universe as large as ours, there is guaranteed to be somebody with big enough pockets to attack you), and the latter is also risky (a force large enough to counter-attack is going to be hard to hide, and there's no way to tell how large a force that will have to be). Regardless, I'd place my bets on a MAD-style truce to keep people from wiping each other out.

As for ships and fleets, it's all just a numbers game. They are expensive, and it's better for everybody if they're never used. They're probably controlled remotely or automated in some way (saves energy on life support). If people are actually needed, they'd probably be placed in tiny hard-to-detect control ships, away from the actual weapons of war. There wouldn't be much ship-to-ship fighting, at least not much to comment on. Ships would be able to see each other pretty clearly across the empty space, and destroying each other would be trivial. It all comes down to superior intelligence and statistical probabilities. If you're going to conquer somebody, you simply send more to attack than the enemy has to defend, and figure out how much you can afford to lose. Meanwhile, the defenders only have but to figure out who is attacking them, and send the retaliatory forces to your own homeworld.

Basically, when it comes to space warfare, it's best just not to do it. Peace and love to you all, may your valuable trading partnerships fill your coffers and make your people happy.

Now, and here's the catch, if space warfare is too risky and expensive, and quite bad for business, I'd suggest you simply resort to more conventional means of getting what you want: politics and economics. Have your spies spread propaganda and fund puppet figureheads to run for office. Assassinate your rivals, use mercenaries to destroy supply depots, form alliances with others to oppose (through economics or otherwise) your enemies. I can very well see the kind of feudal societies found in the Dune universe. Only the very rich can afford to move resources about, and since it's quite risky and against the self-imposed rules to nuke your fellow planetary rulers, you resort to poisoning them or slipping a knife in their back. After all, you don't want to lose the laborers your enemies rule, they can increase your economic power by working for you when you take over with subtlety.

NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 6 2005, 12:30 AM, said:

I wanna fly a fighter through an asteroid field.
View Post

Do you know the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field?

Klepsacovic, on Oct 5 2005, 01:16 PM, said:

I imagine that a new type of warship will emerge wich makes all matter-based attacks useless. It would be little more than a giant reactor, engines, and hundreds of beams weapons on turrets, allowing it to destroy any incoming fighters or missiles with ease. It could even block railgun shots by seeing the aim of the gun and calculating where the shot will go. But these beams would probably not be very powerful and of shirt range, so a normal warship would destroy it easily. But it would act as a seperate PD ship, much like the Lancer frigates in Star Wars.

So you basically think space warfare will evolve into everyone using energy weapons? Ok, you know how hard it would be to intercept a railgun shot? By the time you detect the tiny tiny projectile, it would hit you. I doubt the rotational speed of a turret is fast enough to intercept it... that's assuming it'll even hit.

Technically, particle beams are matter. You wouldn't stop those with point defense systems.

Quote

The X-Wings did have some aerodynamic abilities, though not much. But the TIEs, those things were terrible in atmosphere, any attepto to turn to either side could rip off the solar panels, and then you lose power. The X-Wings wings are also used for maneuvering.

Well you see, TIE = Twin Ion Engine. Ion engines don't work in an atmosphere. A TIE would drop to the ground and explode due to 0 aerodynamic lift. An X-Wing would perform horribly in an atmosphere... no control surfaces what-so-ever. It might be able to fly due to its engines overpowering the need for lift (like a missle does) and a combination with their anti-grav stuff, but in combat it would be defenseless.

NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 5 2005, 09:30 PM, said:

Fat boy wrapped the nuke in conventional explosives to reach the requisite density.

Anyway. I wanna fly a fighter through an asteroid field. Lets get some blueprints people, pronto. I have $500 I could spare. Anybody care to match my contribution a billion to one?
View Post

Fat man was a plutonium fission bomb using high explosives to reach critical mass. Little boy was a uranium fission bomb, used on Hiroshima, that used a bullet-type system to make the uranium achieve critical mass, not explosives.

Qaanol, on Oct 6 2005, 02:47 PM, said:

Do you know the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field?
View Post

Approximately 1 to 3720. The quote has it backwards

This post has been edited by Koshinn : 06 October 2005 - 09:46 PM

mrxak, on Oct 6 2005, 01:32 AM, said:

<snip>

Hmm... I just though of a possible analogy for space "combat" as seen in that post: Go, on a truely grand scale. Lots of strategy and manuvering, little actual combat.
And just to re-iterate, space combat depends entirely on the laws of the universe. mrxak has nicely summarized the basic extension of current technology, but if you postulate, say, planet-sized shields, things get a lot more interesting...

Edwards

Edwards, on Oct 7 2005, 01:47 AM, said:

Hmm... I just though of a possible analogy for space "combat" as seen in that post: Go, on a truely grand scale. Lots of strategy and manuvering, little actual combat.
And just to re-iterate, space combat depends entirely on the laws of the universe. mrxak has nicely summarized the basic extension of current technology, but if you postulate, say, planet-sized shields, things get a lot more interesting...

Edwards
View Post

Sounds like a reasonable analogy.

As for planet-sized shields, I believe the energy requirements would be... prohibitive. Plus, if you completely enclose a planet, commerce, communication, all the great wonders of civilization become fairly impossible. If "holes" are allowed to let such things pass, they can be exploited by the enemy just as easily as knowing where your orbital defense platforms are (simple observation is all that's required). A better mechanism to prevent total destruction would be to simply have extremely good sensors multiplied many more times than seemingly necessary, in several layers (even enclosing the solar system, if affordable), and have your defense systems at full alert at all times. To steal a motivational tool from the Dune series, have those defenders' families stay below on the planet, to make sure those watching the sensors are especially vigilant.

Naturally you have more defenders farther out in a sphere far enough away from the planet so that the more casual observer looking at the planet itself won't see them. But do keep in mind that there is nothing casual about planning an attack on an entire world, and these outer defense spheres are nothing more than sacrificial human sensors. If they start to stop communicating with you, you know you're under attack, and have a little bit of time to try to evacuate the important people ;).

Ultimately, besides a MAD-style arrangement (which is of questionable deterrent capability if you don't actually share the same atmosphere), I believe the best defense is in secrecy. The Halo universe covers this idea fairly well. Don't let the enemy find your homeworld, and it will be safe. If they do find it, you're basically screwed. The only way to plan such an attack is to do it very carefully and quietly (else everyone else nukes you first), which can all but guarantee that the attack will be completely successful.

Koshinn, on Oct 6 2005, 10:31 PM, said:

Approximately 1 to 3720. The quote has it backwards
View Post

You could look at it that way. Or you could just assume the word "against" was omitted, as in "3,720 to 1 against."

shrug

Qaanol, on Oct 7 2005, 10:29 AM, said:

You could look at it that way. Or you could just assume the word "against" was omitted, as in "3,720 to 1 against."

shrug
View Post

Well the way the quote goes, it's wrong. Kind of like parsecs being used as a measure of time rather than distance. Then again he says "I made the Kessel Run in (insert number) parsecs." which could mean that the Kessel Run isn't a race as you'd think, but instead a thing where finding the shortest path is the goal, not going the fastest... but that'd just be weird.

Oh, my take on space combat... anyone read the Aliens Technical Manual? It describes the Aliens universe's space combat with the colonial marine corps. That is the most realistic thing I've seen. Basically... you engage w/ your enemy at long range using missiles, medium range with lasers and particle beams and close range wtih rail guns. The ATM makes fun of tv and movies and how they portray space combat... it isn't romantic, it isn't glorious, it's just slaughter. Whoever spots their target first has a decided advantage in the encounter. It's why their ships emphasize stealth more. There isn't any super-advanced technology involved... it's very close to reality.

---------------------------

You know, we could figure this out the easy and fun way.... through a kind of war game. One group plays nation A, one group plays nation B, and we have a small group of people as referees to say what's legal and what isn't in terms of physics and what's achievable in technology.

Here's how it would work: First we set a projected year that's agreeable to all and probably a method for FTL travel (to use EVN terms, either a hypergate system or a jump drive system, the difference being when/where you can move faster than light). Once that's set in stone, we have a week or so for side A and B to research tactics and technology. Then both sides present their doctrines and the primary technology they will use, and this part is important, with cited evidence from credible sources , including a projected time frame for the technology to be completed within the set time frame of the war game. There would probably have 2-3 different scenarios the teams would have to plan for; planetary siege (playing both sides) and in-system random encounters outside of a planetary gravity well... there may be more, but I'd have to think about it.

After their technology is deemed reasonable by the judges/refs, they will see how the two sides do against eachother with a hopefully objective view point, see what would prevail. After that they post the results and which tactics/strategies/technology combinations worked and which didn't against their opponents. After team A and B learn from their mistakes/successes, they go back for another week to plan and strategize again. Repeat until everyone is satisfied with the results of the wargame.

The purpose isn't to necessarilly win, it's to learn. Winning helps the learning process as trying your absolute best is paramount, but even the side that loses a lot will learn something about space combat, probably better than the side that won.

This post has been edited by Koshinn : 08 October 2005 - 01:12 AM

If I didn't have inlaw engagements over the next two days I would be all over that proposition...

And if you are refering to the combat system of the "Aliens" RPG- yes, it was incredibly realistic. But from my two whole experiences trying to roleplay that auful system it was totally hideous to actually run.

Back to your regularly schedualed topic...

This post has been edited by rmx256 : 08 October 2005 - 06:23 AM

That sounds like fun. It would definitely be a better way of "evolving" space combat than just having a bunch of people independantly thinking it through. You just need to find some impartial referees, who don't want to join in the fun...

@mrxak: Yes, planetary shields may not work, but I was just trying to remind people that by mutilating the laws of physics slightly, they can make combat much more interesting to play in EV. Delicate diplomatic manuvering just doesn't make for good first-person action.

Edwards

Edwards, on Oct 8 2005, 11:54 PM, said:

That sounds like fun. It would definitely be a better way of "evolving" space combat than just having a bunch of people independantly thinking it through. You just need to find some impartial referees, who don't want to join in the fun...

@mrxak: Yes, planetary shields may not work, but I was just trying to remind people that by mutilating the laws of physics slightly, they can make combat much more interesting to play in EV. Delicate diplomatic manuvering just doesn't make for good first-person action.

Edwards
View Post

Should make a new thread with a link to and from this thread, list rules and start a signup. But I'm busy atm.

Thats what I was talking aboot in my earlier post, eh?

NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 9 2005, 03:00 PM, said:

Thats what I was talking aboot in my earlier post, eh?
View Post

Elaborate please? Or provide link? I'm confused. :blink:

mrzak said:

To steal a motivational tool from the Dune series, have those defenders' families stay below on the planet, to make sure those watching the sensors are especially vigilant.

Actually, the earliest reference to that stratagy I can think of is the Bible (forgive my spelling of those complicated Jewish names... it's late and I'm too lazy to look them up exactly). After Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babelonians there was no wall for what remained of the city. Eventually Neamiah (I know this spelling is wrong, sorry) led a group of Jews to resettle it. One bit problem was rebuilding the walls. So in order to motivate people he had people rebuilt the wall that was closest to their homes.

Sorry, I don't have much else to add at the moment. You guys are much better at physics than I am, at 11:30 PM anyways.

Okay guys - got the Wargame thread up and running. Click here to go and have a look - I've set up some basic rules and hopefully it should work.

And just to be a nitpicker, Phyvo, you spell it "Babylonians". Sorry, couldn't resist.

Koshinn, on Oct 8 2005, 02:09 AM, said:

Well the way the quote goes, it's wrong. Kind of like parsecs being used as a measure of time rather than distance. Then again he says "I made the Kessel Run in (insert number) parsecs." which could mean that the Kessel Run isn't a race as you'd think, but instead a thing where finding the shortest path is the goal, not going the fastest... but that'd just be weird.View Post

Relativity, my man. Watch what happens to distances as your speed increases.

Phyvo, on Oct 9 2005, 11:22 PM, said:

mrxak said:

To steal a motivational tool from the Dune series, have those defenders' families stay below on the planet, to make sure those watching the sensors are especially vigilant.

Actually, the earliest reference to that stratagy I can think of is the Bible (forgive my spelling of those complicated Jewish names... it's late and I'm too lazy to look them up exactly). After Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babelonians there was no wall for what remained of the city. Eventually Neamiah (I know this spelling is wrong, sorry) led a group of Jews to resettle it. One bit problem was rebuilding the walls. So in order to motivate people he had people rebuilt the wall that was closest to their homes.

Sorry, I don't have much else to add at the moment. You guys are much better at physics than I am, at 11:30 PM anyways.
View Post

Oh, I'm quite sure that Frank Herbert did extensive research in a large number of religious texts before he wrote that particular book, and got many an idea from them. Still, I'm sure the Bible didn't mention anything about planetary defense platforms ;).