Combat Space Vehicle Design Theory Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Trev-MUN

Spaceman
... and one hell of a long title.

This doesn't quite have to do with Wing Commander specifically, so I put it here.

So, down to business. If humanity manages to make it to the stars before self-destructing in nuclear war, or some sort of natural disaster, we will most likely have military forces in space.

Space travel for civilians isn't really that much of a deal. You just need a cabin with life support and a thrust + manuvering system at the very base (assuming you're talking about a ship that can't re-enter and exit atmospheres, and docks on airless celestial bodies or stations).

When you get to military craft though, you have a lot to consider.

As if you all didn't know that, being WC fans and all. :P

Well, here's a few questions for you guys to chew on and discuss:

In a realistic space scenario, what would be an optimal design for combat space vehicles? Develop optimal designs for two scenarios - a ship that is incapable of atmopsheric flight, and another that is capable of it.

What weapons would be paramount - missiles, lasers, recoil-less concussion weapons?

Would the modern-day or WWII/WWI era combat theory of "fighter planes," "torpedo bombers," and "attack planes," as displayed in Wing Commander, be a viable form of space combat? If not, why, and is there any sort of technological case in which such a system would be viable?

How would warships play a part in space combat? What types of classes do you forsee, and what would combat be characterized by?

The above questions assume a technology level equal to today or postmodern, but with a focus on space industry. Obviously we have the capability now and we've had it for a long time, but R&D into space has hit a near-literal dead end since the Space Race. If you want, you can also answer from higher technology cases.

I'll probably make an attempt to answer my own questions later - but for now, I leave these to you.
 
Fighters: Vessels with ion powered drives and computers that control thrust so the ship responds like an aircraft to control input.Computer also limits speed during enagements with other craft. Vessel is capable of landing in planetary atmospher or onboard a space object such as a station or ship. Weapons would be: High power lasers or railguns as standard armament as well as high velocity missiles.

Larger Vessels: Most likely Ion or NERVA (Nuclear Powered) drives. Most likely have a hanger of some sort. Weapons would be Lasers, Rail Guns or even Ion cannons that take energy from the engines. Most would be designed to dock with stations or other ships, a few would be able to land on a planet.
 
I would imagine that detection technology would make most 'engagements' non-visual. As in "I don't like this blip on my radar because it really isn't supposed to be there, and isnt' responding to hails, and, again, REALLY isn't supposed to be there. Since it's on my radar, I'll deploy a munition to make sure it *isn't* there anymore."
 
I believe that nuclear weapons will make a BIG comeback if we were to militarize space. Since space is so big and that there is alot of room to move for a target why not just use a huge nuke? Ofcourse rail guns could be the first space ship mounted weapon and most likely a very heavy missile loadout tipped with nukes. That woud be my guess. Another thing I was thinking was that we would need to develope many different avenues of weapon types. What if a race has a laser deflecting technology or rad-sheilds which nullify the effects of a nuclear blast. When it comes to facing off with alien races we need to be prepared to adapt very quickly so why not have a big tool chest?
 
How about this.... retractable wings for atmospheric flight?

I myself have noticed a trend in that the furthur we progress in flight combat, the furthur apart engagements occur. By the time Space Warfare becomes the norm, large ships will be able to slug it out without even being able to see each other visually.

I mean, even now we have laser weapons in development that can swat missiles out of the air like flies, and probably hit fighter craft. Lasers, as far as we're concerned, are instantaneous weapons. Aim at the enemy, and you'll hit them. Now in space, while the distances will probably be much furthur apart, the weapons may take a few minutes to get to the target (that's the kind of distance I'm talking about). However, I don't think fighters would even be deployed. The weapon tracking technology we have is only going to get better, and fighters would not be able to do much against large instant weapons and precision targeting, they wouldn't have the armor take a hit. Plus, I think any kind of shielding technology, is millenia in the making.
 
Any sort of space-to-space weapons system would require an enemy nation to have or be developing a space-based aggressor... we're not going to devote money to developing a space fighter without knowing what it's supposed to be fighting (G)
 
Yes, but you can assume scenarios such as a prolonged space race (if the Soviet Union didn't collapse, and there was still a race going on, I'm sure by now we'd have colonies on the moon, or at least stations in space that are more permanent and viable). In that kind of situation, you would require combat vessels, or some kind of defense system to protect your colonies and stations if a conflict broke out with the other side, right?

As space colonization and travel grow more common, it's not unreasonable to think that piracy would occur, or at least crime. Once you get past the era of small exploration crews and established colonies of scientists and soldiers, you'll eventually begin planting civilian cities on alien planets or orbital stations... You'd at least need some sort of police vehicle, if not a combat one to deal with the rogues...
 
The space race ended, for all intents and purposes, with the N-1 explosion in 1969 (G) NASA's funding disappeared long before the evil Soviet Empire did.
 
Limiting factor is speed of light - allow time for their light to get to you, and your munitions to get back to them (esp. if not using lasers). That aside, the question is how willing combattants are to bring nukes into space.

-small missiles, preferably tactical nukes, will be the weapon of choice against smaller combatants due to their less predictable flight path. Once they get painfully close, railguns or lasers may become a viable option.

-against larger craft, nukes will be the harshest threat - especially nuke-driven lasers fired from great distances. If nukes arent prevalent, then they will become MUCH more important as heavy-assault craft carrying bigger weapons, etc.

result: if nukes are made a big part of spacewar, then combat will be based more around smaller fighter-type craft and disposable nuclear-pulse lasers, as any large installation will be stupidly vulnerable to a swarming assault from extreme ranges. If nukes are kept out (treaties are actually observed and such, wow...) then the big guns will be part of the picture, using lots and lots of missiles, railguns, and perhaps even some lasers. Close combat will become much more prevalent, and the quality of your EW will probably be what keeps you alive until you get to knife-fighting range.
 
Concerning nuclear weapons, I had a previous discussion on their viability in space combat. When a nuclear device is detonated on Earth, the energy released from the impact and free-flying atoms have things to "bump into" - friction from the air is what forms the big booms.

In space, however, when a nuclear device is detonated there is no atmosphere for the resulting energy to be released into. Much like sound waves and lasers, a nuclear device relies on surrounding atoms to form the explosion we know of - so instead of a mushroom cloud or large explosion it's something like a flash bomb of photons and EM radiation. It'll still do the job; it'll damage all surrounding craft, melting them. As a long-range attack, it'd probably be viable as is, these EM blasts would undoubetly bathe the entire surrounding area - after all, it'd be like a star's light... going off in all directions.

Is there a way a nuclear weapon can have its blast focused into a cone? Perhaps a strong magnetic field that engages just before detonation?
 
My sincere apologies for "derailing the conversation".

Oh, crab, the conversation just ran into a bus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top