Continuing Mission: Year Six
If this blog were original Trek, it would presumably be heading back to Starfleet Command at the conclusion of its five-year mission. (Well, if it were really original Trek it would have been canceled by the network two years ago.)
I am still not caught up, so will again have to a) beg your collective indulgence, and b) rely on the commenter community to bail me out of a lame post.
According to Blogger analytics, through yesterday Rocketpunk Manifesto has had precisely 271,284 visits, and just over half a million page views, from 79,641 unique visitors. I don't know if there is a statute of limitations on being unique, and if you read this blog on two different machines the analytics probably count you as two 'unique' people.
In any case, over the past couple of years traffic has been fairly steady at 2500-3000 'unique' visitors each month. Monthly visits have fallen off slightly - since I haven't been posting as frequently - but 'unique' visitors have held steady or even very gradually risen. Roughly 1700-2000 of you seem to be regulars. Thanks for hanging around!
Again according to the analytics, just over half of you are from the US - the international contingent gradually expanding toward the 50 percent mark. And in the last year or so, I am happy to note, I've picked up a regular Russian readership.
On the production side, this is the 277th published post here, including an initial test post to make sure things would actually show up. The next post, and first substantive one, defined rocketpunk. As it turns out, though, this blog's name has turned out to be a bit of a misnomer. I have talked often enough (but not primarily) about midcentury SF, and have made practically no effort to further define or create an SF subgenre around the midcentury vision, analogous to steampunk.
As it has from the beginning, this blog tends to waver between being about space travel and being about space-oriented SF, conjoined topics that it shares with Atomic Rockets. With occasional broader excursions into the great super-genre of Romance, to which SF belongs.
Expect this general pattern of digressions to continue, perhaps with a little more focus on the literary side, since there are plenty of 'nonfiction' space blogs out there. Last post's comment thread suggests no lack of interest in the meta-fiction side of things.
On the other hand, when I think of new zaps or whacks to be made on the subject of space warfare, I will make them. We should all be ashamed of ourselves, but admitting it won't stop me from doing it.
If anyone wants to suggest topics they'd like to see discussed here, I make absolutely no promises, but suggesting them is one thing the comment thread is for.
As always ... Discuss!
Yeah, I recycled the image of the Enterprise from last year. Why not?
478 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 478 of 478I dunno -- targetting like this could be largely measurement function.
Those often work the way I described.
A 4 sig fig multimeter might cost $200, a 5 sig fig multimeter could be $5000.
Paying for tight tolerances also skew similairly. To go from "pretty good" to "excellent" costs many times more.
(SA Phil)
Also if you had 2 ships each with 95% of the effective weapons of 1 ship -- each with 95% of the survivability
It would be worth more than the cost of the 100%/100% ship.
If you had 10 each with 80% of the effective weapons and 80% the survivability it would be worth several times the cost of a 100%/100% ship.
Since we are talking about eggshells armed with hammers in the case of the fighter, the small warship and the capital ship.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I dunno -- targetting like this could be largely measurement function.
Those often work the way I described.
A 4 sig fig multimeter might cost $200, a 5 sig fig multimeter could be $5000."
The mistake you're making here is not recognizing that the order of magnitude increase in precision is accompanied by an entirely different dynamic environment. I suspect that at the level you're describing, you're talking about the difference between field and lab instrumentation. To the extent that your prices are accurate, they would certainly meet my expectations of the difference in price and availability between field and lab instrumentation.
Spaceships shooting lasers at spaceships is all the same dynamic environment.
"Also if you had 2 ships each with 95% of the effective weapons of 1 ship -- each with 95% of the survivability
It would be worth more than the cost of the 100%/100% ship.
If you had 10 each with 80% of the effective weapons and 80% the survivability it would be worth several times the cost of a 100%/100% ship.
Since we are talking about eggshells armed with hammers in the case of the fighter, the small warship and the capital ship."
What is your metric for effectiveness? Effective range, no? Then, in the eggshell-and-hammerverse, survivability has everything to do with effective range. They simply can't be independent variables. The 100% effective ship is by definition much more than 5% more survivable than the 95% effective ship, maybe by an order of magnitude or more. It will always shoot first and hit first. And one hit is enough.
Saturation may be a viable response if one can't make the 100% effective ship. But if one can build it, unless it has a very low saturation threshhold, one will always want the most technically effective weapon system. (Once again, in the eggshell-and-hammerverse; other assumptions get you other conclusions.)
In Purple vs Green its not one laser ship vs one laser ship.
Its one laser ship vs X many KKV.
What I am describing is:
One Laser Capital Ship vs many KKV -or-
Two or more Laser smaller ships vs many KKV
Or alternatively-
One laser capital Ship + KKVs vs Two or more Laser Smaller ships + KKVs
The 100% range ship only has an advantage over the 95% range ship when the range is between 96% and 100%.
Meenwhile the slighly shorter range ship can engage two or more times as many targets - and takes two or more times as many hits to kill.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"In Purple vs Green its not one laser ship vs one laser ship.
Its one laser ship vs X many KKV.
What I am describing is:
One Laser Capital Ship vs many KKV -or-
Two or more Laser smaller ships vs many KKV
Or alternatively-
One laser capital Ship + KKVs vs Two or more Laser Smaller ships + KKVs
The 100% range ship only has an advantage over the 95% range ship when the range is between 96% and 100%.
Meenwhile the slighly shorter range ship can engage two or more times as many targets - and takes two or more times as many hits to kill."
Excuse me!? This all started with:
"Thinking on these super-long range lasers for a moment. Gamma or whatnot (its not important what type).
Lets suppose it is possible to make a laser that is lethal to such a long range that your major limitation is targeting not power. Which seems fairly reasonable.
You then have an advantage to making the smallest ship you can get away with that has a lethal laser near the limit of your range limitation.
For reasons of-
*cost
*expendability (number of targets to attack, etc)
*Target angles
And so forth. Similar to the modern naval situation where it just doesn't take a battleship to mount the most effective ship killers. Meaning you don't need battleships.
The size of the ship would be a function of how small you can get the reasonable kill at good range laser into a warship.
Invoking the zeroth law -- and you get ... Space Fighters. Purple Style.
Or Green Style - whichever one is lasers again. "
Hard to interpret that as anything but lasers vs lasers.
Before we go any further, are we going to stick with that, or are you going to insist on moving the goalposts periodically?
=Milo=
Purple vs green is about whether you want lasers or kinetics to be more effective.
If lasers are not effective, there is no point on discussing whether many small laser ships or few large laser ships would be more effective, as no-one will be building laser ships of any size to begin with.
The 100% range ship only has an advantage over the 95% range ship when the range is between 96% and 100%.
Well, actually between 95.000...1 percent and 100 percent.
In any case, if we're talking uber-range lasers, that range band is non-trivial. Say, 20,000 km versus 19,000 km - at typical interplanetary speeds, the longer-range laser has a good many seconds of effectively unanswered zapping.
In chaotic environments where combat is at (relatively) short range, other considerations may apply. But generally, in 'classic' long range firing, range advantage is decisive. Which is the basic argument for laserstars.
Tony,
Before we go any further, are we going to stick with that, or are you going to insist on moving the goalposts periodically?
---------
I dunno any expert tips on that one?
----------
It was just a thought about the difference between 99.9% "accuracy" and 99.99% accuracy and how much relative cost and potential changes that might bring. Again assuming targeting was the primary consideration.
The Purple vs Green scenario was hashed out - I guess I figured it was it as a given, as I mentioned the colors.
I don't think typically people assumed all the KKV were killed between 95.0001 and 100 max effective range.
-----
Looking at the "capital" ship example. Lasers only. Even if supreme accuracy were X level. You still would want the least expensive X level craft that will do everything you want.. since any other additions are just wasted.
-----------
Of course I honestly didn't expect you to buy into it regardless of what I said. Anytime anyone says laser around here, Tony apparently sees purple or green as Red.
(SA Phil)
Theory is all well and good, but in reality you will only build whatever you think you need and what you think you can afford. And you will use whatever weapons and support systems you think you need, and think you can afford, and can fit into and onto your hull.
Ferrell
SA Phil:
"Looking at the "capital" ship example. Lasers only. Even if supreme accuracy were X level. You still would want the least expensive X level craft that will do everything you want.. since any other additions are just wasted."
Sorry, but that's not correct. You want to economize where possible, but you still build the largest practical unit, because it's the most survivable. The history of naval and aerospace technology reinforce this judgment. Bigger ships, bigger bombers, bigger fighter-bombers are always built because they carry more ordnance to the target per sortie.
"Of course I honestly didn't expect you to buy into it regardless of what I said. Anytime anyone says laser around here, Tony apparently sees purple or green as Red."
First things first. Talking about lasers doesn't bother me. Talking about them unrealistically does. They have their limitations like everything else.
Beyond that, my training, education, and experience lead me to be suspicious of overemphasizing a single class of weapons, particularly when it's a single class of precision direct-fire weapon. Those kind of things just aren't flexible enough. Andwhen considered in isolation, the discussion becomes implausible.
IOW, I don't see "Red", I just don't see plausibility. Please forgive me a million times over, but when I see something that's implausible, I'm going to point out why I think so.
Its not the criticism that is the problem it is the narrow focus and immediate dismissal of alternate viewpoints.
"Consider" or "What if" seem to be triggers.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"Its not the criticism that is the problem it is the narrow focus and immediate dismissal of alternate viewpoints.
'Consider' or 'What if' seem to be triggers."
"Consider" and "What if" are terms of art that many expect to instantaneously and perfectly insulate them against analysis of plausibility. That's not the world I live and work in, Phil. When somebody says, "Consider this..." or, "What if..." my first reaction is, "Will that work?" Even in writing SF, one has to meet the test of plausibility on basic physics and engineering.
Taking the laserstar argument to the (semi) logical extreme, if you want to hit targets at totally unanswerable ranges, a Luke Campbell Laserstar mounting a kilometer long liniac and generating a "stupendous beam of death" X ray laser is small potatoes.
Robert Forward postulated terrawatt laser emitters with secondary beam steering and focusing lenses in free space to drive lightsails to the nearest stars. While the beam steering rate would be rather slow, I'm sure fleet command would use such a device to incinerate the offending moon of Jupiter right at the start of hostilities, and pick off secondary bases in the rings of Saturn in the days that followed.
A device of similar power could be created by orbiting a platoon of mirrors in the solar photosphere and using the energy of the solar plasma to pump a laser to really outlandish energy levels http://laserstars.org/amateur/scifi.html
So the idea of small fighters is mooted if laser weapons of such power can be created (indeed, even giant battleships would be of somewhat limited utility). Of course, a device like this is more like a shore battery than a warship (to carry on with the naval analogy), and something like this would have limited utility as a weapon of war, being akin to using Thor's hammer to swat a mosquito under most circumstances.
Thucydides said...
So the idea of small fighters is mooted if laser weapons of such power can be created
-------
My scenario called for targeting to be a limiting factor rather than power.
You are postulating accurate, lethal light minute range lasers in your examples .. Not even the same sport - let alone ballpark.
(SA Phil)
A thought on the Terrawatt light-minute accurate focused lasers ..
If you had that situation Space Warfare as envisioned on this Blog would not exist.
It would instead be like trying to fly a hand grenade armed Goodyear Blimp equipped a giant transponder saying "bad guy" on attack run against the air defenses of the United States.
(SA Phil)
(SA Phil)
"Thinking on these super-long range lasers for a moment. Gamma or whatnot (its not important what type).
Lets suppose it is possible to make a laser that is lethal to such a long range that your major limitation is targeting not power. Which seems fairly reasonable.
Lasers with the ability to drive a lightsail to a nearby star would seem to fit your definition of both super long range (light years) and highly accurate (even a Robert Forward three stage lightsail with an initial diameter of 500 km would be lost in the immensity of space, yet the project calls for the ability to illuminate the sail at the target star to decelerate the probe, and then illuminate the second stage sail to accelerate the probe for a homeward voyage.
For any distance across the Solar System, this more than fits your definition, and the only thing lacking to make this the ultimate weapon is a series of lenses to rapidly shift the beam from target to target. Attacking free flying colonies, asteroids or moons would be well within the capabilities of the system, as well as targets that are on ballistic paths or that can be easily seen (such as a ship under drive).
For any distance across the Solar System, this more than fits your definition
----------
I hadn't meant to imply light minute effective lasers.
you are right in scenarios where they exist, of course.
(SA Phil)
Thucydides:
"For any distance across the Solar System, this more than fits your definition, and the only thing lacking to make this the ultimate weapon is a series of lenses to rapidly shift the beam from target to target. Attacking free flying colonies, asteroids or moons would be well within the capabilities of the system, as well as targets that are on ballistic paths or that can be easily seen (such as a ship under drive)."
A beam generator optimized for such fine control at interstellar distances would necessarily, I think, not be very good at hitting crossing targets. And targets moving in solar orbits would be crossing at very high angular velocities, compared to a spaceship several light years away, moving radially outward.
One could indeed use mirrors to do the actual tactical beam directing, but they would have to be sacrificial. A beam a few thousand photons per square centimeter at light years would, I think, almost instantaneously vaporize any material mirror at a few hundred or a few thousand kilometers.
Finally, using such a powerful weapon inside the solar system would be the same thing as using nuclear weapons against the targets. I don't think that makes a very useful weapon.
Perhaps the Lightsail craft is an interesting tangent.
It might maneuver into the laser's path to aid in targeting. Or signal back to base "adjust the laser 0.003 degrees" (w/e)
But its a great point that you could then turn your uber-lightsail laser and vaporize any planetary colony.
Another reason I suppose to have FTL in many Science Fiction space stories. The implication of an TW scale Interstellar acceleration laser makes nukes seem like popguns.
Myopic ones at that.
(SA Phil)
A beam generator optimized for such fine control at interstellar distances would necessarily, I think, not be very good at hitting crossing targets.
No, but the question isn't so much repurposing a civil star-probe booster as applying similar tech and resources to a weapon. If you have terawatt power available you have power to burn, so to speak.
Or the supposed star probe turns out to be the "fighting mirror" of the system and fries your planet...
Rick:
"No, but the question isn't so much repurposing a civil star-probe booster as applying similar tech and resources to a weapon. If you have terawatt power available you have power to burn, so to speak."
If one started making such a weapon, or modifying existing propulsion lasers for in-system targeting, it would be pretty hard to hide. And it would be euqivalent to building or increasing a nuclear stockpile, in potential target effects. That gets one into a MAD/arms-control rgime, not a warfighting capability.
Thucydides:
"Or the supposed star probe turns out to be the 'fighting mirror' of the system and fries your planet..."
For a star probe equipped with a light, thin mirror, energy fluxes that would destroy the target at interplanetary distances would destroy the mirror first. If you're thinking that the light sail could refocus a relatively safe energy flux into a dangerous one, I'm more than a little bit skeptical that such a large and flimsy machine could be controlled with anywhere near the precission required.
The lightsail as envisioned by Robert Forward is designed for precision focus as the various annular mirrors detach and focus the incoming laser light on the smaller, inner sails (and on the move at interplanetary to STL interstellar speeds), so if we grant that such a device is possible, then it is possible to use this as a fighting mirror as described.
It occurs to me that this crazy interplanetary laser could be very slow to "lock on" without losing any real effectiveness.
After all its range is in the light minutes. Even a mobile target is going to take days/weeks to cross this distance.
Its also designed to fire for years on end .. so if it takes 10000 shots to score a hit .. oh well.
Its also powerful enough that it can destroy fragile things like spacecraft at a fairly difuse focus.
Its like having a kill satelite armed with a million nukes and using them to hunt flies in on some island in the pacific.
(SA Phil)
Thucydides:
"The lightsail as envisioned by Robert Forward is designed for precision focus as the various annular mirrors detach and focus the incoming laser light on the smaller, inner sails (and on the move at interplanetary to STL interstellar speeds), so if we grant that such a device is possible, then it is possible to use this as a fighting mirror as described."
I'm not granting that such a mchine is at all likely to be possible. There's a thing we should remember about speculative machines: they're not based on real world engineering, even if they're based on fundamentally correct science. It's nice to say, "If we had capability X, we could do Y." Actually having the ability to implent capability X is an entirely different question.
Now, I hear you say, the same argument could be made about really unrealistic machines, like hyperdrives. I'm talking about a realistic cpability, consistent with all known physics. Fine. But so is a notional rocket, capable of relativistic travel. But in practical reality, no such rocket is thought to be possible, without things like antimatter and black hole engineering -- and those probably aren't physically or economically practical.
SA Phil:
"It occurs to me that this crazy interplanetary laser could be very slow to 'lock on' without losing any real effectiveness.
After all its range is in the light minutes. Even a mobile target is going to take days/weeks to cross this distance."
Such a machine is designed to keep a precise lock on an essentially stationary target light months distant -- at the very least -- at no more angular rate than it's own orbital speed, figured over that distance. Targets light minutes or hours away, moving in their own orbits, are going to be moving at substantially higher angular rates. The machinery suitable for maintaining insterstellar propulsiong degrees of precision is not going to be adequate for interplanetary angular velocities.
"Its also designed to fire for years on end .. so if it takes 10000 shots to score a hit .. oh well."
If it takes 10000 shots, it's likely that the target can manage realtively simple shielding or thermal management.
"Its also powerful enough that it can destroy fragile things like spacecraft at a fairly difuse focus."
Yes, locally (in the sense of interplanetary distances), but it can't track them mechanically.
"Its like having a kill satelite armed with a million nukes and using them to hunt flies in on some island in the pacific."
Nope. It's like a battleship armed with a 16-inch gun, trying to hit an airplane crossing close by at 45 degrees per second.
Tony,
If it takes 10000 shots, it's likely that the target can manage realtively simple shielding or thermal management
---------
I was suggesting 10000 to score a hit, only 1 shot to kill.
The 1 shot would overload any plausible shielding or thermal management.
Its a Terrawatt laser.
(SA Phil)
Tony,
Nope. It's like a battleship armed with a 16-inch gun, trying to hit an airplane crossing close by at 45 degrees per second.
-----
I dont see how you figure this.
The targets will be light minutes away, with very low or no thrust.
I dont see where you get the angular velocity argument at all.
The vector the laser would need will only change by minute amounts. Something it would have had to be designed for -- since that was also a requirment for accelerating the Lightsail craft.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I was suggesting 10000 to score a hit, only 1 shot to kill.
The 1 shot would overload any plausible shielding or thermal management.
Its a Terrawatt laser."
If it takes that many shots to score a hit, you don't suppose the people at the onther end aren't doing something inthe meantime to avoid conitnued shooting?
Can one even afford the energy for that many shots, just to neutralize one target?
Tony,
If it takes that many shots to score a hit, you don't suppose the people at the onther end aren't doing something inthe meantime to avoid conitnued shooting?
Can one even afford the energy for that many shots, just to neutralize one target?
=====
You are basically missing the point. The people on the other end don't have a comprable laser- since the laser is designed for intersteller craft, and the people on the other end are breakaway planetary colonists.
What can they do other than hide behind a giant rock? (planet/moon/etc)
The laser has all the power they want- it is designed to fire for years at a time.
It was Thucydides' scenario turning a Lightsail accelerator laser on upstart colonists.
Or the threat of the laser's owners doing so would be enough to make upstart colonies an impossibility.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"You are basically missing the point. The people on the other end don't have a comprable laser- since the laser is designed for intersteller craft, and the people on the other end are breakaway planetary colonists."
The people on the other end may not have a comparable laser, but they may have other facilities capable of counteracting the laser before it scores a hit.
And we shouldn't presume they're the owners of the laser and the targets are rebels. What if the laser is captured by terrorists or rebels, and turned against its owners.
"What can they do other than hide behind a giant rock? (planet/moon/etc)"
See above. The laser is overwhelmingly likely not the only weapon with interplanetary reach in real time (defined as the week it would take to fire ten thousand shots, at a not unreasonable rate of fire of one shot every minute). While the laser is blasting away at such high energies, the potential targets could be sending in several thousand soda cans of death from a platform emplaced against just such an eventuality.
"The laser has all the power they want- it is designed to fire for years at a time."
Yes, once or twice in pursuit of a rather broad and long range goal, with presumably broad and long-lasting political support. But everything costs something, even --especially, these days -- raw power. I would be far from certain that investing in ten thousand shot worth of power to blast people who would probably be more easily, cheaply, and profitably reduced to surrender seems far outside any likely political support.
"It was Thucydides' scenario turning a Lightsail accelerator laser on upstart colonists."
And?
"Or the threat of the laser's owners doing so would be enough to make upstart colonies an impossibility."
In which case the colonies could rightly conclude that the laser's owners were lunatic. Which would give them plenty of motivation to neutralize the laser before doing anything else overt.
=Milo=
Tony:
"What if the laser is captured by terrorists or rebels, and turned against its owners."
A weapon that is very effective when I use it against my enemies, but easy to defeat if my enemies capture it and use it against me? Yes please.
Great point -- the superlaser is close to the owners - and therefore far less dominating against them than it would be against the colonists.
(SA Phil)
I came by to check on things as I do almost every day to see what's new, and I noticed that this post now has 432 comments (as of SA Phil's comment).
Which just happens to be the number of crew aboard the starship Enterprise (original series).
A factoid I learned from reading Stephen E. Whitfield's The Making of Star Trek many, many years ago.
A book that has, as its cover image, the very same image that illustrates this blog post.
Which is probably why this minor post milestone jumped out at me.
Funny how pattern-recognition works.
=Milo=
Stevo Darkly:
"Funny how pattern-recognition works."
Your challenge: make an AI that is capable of noticing this kind of thing.
If one started making such a weapon, or modifying existing propulsion lasers for in-system targeting, it would be pretty hard to hide. And it would be euqivalent to building or increasing a nuclear stockpile, in potential target effects. That gets one into a MAD/arms-control rgime, not a warfighting capability.
True. But that is just the general problem of high-techlevel warfare writ large. If everyone has enough energy, and can direct it accurately, opening fire becomes a suicide pact.
A weapon that is very effective when I use it against my enemies, but easy to defeat if my enemies capture it and use it against me? Yes please.
+ 10
I feel honored to have brought the count to the legendary number
Unless I am wearing a Red Shirt.
(SA Phil)
Well the Laser lightsail tangent has certainly taken a life of its own. The idea was initially raised as an example of the largest and most powerful device that could be created to fulfill a rather nebulous premise (i.e. a very long range laser weapon would change the calculus and possibly allow for classical SF "Fighters").
Using Rober Forward as a baseline (and assuming such a device is possible as envisioned [we have to grant some assumptions, so long as they are consistent]), then we have a massive device, possibly centered on Mercury, with a ring solar collectors to generate the energy, the laser itself (probably emplaced on Mercury itself) and one or more beam focusing devices in free space millions or tens of millions of kilometres downrange.
It is not very robust, and its components could be attacked separately. The major Powers of the era might be given a separate piece of the device to control and manage, to prevent it from being used as a weapon.
The only way to gain any military advantage would be to reprogram the drive sails as fighting mirrors, and the only way this could be plausibly used as a weapon would be to utilize an outgoing sail as a fighting mirror in an ambush or surprise attack.
It would be far easier and cheaper to have platforms mounting ten thousand "soda cans of death" hidden in deep space, the asteroids and so on. and accepting that prosecutng a war takes time,
I really didn't mean weaponized interstellar lasers though
What led to my thought was something more along the lines of..
You have lasers that are very powerful at long ranges
However you have no ability to target beyond X range
A capital ship can target at X range, and mount an effective laser.
But a much smaller ship can also mount an effective laser at that same range.
If the fighter can target just as well as the capital ship 100% of the same chance to kill at the same range- it would stand to reason you would have space "fighters" > small ships that mount the "ultimate" weapon.
If the fighter can target nearly as well .. what happens? How close does it have to be? According to Rick and Tony 95% is probably not good enough.
But I wonder - I expect that it really depends on what that range is and how fast the closing velocities are.
If the period of time needed to bring the fight from 100% to 95% is short enough-- the fighters might be worthwhile.
If it is too long - it suggests fighters would be easy kills.
("short enough" here being defined as a smaller value ($/lives) of fighters can close to kill a capital ship before said capital ship can wipe out the attacking squadron)
The lasers don't necessarily have long ranges in the scenario -- instead the range of the lasers is much longer than the ability to target them - suggesting that the laser doesn't have to be honking huge to max out said targeting.
(SA Phil)
Milo:
"A weapon that is very effective when I use it against my enemies, but easy to defeat if my enemies capture it and use it against me? Yes please."
SA Phil:
"Great point -- the superlaser is close to the owners - and therefore far less dominating against them than it would be against the colonists."
Non sequitur. Such a powerful laser that has to be pointed at the same target for months or years is not going to be anywhere near a planet. It's going to be in an independent solar orbit where planets can get in the way only minimally -- ideally not at all.
WRT fighters, I'll reiterate a point I've made a few times before. The justification for fighters -- or at least small, cheap scout/attack ships -- if there is one, is that they can use relatively cheap sensors close to objectives, in relatively large numbers. They can go behind planets and find out what's going on there. If you want and you have sufficiently energetic propulsion, fighters could be streamlined for use in planetary atmospheres. You can put them in a lot of critical places at once, increasing your ability to respond quickly during an escalating crisis.
See, there may not be an physical horizons in space -- if you don't count operating close to planets -- but there are time horizons and the expense of global surveillance at interplanetary distances. Even in space, there's nothing like being there.
Part of it also depends on the definition of "fighter" I suppose.
By fighter I do not mean a one man ship capable of only hours of deployment.
Instead I mean the smallest ship with a fully fuunctional hab that can support the smallest crew for the duration of a mission.
For example, maybe the fighter has a hab the twice the size of the command module from Apollo 11 and can sustain the crew in a very spartan existence for 1 year.
People do after all sail around the world in 15 foot sailboats.
(SA Phil)
The problem with space fighters in a laser-centric environment isn't just about size. It is about maneuver, or lack of.
If the optimum size for a battle laser installation - laser bank plus targeting optics - is fairly small, you'll probably mount them on small spacecraft.
But when it comes to actual laser combat, how much zapping does it take for them to beat each other up. No more than a few minutes, I would think, and in that time you just can't change your trajectories very much.
With chemfuel thrusters you could put on a fair change of velocity - say, a 1-minute burn at 1 g, putting on 0.6 km/s of delta v, and expending 15-20 percent of total mass in the burn.
But it only actually carries you 18 km, relative to your initial trajectory. At a 'modest' zapping range of 1000 km, that is just about 1 degree of angular displacement per minute of time - thus 1 arc minute of deflection per second of time.
In short, in battles between laser ships big or small, maneuver hardly matters.
If the other side has a laser, your orbits will carry you into its effective zapping range, and eventually will carry you back out of range. If you have a laser the same is true of the enemy.
In the meanwhile, both sides are committed to a pass and pivot encounter, with only modest orbit changes relative to ballistic predictions. They will be in committed to passing within potential zapping range for minutes to hours, depending on effective laser range.
In such an encounter, the greater overall zapping power probably wins. Big ships or small doesn't much matter tactically. A constellation will have mostly arrange itself in advance of when the lights go up.
Once the lights do go up, what matters for a laser fighting platform is hitting power and durability. Maneuver capability is way down the list when it comes to the actual encounter of laser weapons.
This is presumiing a laser-dominant environment. But if you are going to bring SCoDs into play, loading them onto killer buses is the simplest way to smash the mirrors. Trying to recover the buses is more trouble than driverless buses are worth.
SA Phil:
"By fighter I do not mean a one man ship capable of only hours of deployment."
I wouldn't think so either. Riffing on the standard naval division of labor into navigation, weapons, and engineering, I would think the minimal crew would have three members:
Command Pilot/Navigator
Weapons/Sensors Operator
Engineer
In case you're wondering, the relationship between weapons and sensors is pretty natural and logical. You need sensors for target acquistion and fire control. The first modern naval sensors were in fact optical rangefinders and fire direction telescopes, firmly under the control of the gunnery types. Radar, video, IR are all extensions of this capability. Also, the division of labor in a two seat fighter or attack aircraft is between the pilot an a weapons/sensors officer. (The engineering crew is on the ground or aircraft carrier due to limited mission duration.)
Rick:
"The problem with space fighters in a laser-centric environment...
This is presumiing a laser-dominant environment. But if you are going to bring SCoDs into play, loading them onto killer buses is the simplest way to smash the mirrors. Trying to recover the buses is more trouble than driverless buses are worth."
Well, when I talk about fighter qua fighters, I'm presuming any particular weapons technology. I'm talking about their utility, much like interplanetary probes, to put sensors close to interesting bodies and volumes, the ability to peak behind solid bodies, and the ability to put in place people to act in real time. That's their real value.
RE: Rick
I agree about maneuver - I didn't think the fighters would really have measurable acceleration advantage over capital ships.
I more was thinking in terms of having more platforms, and then of course less crew and expense.
============
RE: Tony
I think the number of crew will be a function of the 0th law.
0 crew - drone, Robotic and/or remote control.
1 crew - ship is largely automated
10 crew - nearly every ship function is directly monitored/controlled.
Or somewhere in between like your example. Which seems a reasonable mix .. but not the only possibility.
The crew assignments/tasks will depend a lot on the performance of the craft itself.
You probably don't "need" a combat pilot if the ship has a milli-G drive for example, you wont have enough thrust to do any jinking.
If your "fighter" has no user serviceable parts - there may be no engineer.
And so on. That probably applies to any size fighting space-craft.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I think the number of crew will be a function of the 0th law.
0 crew - drone, Robotic and/or remote control.
1 crew - ship is largely automated
10 crew - nearly every ship function is directly monitored/controlled.
Or somewhere in between like your example. Which seems a reasonable mix .. but not the only possibility.
The crew assignments/tasks will depend a lot on the performance of the craft itself.
You probably don't "need" a combat pilot if the ship has a milli-G drive for example, you wont have enough thrust to do any jinking.
If your "fighter" has no user serviceable parts - there may be no engineer.
And so on. That probably applies to any size fighting space-craft."
My thinking has to do with how much you can expect a single person to be reasonably expert at. That's one of the reasons that the navigation/gunnery/engineering division of labor exists to begin with. Also, one has to consider how much a single person may be expected to pay attention to in real time. The more humans in the loop, the more information can be processed into rational decisions, no matter how good your automation is.
Some of that probably depends on the mission as well.
The longer the mission / more they are expected to do - the more complex the tasks and probably the more the crew.
If its the battlestar goes out does 99% of the mission and launches the fighters for the fighting then picks them up again thing...
The crew might be 0 (which changes to 1 due to 0th law.)
If its the squadron goes out for months on a mission, does the attack and then returns home, maybe the crew is 6, enough to have people work off shifts.
If they have to do things like station keeping, recon, "flying the flag" whatever - maybe its 15-20 people.
Depending on the size of the "capital" ship it might start looking like a capital ship itself.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"Some of that probably depends on the mission as well.
The longer the mission / more they are expected to do - the more complex the tasks and probably the more the crew."
Well, as long as we're talking about fighters, as opposed to whatever else, I think we're talking mostly about relatively low endurance and realtively small crews.
Well, when I talk about fighter qua fighters, I'm presuming any particular weapons technology.
I assume a 'not' went missing here.
I'm talking about their utility, much like interplanetary probes, to put sensors close to interesting bodies and volumes, the ability to peak behind solid bodies, and the ability to put in place people to act in real time. That's their real value.
Reconnaissance probes, I'd think, would usually be expendable, because they are so likely to get expended.
Having said that, the mission mix has much in common with what I speculated about 'gunships.' It doesn't fit my mental image of what 'fighters' do, which is my reason for using a different term. But YMMV, especially when it comes to terminology!
Rick:
"I assume a 'not' went missing here."
Quite.
"Reconnaissance probes, I'd think, would usually be expendable, because they are so likely to get expended."
People are expendable too, in an environment in which there are enough people to make a war worth fighting.
Aside from that, the reason for manning the scouts is to provide for real time decision making.
"Having said that, the mission mix has much in common with what I speculated about 'gunships.' It doesn't fit my mental image of what 'fighters' do, which is my reason for using a different term. But YMMV, especially when it comes to terminology!"
I think the crew requirements (at least one, less than five or six, it seems) is closer to a fighter than a gunboat. When you say gunboat, you can mean anything from a rowboat with a crew of about twenty and a small cannon (a type common in Baltic naval warfare in the 17th and 18th Centuries), up to an entire capital ship (i.e. "gunboat diplomacy"). When I think of "gunboat", I mostly think of the San Pablo, from the Sand Pebbles.
Maybe we should just use more accurate mission-oriented terminology. Instead of "fighter" or "gunboat", we use "scout craft" or "scout-attack craft."
A gunboat or isnt that much different than a fighter, nor is a gunship.
Airplanes have limited endurance is all- thus I think that technical limitation influencing the term.
Helecopter gunships have the same endurance problems.
Whats in a name anyway?
In our current navy warships (other than carriers) have become smaller. And in the future the current cruiser size may go the way of the battleship.
(SA Phil)
I think the closest analogy is actually a motor torpedo boat rather than a fighter (which of course brings "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" into the mix...)
But the environment of space really precludes any of this. Bigger platforms can not only mount more powerful weapons, but also multiple generators, sensor suites, giant radiators and heat sinks to enable prolonged firing and more propellant and remass to continue operations(depending on just what sort of drive system you are mounting).
Big platforms can also mount launch rails for sensor probes and KKV's; a space capital ship might be classed a Laserstar because one kilometer of the ship is devoted to the massive LINIAC, but get close enough and you will be swarmed with thousands of Soda Cans of Death as well. (A Kineticstar will probably have a reasonably impressive laser spinal mount, devoted to clearing space of enemy Soda Cans of Death).
Regardless, once the constellation gets in range (and even the Luke Campbell laserstar postulated in Atomic Rockets can effectively engage targets at almost the distance from the Earth to the Moon), then they only need to send probes to scout "behind" planets or orbital debris while at a one light second stand off distance.
Fighters, MTB's and other analogous craft will be picked off long before they can reach a firing position unless there is some special circumstance where they can lurk and ambush the enemy capital ships. Even coming behind a screen of tens of thousands of Soda Cans of Death simply begs the question "Why didn't you fire a volly of millions of SCoD?"
Thucydides:
"But the environment of space really precludes any of this. Bigger platforms..."
Sorry, T, but the shiboleth that "everything is different IN SPAAACE!" has kind of played out over the last couple of years of discussion here. It turns out that space has time horizons, that being closer with cheaper sensors is actually more effective than peering at long distance through a supertelescope, that tactical maneuver systems have different requirements than strategic transportation systems, etc. The "one big gun" theory of space warfighting is pretty much discredited as being a naive simplification foisted on us by a self-absorbed enthusiast. We need to get over it and become a lot more realistic. The first step is to realize that there are reasons that the battleship didn't dominate all of sea warfare, and that no space battleship is likely to dominate all of space warfare.
I think a lot depends on the actual specifications of the various weapon systems and propulsion systems involved.
If the best laser only has an effective range of 100km and closing ranges are 1km/sec, it might be easy to ruin the laserstar's day. ((efficitve means it can hit accurately and reliably))
If the laser instead can blast accurately a SCOD near the moon then it might be impossible to do so.
Making blanket statements "this will happen" doesn't make a lot of sense.
Because it is "If this than this" instead.
Unless someone has a 1kg SCOD and a 1 lightsecond laser in their basement they would care to put on you tube?
(SA Phil)
Any combat spacecraft will most likely have a mix of weapons and sensors; they may even carry sensor and weapons drones, to complement their on-board weapons/sensors systems. No matter what size or endurance the ship is, combat needs a wide range of capabilities.
Ferrell
Being close with cheap sensors is an advantage in some situations, but there is effectively no "BVR" engagements in Space, so the attacker can set the opening range to the effective range of the weapons he is carrying. Unless your SCoD, MTB, Fighter or enemy capital ship can move at a good fraction of c, then you are limited to how well your constellation can clear enemy KKV's and how hard and fast you can shoot back.
Bigger is also better for the other resons I have mentioned (power, heat managment, reaction mass), and you will note that I stated any large capital ship has a mix of weapons and sensors, it just may be optimised or classified in a certain manner due to size or the ratio of energy weapons to KKV's.
Thucydides:
"Being close with cheap sensors is an advantage in some situations, but there is effectively no 'BVR' engagements in Space, so the attacker can set the opening range to the effective range of the weapons he is carrying. Unless your SCoD, MTB, Fighter or enemy capital ship can move at a good fraction of c, then you are limited to how well your constellation can clear enemy KKV's and how hard and fast you can shoot back."
See, here we have a serious cognitive disconnect. I've actually been in the naval service, and have devoted a considerable amount of time, both personal and professional, to the study of warfare. I simply can't believe in total firepower dominance, even with an unrestricted line of sight. There are always ambiguous situation, situations that require close surveillance and quick response, and issues of concentration vs vulnerability. Also, "constellations" of ships just brings to mind all of the bad TV and movie sci-fi I've been unfortunate to have viewed.
"Bigger is also better for the other resons I have mentioned (power, heat managment, reaction mass), and you will note that I stated any large capital ship has a mix of weapons and sensors, it just may be optimised or classified in a certain manner due to size or the ratio of energy weapons to KKV's."
This is the concentration vs vulnerability issue in a nutshell. The above presumes that bigger will be more easily defended, because it will have more firepower. Turns out not to be the case in history, and I doubt it will be the case in space.
As a former Infantryman, I do know that if they can see you, they can usually get you (we will leave mortars and artillery out for the moment, since there is no clear analogue in space warfare).
While I and my solders can hide behind walls, in folds in the ground and other places of cover and concealment, while dismounted we can only engage targets that we can see inside the effective range of our weapons. IF the bad guys show up with a modern tank, the tank can see and shoot at visible targets at ranges measured in kilometers, rather than the few hundred metres of a rifleman or even the several hundred meters of a dismounted machine gun.
Space offers very few folds in the ground to hide in (and even hiding behind a planet won't help too much without magitech, half the time your orbit exposes you to the enemy). Really the only practical way to hide is to be grounded on a planet, moon or asteroid, and have some sort of thermal management system. Alternatively you can camouflage yourself as some sort of scientific or commercial vehicle in orbital "clutter", but even then you have to contend with a vehicle up to a light second away which can scorch or fry you once they identify you.
Larger vehicles will have certain advantages in the space environment, and groups of vehicles traveling together (you can call it a flight, a squadron, a flock, a bomber box or a flotilla) will provide mutual protection and overlapping capabilities to cover the weak spots, so the terminology of a "constellation" really serves more to set the scene as being in space.
Where I will agree with you is the polity fielding such a force will want to economize, and this more than anything will limit the size of the ships.
Thucydides:
"As a former Infantryman..."
Me too. You know what happens when a tank is stripped of its infantry support? It withdraws and waits for more infantry. There is of coures no direct parallel in naval or space warfare. But it illustrates the value of optimized components or arms, and the vulnerabilities they can create. Can't get something for nothing.
"Larger vehicles will have certain advantages in the space environment"
No more advantage than economy of scale. And to get that, absent effective shields or armor, one has to accept the vulnerability of small numbers. Those offsetting considerations would likely lead to some balance of medium sized units, where tactical and strategic propulsion are delivered by the same system.
In the PMF, where tactical propulsion is likely to be high-impulse, low-efficiency, while strategic propulsion is likely to be low-impulse, high-efficiency, I think there would be large interplanetary carriers and small orbital scout/attack ships.
"...and groups of vehicles traveling together (you can call it a flight, a squadron, a flock, a bomber box or a flotilla) will provide mutual protection and overlapping capabilities to cover the weak spots, so the terminology of a 'constellation' really serves more to set the scene as being in space.
Where I will agree with you is the polity fielding such a force will want to economize, and this more than anything will limit the size of the ships."
In the PMF, not so much. Only a few large carriers in any task force, and swarms of small scout/attack ships organized and operated much more like torpedo boats than fleets of ships.
In space it won't necessarily be "if they can see you they can get you"
Because they may be able to sense you light hours away
See you light minutes away.
But maybe only get you at less than a light second.
It would be like giving both sides in an infantry conflict only air pistols and then asking them pace off 2000 yards seperation, and then having them turn and fire while walking forward.
(SA Phil)
By my estimation I could see calling the small scout a "fighter" even if it has a dozen crew and is big enough to mount one of the most effective laser weapon systems and enough KKV systems to overwhelm its opposite number's point defense.
I can see a Carrier with a big nuke electric drive for effeciency,
While the scout ships have an updated form of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (maybe a PBED Solid NTR).
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"By my estimation I could see calling the small scout a "fighter"...
"Scout/attack" as a descriptor is honest, accurate, and avoids (as much as possible -- the USN did have "scout bombers" in WW2) our kind host's aversion to historically-derived ontology.
Tanks need their infantry support in close terrain, where we root out those annoying people hiding in places the tanks can't see or shoot at. Earthly analogies are always suspect, but the tank one does serve to illustrate the point; if we were to move on foot over an open field (with no cover) against a tank parked 3000m away we would be moving with about the same relative speed as PMF spacecraft against each other. Without some effective way to fire back at the tank (a man portable ATGM with a 3000m range), I would never be able to advance, much less defeat the tank.
Your carrier filled with swarms of smaller scout/attack ships is only a step away from the Kineticstar idea, the extra space devoted to ship berths, crew quarters, maintainence facilities etc could be given over to more missile busses, making the carrier into an arsenal ship. Even the scouting could be carried out by launching drones well ahead of the prospective engagement.
Thucydides said...
Your carrier filled with swarms of smaller scout/attack ships is only a step away from the Kineticstar idea, the extra space devoted to ship berths, crew quarters, maintainence facilities etc could be given over to more missile busses, making the carrier into an arsenal ship. Even the scouting could be carried out by launching drones well ahead of the prospective engagement.
==========
Zeroth law again.
Its entirely possible all the fighting will be done with drones.
In fact the "carrier" could be a drone too - with the CIC ship a nice, safe, light-second behind giving orders.
Its just more boring.
(SA Phil)
Modern warships all carry the same type of main weapons; the smallest missile boat can take out the largest warship with a single salvo; the only advantage larger warships have over smaller ones is the number of salvos it can fire, and the amount of defensive gear it can mount. I don't see that PMF combat spacecraft would be much different.
Ferrell
Thucydides:
"Tanks need their infantry support in close terrain, where we root out those annoying people hiding in places the tanks can't see or shoot at. Earthly analogies are always suspect, but the tank one does serve to illustrate the point; if we were to move on foot over an open field (with no cover) against a tank parked 3000m away we would be moving with about the same relative speed as PMF spacecraft against each other. Without some effective way to fire back at the tank (a man portable ATGM with a 3000m range), I would never be able to advance, much less defeat the tank."
I'd get on the radio and have somebody JDAM the tank.
And that's the point I'm trying to make -- no matter how one constructs the illustration, it's always succeptible to the argument that the proper application of combined arms will reduce or even eliminate any weapon's supposed superiority, under any perceived set of circumstances.
That's why I just shake my head in wonder every time somebody tries to seriously advocate things like laserstars or space battleships. Nothing is perfectly invulnerable simply because it has the biggest, longest ranged gun. Anybody that thinks it can be is simply ignorant of their military and technical history.
"Your carrier filled with swarms of smaller scout/attack ships is only a step away from the Kineticstar idea, the extra space devoted to ship berths, crew quarters, maintainence facilities etc could be given over to more missile busses, making the carrier into an arsenal ship. Even the scouting could be carried out by launching drones well ahead of the prospective engagement."
It's not my carrier. It's the one that comes out of critical analysis. If one presupposes a significant performance difference in practical strategic and tactical propulsion systems, one has to apply the carrier/attack-craft division of labor. I understand about the possible applicability of drones, but if the tactical battlespace is say the moons of Jupiter or Saturn, time lag makes drones impractical.
Once again, Earthly analogies are suspect. What in a space battle is analogous to a JDAM or artillery? What in space is the equivalent of a fold in the ground or a properly sited and revetted trench system? If there is such a thing, then of course combined arms with lots of different systems makes perfect sense. (This would seem to be planetary ground combat, including the surfaces of moons and asteroids).
Even the "constellation" trope is just a combined arms system adapted to the space environment. Some systems exist to seek out enemies, some use directed energy weapons to attack rapidly and at long range and some use kinetic energy to strike punishing blows (although at a different time/space/distance scale than energy weapons).
As for the distinction between "carriers" and "scout/attack craft, the way I am reading it (please correct me if I am wrong) the carriers have some sort of low thrust/high ISP drive, while the scout/attack craft use high thrust/low ISP drives. If that is the breakdown, then there is a sensible division of labour, but even in the PMF there are some options for high thrust/high ISP drives, especially ORION and other pulse drives.
Dusty plasma fission fragment drives are right on the cusp, being especially high performance high ISP drives (exhaust velocities estimated to be @ 1% of c) and producing more thust than ion or similar drives (although far less than chemical or nuclear thermal drives; this can be rectified by adding an "afterburner" and injecting remass into the exhaust stream).
At any rate, an ORION drive ship (or something similar) will have plenty of performance and not particularly need scout/attack ships on board. Indeed, unless they also have some sort of ORION type pulsed drive, they will not be useful to the mothership in most circumstances as military vessels, but rather as gigs and lighters.
Orion drives seem unlikely to me - The idea you would manufacture nuclear weapons to use as propulsion as routine just seems very implausible.
Maybe for an interstellar craft -- not for "regular" space combat.
But I have to concede an Orion battleship would have awesome performance. It would solve a lot of the issues brought up in the other thread about battleships.
The huge mass you could tote around would allow for big reactors, heavy armor, massive point defense clusters. Huge swarms of KKVs - the works.
An Orion battleship would make a pretty good option in a "Superior technology Alien fleet is threatening the earth" scenario for sure.
(SA Phil)
=Milo=
SA Phil:
"Orion drives seem unlikely to me - The idea you would manufacture nuclear weapons to use as propulsion as routine just seems very implausible."
You know, manufacturing lots of nuclear bombs doesn't strike me as all that unreasonable, if there's demand.
I'm more concerned about the logistical challenges of deliberately nuking yourself several thousand times. And surviving.
"An Orion battleship would make a pretty good option in a "Superior technology Alien fleet is threatening the earth" scenario for sure."
Unfortunately, propulsion is only one of many technologies. If the aliens have superior weapons, or armor, then all your super-fast Orion battleship will accomplish is getting itself killed faster.
At this point, if we're attacked by a superior alien fleet, our best option is to go on the defensive - build lots and lots of surface-to-orbit "shore batteries", etc. If we can force them a reasonable distance away from Earth orbit, we've already largely won. It would of course be ideal to pursue them into space to stop them from attempting another attack, but frankly total annihilation of the enemy seems implausible when we're at a massive technological disadvantage. Just for one thing, the aliens apparantly have FTL if they managed to get here, and we don't.
An interplanetary-travel-capable space fleet is for when we're in a strong enough position to pursue objectives beyond self-defense.
Footfall didn't work for me for a number of reasons, the alleged hardness of the human warship being none such thing being the least of the problems. But I do love the idea of seeing a hard sf set of warships in action and the Orion drive is one of those things that the mind rebels against believing even if the numbers work. I feel the same way when an airliner passes low overhead.
The best scenario I can imagine is if you have two tech civilizations in the same solar system. I'm thinking there's a motherworld and another viable planet in the habitable zone, compatible biologically but no tech-using natives. Humans colonize, solar flare knocks everyone back to primitive tech. One planet recovers quicker than the other but has a dicey ecological situation and the leaders decide the only future is in conquering the other planet. Might be a dumb conclusion but makes sense to them. And so now we have war of the worlds with Orion drive ships.
Of course, if we revisit the Martian scenario, why weren't they just bombarding the cities, why send in walkers with heat rays? I assume walkers are more terrifying and romantic.
Anyway, the defense scenario would be realizing the other planet is preparing for war. It goes silent, no communication for a generation. Satellites sent their way are shot down. Defenders construct weapons and have a local advantage but are still a hundred years behind technologically.
Milo,
Unfortunately, propulsion is only one of many technologies. If the aliens have superior weapons, or armor, then all your super-fast Orion battleship will accomplish is getting itself killed faster.
=========
I suppose I was envisioning a scenario where the more advanced ALien technology resulted in superior but not dominating weapons.
Thus the Orion battleship which could make a much different mass / benefit choice than a more standard drive - would have a good change of ompeting.
(SA Phil)
Thucydides:
"Once again, Earthly analogies are suspect. What in a space battle is analogous to a JDAM or artillery? What in space is the equivalent of a fold in the ground or a properly sited and revetted trench system? If there is such a thing, then of course combined arms with lots of different systems makes perfect sense. (This would seem to be planetary ground combat, including the surfaces of moons and asteroids)."
You're pretty obviously setting up a tank as a laserstar. The counter for people without laserstars would be kinetic swarms.
"Even the 'constellation' trope is just a combined arms system adapted to the space environment. Some systems exist to seek out enemies, some use directed energy weapons to attack rapidly and at long range and some use kinetic energy to strike punishing blows (although at a different time/space/distance scale than energy weapons)."
Here again you're trying to straightjacket the argument into specific, highly speculative systems, and environments favorable to them. I'm trying to address the problem from a military and technological historical perspective.
And it's not enough to say that space is different. The world with steamships and railroads was at least as much different from muscle and wind power. The principles of warfare, and even a lot of tactical principles still applied. IC motors gave the same kind of operational mobility and flexibility that steam had brought to strategy. All of the previously valid principles still applied, even if implementation details were different. I'm sorry if I'm seeming excessivley hardheaded here, but I can't look at all of that history and think space will be any different, in principle, no matter how different it may be in practice.
"As for the distinction between 'carriers' and 'scout/attack' craft, the way I am reading it (please correct me if I am wrong) the carriers have some sort of low thrust/high ISP drive, while the scout/attack craft use high thrust/low ISP drives."
Okay so far...
"If that is the breakdown, then there is a sensible division of labour, but even in the PMF there are some options for high thrust/high ISP drives, especially ORION and other pulse drives..."
Too speculative for me. Sorry.
SA Phil:
"I suppose I was envisioning a scenario where the more advanced ALien technology resulted in superior but not dominating weapons.
Thus the Orion battleship which could make a much different mass / benefit choice than a more standard drive - would have a good change of ompeting."
Taking Fotfall as an example, the Fithp had fusion drive technology and high energy combat lasers, but they weren't equipped with magic -- just more available power. Michael (the Orion drive battleship) is just a brute force means of matching the Fithp's available combat power for about 12 hours (a decisive 12 hours, as it turns out).
Nothing new under the sun I suppose -
Sounds like what I was thinking.
(SA Phil)
You're pretty obviously setting up a tank as a laserstar. The counter for people without laserstars would be kinetic swarms.
That is the way I am trying to structure the analogy. A man portable ATGM would be the "kinetic swarm" in this example.
I believe that laser or energy weapons and KKV's (anything from missiles to SCoDs) are actually complimentary, and any military force in space will have platforms for both, as well as huge numbers of sensor platforms surrounding the constellation to "look around" spoofing" and whatever objects might obscure the line of sight of the firing platforms. The sensor swarm will also provide enough data to build an accurate 3D view of the surrounding environment, so no fleet commander need be surprised going into the engagement.
Naturally, once things get going, sensors will be shot out at a furious rate, so at a tactical level, you will gradually (or not so gradually) have a diminishing situational awareness.
Why so many sensor platforms?
Wouldn't it be easy to have a limited number with a good effective range - and keep them beyond the Laser's range - since the cloud of KKVs presumably will be crossing between the lasers.
(SA Phil)
deliberately nuking yourself several thousand times
This is why I just don't see Orion drive as a practical option.
our kind host's aversion to historically-derived ontology.
Just to clarify a point, I have two quite distinct reasons for resisting such terms. Both are meta, in somewhat different ways.
1) In analytical discussion, to resist giving into misleading analogies. (Which doesn't keep me from slipping into them anyway.)
2) In story settings, to distance the setting from the present day.
All of these discussions of space weapons and forces need some sort of context. Who is fighting whom, and what are their objectives?
If I want to enforce an inspection regime in some planet's orbital space, I need more than laser stars or kinetic buses: I need inspection craft.
But if my intent is simply to bash all spacecraft on a certain orbit - such as an invasion armada approaching from deep space - then I basically just unload on them, with whatever mix of zaps and target seekers works best.
Put another way, in an all-out battle between two constellations, I don't see how onboard crews add much except to sometimes get themselves killed.
Where you need people is to maintain a presence in conditions ranging from uneasy peace to active skirmishing.
If you are maintaining 'presence' in some region of space, you need base ships for the crews and logistics. That makes them targets that you need to protect. But if they have big nuke electric power plants, and lasers are worth having, you may want to mount lasers on them, as a further layer of defense.
Not specific to the above, but I think we still tend to imagine much more flexible mobility than is likely in the PMF. Especially for tactical drives, chemfuel and even nuke thermal.
A handful of orbit changes are all you get before propellant run lows, and where are the refueling tankers coming from? Operational mobility in space is constrained and expensive.
One thing which has seemed to slip from the discussion is ships (even very low thrust ships) with continuous thrust drives are actually going to be moving really fast once they cross interplanetary space.
A ship which can accelerate at 1mm/s^2 can reach Mars in only 120 days on a swing by orbit, very fast if you are contemplating "bombing" the planet and orbital space with guided or unguided impactors. This is current solar sail or ion drive technology.
The implication is offense is pretty easy since you can swing by with as many "bombers" as you have the resource to build and clear the orbital infrastructure and even attack the planetary surface. The defender has a harder time, since they would need to destroy or disable the oncoming bomber box (or whatever you choose to call it) at a very great distance before it has built up speed and before it has released its payload (It could be programmed to start dropping missile busses behind it from several million kilometers away; they will be moving on intercept orbits even if the mothership were destroyed.)
The KKV's can be dispersed from quite a distance as well, providing a huge headache to the defender. Maybe this is the McGuffin needed to create the conditions for deep space battles.
Answering a few other questions upthead
ORION studies revealed few show stoppers with 1950 era technology, I'm pretty sure we could do better today. Nuclear weapons were built on an assembly line basis at once point, so there is no real reason the physics "package" of an ORION drive unit isn't mass produceable either. Many alternatives to nuclear fission powered ORION pulse drives have been proposed over the years as well.
More sensors provide multiple redundancy, so having a few go down due to malfunctions or just reaching the end of their design life isn't a show stopper. The other reason is to build as high resolution picture as possible, with enough sensors in a cloud you should be able to detect oncoming SCoDs as well as the larger ships and weapons; giving you more time to deploy countermeasures, activate point defense and make evasive manouevres
Post a Comment