Space combat in the future.

[Asper Sarnoff]

Since this thread went quite a bit off-topic, and instead got on the track of another interesting subject, I've taken the liberty of creating this thread to continue this discussion.

[Guest DRL]

I already said what I wanted to say.

To me space combat is almost inevitable, for

one reason or another, there WILL be,

at least, one war in space. The reasons

are simple, greed, power, corruption,

discrimination... And such.

Althrough, 'almost' inevitable indicates

that there is a chance, albeit small it may be,

that there will be no wars at all. I highly doubt

this, however.

We simply have absolutely no idea

of how the future will be...

And just to clarifiy, no, I am not going to

debate again. As I mentioned before, with

all respect to those who like or enjoy it, it

absolutely bores me big time.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

You knew somebody would post this eventually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHjwejoD-Iw

:P

[Robert Monroe]

I'm not going argue anymore about this.

Space combat in the forseeable future is a scientific absurdity. Speculating beyond that is just making things up and crazy what ifs, pure fantasy.

[Steve]

I'm pretty sure we are still a couple hundred of years away from this, unless I get to live that much, which I doubt, I won't worry about it.

[Eagle Kammback]

I wonder who would be in charge, US Air Force or NASA??

And then, BAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxb3mgAh3Ao

[Asper Sarnoff]

I said your ARGUEMENT was wrong, not your opinion. Your arguement was implying that silence and isolation in space can not be entertaining, which is a fallacious statement.

I don't view arguments as complete, true absolutes. They are all opinions in my eyes. No matter if they come from me, you, or anyone else really. One might view them as more true if oneself agree with them, or throw them aside if they conflict with what yourself believe. In the end, an argument is something you use to broadcast your opinion. Thus you saying my arguments are false, I take it that you view my opinions as false. And I'm sorry Robert., but you're not in a position to say that.

Indeed, and so far all educated geusses and speculation is saying that space combat would be completely insane of an idea.

"All" is a very strong word. Haven't really seen any reason why your educated guess would be worth more than my own.

[Guest DRL]

I don't view arguments as complete, true absolutes. They are all opinions in my eyes. No matter if they come from me, you, or anyone else really. One might view them as more true if oneself agree with them, or throw them aside if they conflict with what yourself believe. In the end, an argument is something you use to broadcast your opinion. Thus you saying my arguments are false, I take it that you view my opinions as false. And I'm sorry Robert., but you're not in a position to say that.

I have to agree with you, Asper.

No matter how Robert insist on calling my argument

"Maked up shit", I am still NOT going to change my point

of view, and that is, he is going to keep his.

[Scott7]

its probably going to happen sooner or later, but there really isn't anything out there that that our planet wants to get its hands of. And even if there was it would depend if something else out there has a form of ownership of it or not.

So its likely that it won't happen any time soon.

[Mr. Foxer]

If there ever will be, it'll be us and the Russians.

[Guest DRL]

If there ever will be, it'll be us and the Russians.

:facepalm:

[Robert Monroe]

Well I had a nice post about structuring arguements and shit, but then my computer decided to eat it and now I just don't care, so here's some last words, foot notes edition:

-Silent space can be entertaining, it is your opinion on whether or not it works.

-Due to Isaac Newton being the baddest MF in space, and the cost of operating in space and trainig people to operate things in space, warfare in space would be enormously unproductive, basically boiling down to fragile ships shooting each other with missles causing billions of dollars in damages.

I'm not saying its impossible. I'm saying its entirely inconvienent and complex to make it worthwhile the effort.

[Guest DRL]

Well I had a nice post about structuring arguements and shit, but then my computer decided to eat it and now I just don't care, so here's some last words, foot notes edition:

-Silent space can be entertaining, it is your opinion on whether or not it works.

-Due to Isaac Newton being the baddest MF in space, and the cost of operating in space and trainig people to operate things in space, warfare in space would be enormously unproductive, basically boiling down to fragile ships shooting each other with missles causing billions of dollars in damages.

I'm not saying its impossible. I'm saying its entirely inconvienent and complex to make it worthwhile the effort.

Those are points I can agree with, however,

we all know that as time goes on things become

cheaper.

Today, space combat would be improductive

- and useless - simply because making a ship costs too much.

I am purely speculating - Yes - but if everything goes

'smoothly' in the future ships would be as common as cars,

or at least as airplanes. Having a piloting licence would perhaps

cost as much time as a getting a car license, where today you

have to train extensively for ~6 years in orden to even sit on

one ship.

In sort... Not sure how space combat would be in the future,

or if there will be a reason for it to be (well, pirates come to

my mind, but nothing sort-of-space-police can not take

care of).

But today, we are far better using ships for science rather

than anything else. We have still to reach Mars  .

[Robert Monroe]

But today, we are far better using ships for science rather

than anything else. We have still to reach Mars  .

Looking damn forward to the speculated manned Mars missions! And the new lunar missions...

[Guest DRL]

Looking damn forward to the speculated manned Mars missions! And the new lunar missions...

Well, a lunar base will be setup that

will help transporting stuff from Earth to

other places. If I am right, part of the base

desing will be the same to that of Mars's.

[Robert Monroe]

Well, a lunar base will be setup that

will help transporting stuff from Earth to

other places. If I am right, part of the base

desing will be the same to that of Mars's.

Mst certainly. Moon has no gravity, so it'll be much more efficient to launch spacecraft from it to reach Mars than from Earth.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Well, a lunar base will be setup that

will help transporting stuff from Earth to

other places. If I am right, part of the base

desing will be the same to that of Mars's.

^ Totally.

Mst certainly. Moon has no gravity, so it'll be much more efficient to launch spacecraft from it to reach Mars than from Earth.

Agreed!

As for space combat, it would be expensive...and even with the technology caught up enough so it wouldn't be expensive, nothing would beat a good ol' fashioned ground battle, so space would not be the exclusive place of combat.

"Fire giant boob nipple gun!" *gun is fired, and then a rebel soldier puts his hand on it, laughs, and then goes back to his bunker*

[Asper Sarnoff]

I'm not saying its impossible. I'm saying its entirely inconvienent and complex to make it worthwhile the effort.

Good. Now we're on the same page.

Mst certainly. Moon has no gravity, so it'll be much more efficient to launch spacecraft from it to reach Mars than from Earth.

It DOES have gravity, although far less than earth. Around 1/6 if memory serves.

But it's only natural that one's going to bypass the atmosphere and all the energy required to pass trough that as soon as we have the ability to do so. Only problem then, is how one's going to get the building material up there. Seen some good ideas on a solution, and a lot of rather bad ones.

Any thoughts on this?

[LoneWolf]

Well, I would imagine it would be very slow. In space you can't just turn on a dime, you have to stop, rotate, then move. The optimal vehicle for space would be something like this:

That's the borg cube. Yes, I am a trekkie. Now PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED!

Anyways, back OT, I also think that most laser weapons would be invisible to the naked eye, and other than that, heat seeking missiles and nuclear weapons would dominate.

[Robert Monroe]

Well, I would imagine it would be very slow. In space you can't just turn on a dime, you have to stop, rotate, then move.

.... Wat.

WAT.

Yes, you CAN turn on a dime in space. THERE IS NO BANKING YOU CAN PULL A FULL 180 DEGREES AND KEEP GOING IN SPACE. Stopping would involve applying an equal force in REVERSE just to keep yourself from moving.

Also, laser weapons are things of fantasy. A bigass metal object loaded with explosives would be a much more effective weapon, because Isaac Newton is the baddest mofo in a vaccuum. Heat seeking missles would be difficult to utilize because space is full of ambient radiation, but at the same time ship vessels would generate a much larger amount of radiation in a local area at a given time. Nuclear weaponry would just be redundant, as the massive blast from them is wasted when pretty much ANYTHING in space would be destroyed in one hit.

And just so I'm not raging I'll reply to Asper which I apparently forgot to do.

It DOES have gravity, although far less than earth. Around 1/6 if memory serves.

But it's only natural that one's going to bypass the atmosphere and all the energy required to pass trough that as soon as we have the ability to do so. Only problem then, is how one's going to get the building material up there. Seen some good ideas on a solution, and a lot of rather bad ones.

Any thoughts on this?

Ok, yeah, the moon -technically- has gravity. But it is so entirely feeble its almost negligent, especially for a big bad rocket. On Earth, all that fuel used on a rocket is mostly just to break atmo, and then the rocket's coast on the inertia to their destination. With a station or moon based launch base, you could launch rockets much farther because they can use a lot less fuel to reach the same distance.

[Showtime 1-1]

I think space battles would be very similar to naval battles, mostly matters of standoffs. And they're probably still use projectile weapons. As for the issue of maneuverability, it won't matter as much as in atmospheric combat. Fighters will be replaced with remotely controlled units which don't have the limitations of a pilot, but the major factors in battle will be armed large spacecraft, basically your battleships in space.

To tell the truth, I hope there is never a battle that takes place in space. It's a horrible place to fight and die in. I like the fantasy battles much better.

[Asper Sarnoff]

And just so I'm not raging I'll reply to Asper which I apparently forgot to do.

Ok, yeah, the moon -technically- has gravity. But it is so entirely feeble its almost negligent, especially for a big bad rocket. On Earth, all that fuel used on a rocket is mostly just to break atmo, and then the rocket's coast on the inertia to their destination. With a station or moon based launch base, you could launch rockets much farther because they can use a lot less fuel to reach the same distance.

Of course, that's why it's such an appealing thought. But again, with launch stations based in space or on the moon, they doesn't make the vessels it launches out of thin air. It has to be shipped up there in pieces and then put together, or manufactured entirely in space, none of which are simple tasks to achieve.

See as there's no sign of us being able to extensively use the resources found out in space anytime soon, the first one looks the most promising.

I did hear a lot about the idea someone had of actually building some kind of elevator connecting earth and a space station outside the atmosphere and sending people and equipment up with that. If that's indeed possible, and boy do I have serious doubts about that, it would solve a great many problems associated with further exploration of space(Goes without saying it would create a bunch of new ones, but those we'll deal with as they present themself.).

[LoneWolf]

.... Wat.

WAT.

Yes, you CAN turn on a dime in space. THERE IS NO BANKING YOU CAN PULL A FULL 180 DEGREES AND KEEP GOING IN SPACE. Stopping would involve applying an equal force in REVERSE just to keep yourself from moving.

Also, laser weapons are things of fantasy. A bigass metal object loaded with explosives would be a much more effective weapon, because Isaac Newton is the baddest mofo in a vaccuum. Heat seeking missles would be difficult to utilize because space is full of ambient radiation, but at the same time ship vessels would generate a much larger amount of radiation in a local area at a given time. Nuclear weaponry would just be redundant, as the massive blast from them is wasted when pretty much ANYTHING in space would be destroyed in one hit.

Well, you definitely wouldn't be able to dart around like an X-Wing. You would have to decelerate to change direction.

Laser weapons do exist.

And as for nuclear weapons, well, they would be much more efficient in space because they would only disintegrate the target, because of the lack of atoms to split in the vaccum of space. Very efficient.

[Robert Monroe]

Of course, that's why it's such an appealing thought. But again, with launch stations based in space or on the moon, they doesn't make the vessels it launches out of thin air. It has to be shipped up there in pieces and then put together, or manufactured entirely in space, none of which are simple tasks to achieve.

See as there's no sign of us being able to extensively use the resources found out in space anytime soon, the first one looks the most promising.

I did hear a lot about the idea someone had of actually building some kind of elevator connecting earth and a space station outside the atmosphere and sending people and equipment up with that. If that's indeed possible, and boy do I have serious doubts about that, it would solve a great many problems associated with further exploration of space(Goes without saying it would create a bunch of new ones, but those we'll deal with as they present themself.).

The assembly and construction of ships would indeed still be difficult, but that's another point entirely, and one I am less familiar on.

Well, you definitely wouldn't be able to dart around like an X-Wing. You would have to decelerate to change direction.

Laser weapons do exist.

And as for nuclear weapons, well, they would be much more efficient in space because they would only disintegrate the target, because of the lack of atoms to split in the vaccum of space. Very efficient.

Most space operas display starfighters as being like jets in space, which is bullcrap. To actually CHANGE direction, yes, you would have to decelerate, otherwise you'd just be facing to the left while still flying forward. To this point, space warfare would be unlike anything we've ever seen before. It'd be all new, like when airplanes were first created.

Laser weapons do indeed exist.

But kinetic weapons are just better.

A nuke would be needless overkill. You could probably shoot down the space shuttle with a damn modern day assault rifle. Think about the cost effectiveness there. All the effort a fancy expensive nuke puts out can be easily equaled for a fraction of the price by firing a large hunk of lead at high speeds.

[Asper Sarnoff]

Laser weapons do indeed exist.

But kinetic weapons are just better.

Indeed they are. While not a source worth basing a scientific discussion on, I think I'll mention as a curiosity that even in Star Wars, kinetic weapons were still widely employed in space combat. That says a lot, that the most wonderfully unreal sci-fi franchise there is, admits good ol' kinetic projectiles had their uses even a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.