4 ms·

The problem with "realistic" space combat is deciding what you're going to be "realistic" about. The writer dismisses the possibility that the civilization is g

The problem with "realistic" space combat is deciding what you're going to be "realistic" about. The writer dismisses the possibility that the civilization is going to be willing to spend "months" traveling around a star system, and so immediately starts off with a bunch of fanciful drive designs that have enormous impacts on ground assumptions. In general, we really can't discuss FTL options with the word "realistic" in mind, so we're discussing STL. I'd suggest that in a single system STL setting chances are people will accept slow travel because it's much easier to build a safe, inexpensive transport system that takes months to send people from place to place. Here's the bottom line -- communications will be at lightspeed, travel will be automated. What do you care if you're sitting in a space capsule traveling to Mars at 300,000km/h (and thus taking quite some time to get there) if you can work, play, communicate with loved ones, and enjoy "feelies" while in transit. The key takeaway from musings like this is that, at the extreme, Newtonian space combat is very very weird, and will probably be very different from what we might expect depending on the technical details -- which are unknowable. And bear in mind that the article simply assumes symmetrical combat. What if the two sides have different technology stacks? I should note the article also assumes spaceships with crews launching missiles. Why bother? Your space fleet would simply comprise missiles. I thoroughly recommend Arthur C. Clarke's Earthlight in terms of fictional treatment of futurist space warfare (but it's asymmetrical).

DennisP 12y ago
Maybe the conflict between delta-v and acceleration leads to missiles. Interplanetary spacecraft are high delta-v, which makes them poor at evasive maneuvering. Missiles are high acceleration. For an intercept you use the spaceship for most of the delta-v, and let the missiles overcome last-minute evasive maneuvers.
- xyzzy123 12y ago
  The real problem, as always, is the hard problem of consciousness, which in practice screws all the assumptions of monkeys in tin cans. Before we discuss drive designs, we have to understand what the limitations on travel are for us. There is a very real sense in which we could send a million space ships and not care whether they make it or not, or whether our missiles are conscious and no different from space-ships and so on. The mass and propellant stuff works out the same, but the practical consequences are so different that it's hard to think seriously about any of these problems, when the actual problem is mind and not rocketry.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  It seems like a stretch to me. Accelerating a whole big valuable spaceship just to help a missile reach its target seems like a bad idea. Instead just build missiles with a boost stage.
arikrak 12y ago
Modern war is already just missiles or guerrilla warfare and the like. The last full-scale war between two powers was WWII, before missiles and nuclear weapons.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Many aspects of the Korean War still resembled WWII warfare. The numbers fielded on each side were into 6 and 7 figures. The land area that was involved is comparable to that of major european nation states. I'd say that this was in many ways a full-scale war, "police action" moniker notwithstanding. Then again, there were limitations on the use of air power to limit escalation, so it was certainly not a state of "total war."
  - gaius 12y ago
    Many aspects of Gulf War 1 still resembled WWII warfare... Can you say "blitzkrieg"?
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      "Blitzkrieg" has simply become the standard way to invade territory on large scales and unbalance a large enemy force. Patton had adopted it wholesale.
    - Tloewald 12y ago
      Gulf War 1 was characterized chiefly by misdirection, which is as old as warfare. The US conspicuously built up and prepared for an offensive against the Kuwaiti border, and then even faked an amphibious assault, then bypassed everything.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Exactly -- drones firing missiles and asymmetrical warfare. Warfare has usually been asymmetrical. We're a bit biased because of emphasis on recent western wars, but historically most wars have been fought between different technologies and doctrines. And asymmetries are likely to be far greater in future. Incidentally the US navy has been experimenting with drone submarines as torpedo launch platforms for decades, so it's underwater too.

DennisP 12y ago

Maybe the conflict between delta-v and acceleration leads to missiles. Interplanetary spacecraft are high delta-v, which makes them poor at evasive maneuvering. Missiles are high acceleration. For an intercept you use the spaceship for most of the delta-v, and let the missiles overcome last-minute evasive maneuvers.

xyzzy123 12y ago
The real problem, as always, is the hard problem of consciousness, which in practice screws all the assumptions of monkeys in tin cans. Before we discuss drive designs, we have to understand what the limitations on travel are for us. There is a very real sense in which we could send a million space ships and not care whether they make it or not, or whether our missiles are conscious and no different from space-ships and so on. The mass and propellant stuff works out the same, but the practical consequences are so different that it's hard to think seriously about any of these problems, when the actual problem is mind and not rocketry.
Tloewald 12y ago
It seems like a stretch to me. Accelerating a whole big valuable spaceship just to help a missile reach its target seems like a bad idea. Instead just build missiles with a boost stage.

arikrak 12y ago

Modern war is already just missiles or guerrilla warfare and the like. The last full-scale war between two powers was WWII, before missiles and nuclear weapons.

stcredzero 12y ago
Many aspects of the Korean War still resembled WWII warfare. The numbers fielded on each side were into 6 and 7 figures. The land area that was involved is comparable to that of major european nation states. I'd say that this was in many ways a full-scale war, "police action" moniker notwithstanding. Then again, there were limitations on the use of air power to limit escalation, so it was certainly not a state of "total war."
- gaius 12y ago
  Many aspects of Gulf War 1 still resembled WWII warfare... Can you say "blitzkrieg"?
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    "Blitzkrieg" has simply become the standard way to invade territory on large scales and unbalance a large enemy force. Patton had adopted it wholesale.
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    Gulf War 1 was characterized chiefly by misdirection, which is as old as warfare. The US conspicuously built up and prepared for an offensive against the Kuwaiti border, and then even faked an amphibious assault, then bypassed everything.
Tloewald 12y ago
Exactly -- drones firing missiles and asymmetrical warfare. Warfare has usually been asymmetrical. We're a bit biased because of emphasis on recent western wars, but historically most wars have been fought between different technologies and doctrines. And asymmetries are likely to be far greater in future. Incidentally the US navy has been experimenting with drone submarines as torpedo launch platforms for decades, so it's underwater too.