Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Warfare VIII: Orbital Combat

Nothing picking up but I'll bookmark anyway.

2010-10-05T06:13:08.937-07:00

Nothing picking up but I'll bookmark anyway.

TV Tropes: Three Words: Stupid Jetpack Hitler!

2010-02-18T05:41:27.916-08:00

TV Tropes: Three Words:

Stupid Jetpack Hitler!

But it is nothing compared to the power of tvtrope...

2009-12-29T17:52:55.518-08:00

But it is nothing compared to the power of tvtropes. Muahahahaha

xkcd is an addictive link!

2009-12-29T17:51:19.037-08:00

xkcd is an addictive link!

I thought this is both funny and pertaining to our...

2009-12-28T14:00:03.177-08:00

I thought this is both funny and pertaining to our discussion (sort of)

Gravity Wells, as seen by xkcd

Glad this has been helpful!

2009-12-28T09:58:46.806-08:00

Glad this has been helpful!

Jean: Thanks for the new reading! Had to jump coa...

2009-12-23T19:01:46.058-08:00

Jean:

Thanks for the new reading! Had to jump coasts for Christmas, so that's why I had such a reply lag. But, thanks all the same. Most of what you posted confirmed my assumptions (anything being zippy can't afford a pilot or doesn't need one etc.)

It's also opened up a lot more avenues for me to attempt to drip some more reality into some of my material via some other food for thought. Other than that; this has only affirmed that RM is definitiely going in my RSS feeds

You can protect/control low orbit pretty well from...

2009-12-23T07:39:56.713-08:00

You can protect/control low orbit pretty well from the ground, but surface defenses are more problematic for defending high orbits out to cislunar space (for Earth) or the equivalent zone elsewhere. Unless you have uber long range lasers, in which case much of this discussion is moot.

So a lot depends on both how extensive your economic space assets are, and where they are. And what you are protecting against. Surface defense is pretty ineffective against blockade.

And there is a whole different picture if a planet and its orbital space are not politically unified. The possibility of conflict within a planet's orbital space opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

In the short to medium term, setting up orbital in...

2009-12-22T07:22:34.908-08:00

In the short to medium term, setting up orbital infrastructure and defending it will take a combination of ground based assets (ASATS, laser brooms) and orbital or at least space going assets (recon sats, sensor platforms, weapons delivery systems like the Common Aero Vehicle [CAV]) etc.

Most real world analysis seems to favour keeping assets on the ground and launching them at need, on the basis that the assets can be protected and serviced without trouble at the home base. Small "micro satellites" and CAV's launched from old ICBM boosters fit this model.

Orbital bases or "space stations" for military purposes would have very limited utility, given that they will be prime targets; even generation 1 space garages or support bases would have to be fairly capable spacecraft to avoid enemy action, give the commander a wide range of options and avoid civilian space objects and space junk.

High Guard systems would also be capable deep space craft, possibly with VASMIR or other forms of high ISP drive. Until there is a capability of either lifting large amounts of mass or gathering it from NEO's or the moon, manned space warships will probably be limited duration vehicles for high priority jobs, simply because there will be no reasonable chance of protecting them.

An Air Force type space force might have unmanned "garages" which can be shifted to gather up a malfunctioning spacecraft, and then a one or two man CAV carrying a repair crew dispatched to make adjustments; the system becomes a space station for a few hours to a day or so, then the systems detach and move into their separate orbits.

Once high energy lasers become common, most of this will become moot; even fast movers in low orbit can be tracked and burned out of the sky by a ground based weapon, and ravening beams of death in Cis Lunar space can track and burn targets on any side of the visible hemisphere. At that point the military question will probably be how to control a vast flock of relay mirrors to protect your own optics (which one can the enemy target to do an "eyeball frying" attack?) and provide global coverage with the fewest number of lasers?

Yes but wouldn't it be more valuable economica...

2009-12-21T21:55:18.694-08:00

Yes but wouldn't it be more valuable economically to control the orbital space rather than exploit it. If you own say the space around Mars, by fortifying your presence on the surface, you could deny outside forces use of it's orbit. From there on out you may tithe them and develop your space, but the control of it will always be central to your welfare. The added bonus of fortifying the ground is that it will be generally cheaper than build orbital fortresses insuring that it is always be costly to conquer across planetary distances. Sure you could put a great deal of mines and other things up there, but it will never be invisible. If any conquering force plans on building up an industry, the first thing they will focus on is cleaning up the sky. Most likely from a distance knowing the possibility of hidden weapons.

Of course how fortified your forces have to be to threaten orbital space is quite a question. How deep do you have to go to be impervious to kinetic bombardment? How much does the attacking force have to chuck before it becomes to much? Dropping a massive meteor on the planet won't look good in the papers, your checking account, or your orbital clean up. That's a lot debris.

Welcome to the comments threads! On the balance o...

2009-12-21T20:49:04.780-08:00

Welcome to the comments threads!

On the balance of orbital v surface defense, it probably depends on the scale of your space infrastructure. If it is extensive you want to protect it, and you have more space resources to do so. But it isn't worth much effort to defend a bunch of empty space.

'Defend the planet from the surface; defend its orbital space from orbital space.'

This whole discussion leaves me wondering what the...

2009-12-21T20:25:34.523-08:00

This whole discussion leaves me wondering what the ratio would be between ground and orbital defense might be. If it is cheaper to simply dig in and wait for the enemy ground forces to amass won't most commanders ultimately choose to do so? Unless you have significant infrastructure, focusing your defenses there would be inviting your enemy to a fight favoring the attacker. This is so because they can move beyond your range and recuperate. However if you fortified your position until it became impractical to dislodge you, you could easily deny them the use of orbit.

So in the end a civilization might have enough orbital defenses to secure the peace but extend the rest of their funds towards bunkers and missile silos.

The one major exception I'd make to the genera...

2009-12-21T18:25:27.916-08:00

The one major exception I'd make to the generally short duration (more air force than navy) of orbital space missions is any station. On the other hand, a station may be more like a base than an aircraft carrier in terms of how the force perceives it. A 'fixed' orbital asset.

The German/British analogy in WW I does indeed point out implications of long strategic range, a la deep space.

I also see orbital space, in SF settings, as potentially a politically complex setting. In this environment, per discussions on the space piracy posts last spring, space fighting could look VERY different from the conventional flat space image of ships fighting at Stupendous Range in the middle of nowhere.

@Nyrath "Zachary, the link you supplied is t...

2009-12-21T08:48:25.501-08:00

@Nyrath
"Zachary, the link you supplied is to the reprint. The original article and comments are here.

The scientific experts who supply me with the technical details for my Atomic Rocket website are of the opinion that Mr. Shoer has fallen for a couple of common fallacies in space combat. They would love to be on Mr. Shoer's Ph.D dissertation committee."

Nice, much better discussion on the original. I did notice that there were some serious holes in his discussion, holes that I would not have noticed before the fateful day I first ran across your site, and stayed for hours. And hours. :( But I thought it was a fascinating post on the whole. And I thought he made some interesting points about the IR question in the comments.

@Rick
"Welcome to another new commenter! Marginal Revolution! My political web surfing takes me there from time to time, but not a place I'd have expected to see this subject discussed."

Thanks. Not completely new, but I don't know enough to comment much, apart from questions of biology. Just thought I'd throw that essay into the discussion.

In addition to the differences between orbital and...

2009-12-21T02:19:27.311-08:00

In addition to the differences between orbital and deep-space craft mentioned by Thucydides, there is also the issue of drive systems. If torch drives exist, they may be limited to deep-space craft, since in orbit, especially LEO, a mis-timed or mis-aimed burn could result in civilian infrastructure (perhaps including manned stations or habitats) being damaged or destroyed through collisions or contact with a hot, possibly radioactive drive plume.

On the other hand, though, it just now occurs to me that there is a naval model involving relatively short-ranged craft versus long-ranged, self-sufficient ones: The British Royal Navy's Grand Fleet and the German Kaiserliche Marine's High Seas Fleet. As Nyrath has mentioned on Atomic Rockets, the Grand Fleet's ships, designed to travel long distances between the ports of the British Empire, were relatively habitable and could do some repairs at sea, at the price of thinner armour and weaker bulkheads, while the High Seas Fleet's ships, designed to fight in the North Sea, had better armour and bulkheads, but were less habitable and would have to head home to conduct repairs. There might be similar design philosophies involved with deep-space and orbital craft respectively.

Who owns what in an orbital space environment is i...

2009-12-20T21:26:43.336-08:00

Who owns what in an orbital space environment is interesting.

The United States (ever the pioneer) has three armed services capable of claiming LEO capabilities, the US Army operates ASATS in Alaska, the USAF has demonstrated air launched ASAT capability since the 1980's with two stage rockets launched from F-15 Eagles (and I understand the F-22 has also been checked out in this capability), while the US Navy has also shot down a satellite with one of its Aegis cruiser's.

I suggested earlier that orbital space forces might resemble (or be descended from) Air Forces rather than Naval forces both because they might actually be Air Force assets, and because except for platforms operating in "High Guard", most orbital assets are short lifetime vehicles which are more like aircraft rather than self sufficient like ships. Low orbit "fast movers" will have limited lifetimes due to residual drag, if nothing else. Small spacecraft will be preferred in LEO as they are easier to boost to orbit, easier to shift in orbit and somewhat harder to track, making them closer to aircraft as well.

The most innovative depiction of combat operations in orbital space and across the atmospheric interface is "Manna" by Lee Corey. The "skalavan" space fighter of the book is an interesting concept, although a "real" one probably could not be a manned craft.

By 'not enough thought' I really mean '...

2009-12-20T20:42:33.285-08:00

By 'not enough thought' I really mean 'not thought about it long enough.'

A decade of hanging around SFConsim-l has put a lot of assumptions through a fairly devastating live fire test.

Welcome to another new commenter! Marginal Revo...

2009-12-20T20:38:15.970-08:00
Welcome to another new commenter! Marginal Revolution! My political web surfing takes me there from time to time, but not a place I'd have expected to see this subject discussed.

I agree that Shoer has fallen for a couple of common fallacies, not so much because of bad physics as from not having given the problem enough thought. And there was one odd place where he mentioned antimatter drive, though the rest seemed to presume near contemporary tech.

Zachary, the link you supplied is to the reprint. ...

2009-12-20T19:44:17.621-08:00
Zachary, the link you supplied is to the reprint. The original article and comments are here.

The scientific experts who supply me with the technical details for my Atomic Rocket website are of the opinion that Mr. Shoer has fallen for a couple of common fallacies in space combat. They would love to be on Mr. Shoer's Ph.D dissertation committee.

Citizen Joe: Hey Rick, are you going to ...

2009-12-20T19:35:29.350-08:00
Citizen Joe: Hey Rick, are you going to do a Space Warfare: Magitech? That could deal with the internal ramifications of various Scifi tropes.

That is a big squirming mass of worms. There is a website that sort of covers this, called StarDestroyer.net. They are mainly about Star Trek vs. Star Wars, but they do cover other media SF.

The goodies are in the site map and forum

Huh, just ran across another piece on (mostly) or...

2009-12-20T15:35:53.770-08:00
Huh, just ran across another piece on (mostly) orbital battles. http://gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles

First saw it at Marginal Revolution. Some of the discussion about the article there is interesting, too. http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/12/what-will-battling-spacecraft-look-like/comments/page/1/#comments

Citizen Joe asks: are you going to do a Space W...

2009-12-20T10:54:18.725-08:00
Citizen Joe asks: are you going to do a Space Warfare: Magitech?

Great idea - thanks for the tip!

On the question of orbital versus deep space forces, it has some features in common with land based air v naval aviation, and army v Marines.

You might be able to do with just a deep space logistics component, but as Ian hints, there are also issues of service culture and strategic objectives. Between the world wars, the RN was not a happy camper about the RAF 'owning' all British military aviation, and with good reason.

An orbital force, as such, seems inherently defensive in orientation, which could itself be a case for having a full separate deep space force, even if much of its equipment and tactical (as distinct from strategic) doctrine is identical to that of the orbital force.

Sabersonic - "My only problem is the use of &...

2009-12-20T10:23:15.957-08:00
Sabersonic - "My only problem is the use of "Deep Space" being used to describe interplanetary orbits. Like the rest of your average, mild mannered Sci-Fi watcher, Deep Space conjures images of the space in between stars rather then planets. I don't mean to nit-pick, but it just doesn't sound right to me."

It doesn't sound right to me either. I used deep-space here to mean 'interplanetary space' for two reasons: One is that we're discussing the mid-range future, plausible engineering developments of current science. So interstellar space is out. The other reason is that any technological mix (Other than an FTL miracle) that could be used to colonize other star systems could also be more plausibly used to increase living space in the Solar System. So interstellar space is out again.

Qwert, you missed the possibility of an interplanetary Switzerland. Strong defensive forces with little ability to project force. That's an outlier, but there are other political reasons for splitting your forces. There are also strategic reasons for splitting your Orbital and Deep Space forces: The defence (Orbital Space) team is going to need a different mind-set from the Offence (Deep Space) team, and they'll probably need different supply chains. And if your Orbital and Deep Space forces are entirely different forces, it's a lot easier to resist the urge to loot your Orbital capabilities to boost your Deep Space forces.

"Those decadent Venerians will fall before our overwhelming invasive force! Soon their ecosphere will be ours to plunder!"

"Generalissimo, the Venus Self-Defence Forces have devastated our fleet! Their counter-attack is on its way!"

"Quick, send out our Orbital Guard!"

"You... Did send them out. To Venus. Sir."

Ian_M

Rick - in addition to your penetrating insight, I ...

2009-12-20T09:59:44.316-08:00
Rick - in addition to your penetrating insight, I see now that you are a man of fine and discriminating taste when it comes to artwork ;-)

Not much else to add yet, everyone else is doing a good job of covering the bases.

Crossing orbital space and entering it are two ver...

2009-12-20T04:47:55.080-08:00
Crossing orbital space and entering it are two very different things. Orbital space is defined by your physical position, but also by your vector.

Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Warfare VIII: Orbital Combat

Nothing picking up but I'll bookmark anyway.

TV Tropes: Three Words: Stupid Jetpack Hitler!

But it is nothing compared to the power of tvtrope...

xkcd is an addictive link!

I thought this is both funny and pertaining to our...

Glad this has been helpful!

Jean: Thanks for the new reading! Had to jump coa...

You can protect/control low orbit pretty well from...

In the short to medium term, setting up orbital in...

Yes but wouldn't it be more valuable economica...

Welcome to the comments threads! On the balance o...

This whole discussion leaves me wondering what the...

The one major exception I'd make to the genera...

@Nyrath "Zachary, the link you supplied is t...

In addition to the differences between orbital and...

Who owns what in an orbital space environment is i...

By 'not enough thought' I really mean '...

Welcome to another new commenter! Marginal Revo...

Zachary, the link you supplied is to the reprint. ...

Citizen Joe: Hey Rick, are you going to ...

Huh, just ran across another piece on (mostly) or...

Citizen Joe asks: are you going to do a Space W...

Sabersonic - "My only problem is the use of &...

Rick - in addition to your penetrating insight, I ...

Crossing orbital space and entering it are two ver...